"Why James Chartrand Wears Women's Underpants"
This would seem to be an extension of my fashion fundamentalism post just above, but it's not.
@petitedov suggested I take a look at this blog item at the link below, which turned out to be by a woman who says she got more writing jobs when she stuck a man's name on her work. Is that true, or did she simply get a break and improve her writing, and did this coincide with sticking a man's name on her pieces?
I've generally gotten paid well for my articles and column -- and kept rights others give away as a matter of course -- because I...put Andrew Alkon on my pieces? Nope. Because I'm a good negotiator.
Here's an excerpt from the woman's blog item, titled the same name as my header above:
Understand, I hadn't advertised more effectively or used social media -- I hadn't figured that part out yet. I was applying in the same places. I was using the same methods. Even the work was the same.In fact, everything was the same.
Except for the name.
The answer was plain. Without really thinking much about it, I tried an experiment when I chose my new pseudonym:
I became a man (in name only)
Taking a man's name opened up a new world. It helped me earn double and triple the income of my true name, with the same work and service.
No hassles. Higher acceptance. And gratifying respect for my talents and round-the-clock work ethic.
Business opportunities fell into my lap. People asked for my advice, and they thanked me for it, too.
Did I quit promoting my own name? Hell yeah.
Eventually, I had earned enough income and credibility to get a mortgage, and I bought a tiny, modest house for me and my kids in a quiet town near my mum. It was the first home of my life I could truly call my own, paid for by long hours and hard work. Paid for by my own sweat and tears, at the tender age of 37.
Initials are a great dodge as well. As J.K. rowling and C.J. Cherryh.
Of course, SOMEONE in the accounting department has to know the truth, or a form of it, or you're stuck with a check you can't cash.
Vinnie Bartilucci at December 15, 2009 6:44 AM
Right away I'm doubting this article. I've seen too many of these feminist and wage gap issues to not think this is just another propaganda piece to promote the women's pay gap myth.
If there was a pay gap where women earned less- businesses would only hire women and save money.
David M. at December 15, 2009 7:21 AM
There's something not sitting right about the "James Chartrand is an oppressed woman writer story". It's too convenient and reeks of a publicity stunt. We all know plenty of women who are making a very good living as writers without having to resort to virtual sex changes. Even if Chartrand was writing as a man until business picked up, she didn't have to take it such an extreme.
Unless someone corrects me, I'm going to assume Harrison McLeod is the other woman pretending to be a man who "outed" Chartrand. I make this deduction because no one has seen McLeod in weeks. Methinks McCleod got in over her head and wanted out.
Exhibit A: Chartrand's original blog was part of a generic writing site. Why take it further and make it so obviously male dominated if they weren't setting out to prove a point? They were doing well and even won an award, it seems unnecessary to create the extremely masculine Men with Pens. Why not continue with Web Writing Info?
I don't understand why two poor working moms who only want to support their kids went to such extremes by taking their pretend masculinity up another notch with a name that indicates a very male perspective and a very male design.
Exhibit B: Something else isn't sitting right with me. Why did Chartrand "out" herself on Copyblogger instead of Men with Pens? Could it be because CopyBlogger reaches more readers and will generate more buzz and publicity?
Exhibit C: Why is Chartrand so fiercely protective of her name?
There's more here that meets the eye. Count me among the newly former MwP readers who think Ms. Chartrand pulled a fast one. Someone was going to expose her and she created a sympathetic work at home mom story to head off the publicity.
Nice work, "James."
Can't wait until the book deal.
Josh at December 15, 2009 7:33 AM
This would have been such an interesting experiment if she had also continued promoting her own name. But since she didn't run both names parallel, she can't really say that she got offered more just because they thought she was a he. As Amy points out, the quality of her writing might simply have improved.
Amy, regarding negotiation skills. Do you think there is any truth to the idea that women usually are NOT good negotiators? I'm not sure on that one. Another stereotype is that women have superior verbal skills, and if THAT is true, wouldn't that make women better negotiators? I simply have no idea. BUT ... if the person on the other side of the desk a) thinks you are a woman, and b) thinks you therefore will be a poor negotiator, then wouldn't it be true that c) they will probably make you a lower starting offer?
Pirate Jo at December 15, 2009 8:19 AM
Normally, I'd agree with the woman propaganda story. Except in the past when I was applying for a few writing jobs myself. Catrina never got an answer back. C.M. did.
Cat at December 15, 2009 8:41 AM
I think that James being in Canada accounts for a great deal of this. Canadians aren't comfortable with copy-writing, advertising, PR or any of the rest of the promotional arts and sciences that people in the US are steeped in.
And look at the client list--http://menwithpens.ca/portfolio. Try not to yawn.
KateC at December 15, 2009 9:41 AM
I'm dubious of her claim that she was suddenly being offered two and three times her previous rate. A couple that I know are both copywriters, they work independently under their own names, and I've never heard mention of there being a discrepancy in their compensation. And believe me, the wife would make an issue of it if this were the case.
Also how did she communicate with her clients - she never spoke to them?
mikala at December 15, 2009 10:22 AM
Could it be that so many women have become such a pain in the ass to deal with that both men and women would prefer dealing with a man?
Jay R at December 15, 2009 10:55 AM
I look at this, and think; yeah, and? Let's just assume it's all true. Exposing that there is some difference in compesnation, does what exactly? Is it going to make anyone change? Life is hard, bad decisions were made, you pull yourself up by sheer moxie. GREAT! Now take that moxie, and figure out how to make a change. Or, you will get the reaction you see here, which is to only point out victimhood. or something like that...
SwissArmyD at December 15, 2009 11:07 AM
Katie Granju, who know what she's talking about, calls total bullshit on this: http://mamapundit.com/
Robin at December 15, 2009 12:11 PM
If I ever end up writing romance novels it will be under the name of Gertrude Perkins.
"Jane Austen was in fact a man. A huge Yorkshireman with a beard like a rhododendron bush."
Sigh, I miss that show.
Sio at December 15, 2009 12:17 PM
Female writers have written under male pseudonyms for centuries. The question is whether that's still necessary today, and it seems as if being a little cryptic and using initials is the way to go... kinda side-steps the whole feminism thing.
Let your work speak for itself.
vi at December 15, 2009 12:58 PM
Granju and others claim that Chartrand must have spoken to clients on the phone, and that this would have revealed her gender. Not necessarily so. A lot of people's voices can be taken either way, especially on the phone. If a client expected to talk to a man, and Chartrand's voice isn't a high soprano, the client would probably assume he was in fact talking to a man.
Rex Little at December 15, 2009 5:54 PM
Let's see, Andre Norton, Anne, McCaffrey, Janet Morris, and Mercedes Lackey. Some of my favorite writers. Along with David Weber, John Ringo, Daniel Keys Moran, and Peter Hamilton.
I don't care the location of your round sexual parts.
I will admit that I like Monica Crowley better than Eleanor Clift -- but that is more of the words they issue, than the looks. But Monica's looks don't hurt.
Quite frankly, this is bullshit. There are still guys that would jump Helen Gurley Brown. Its because of her thoughts; not her looks.
Jim P. at December 15, 2009 6:43 PM
Uh, Rex, what? Have you ever mistaken a woman's voice for a man's on the phone? I haven't. I don't know anyone who has. Trying to imagine it makes me laugh. They call her up and ask for the male name and she says, "This is James," or she calls them up introducing herself as James, and they believe they're talking to a man. Hmmm, no. Unless she has an EXTREMELY low voice or is intentionally disguising it... and still unlikely they'd be fooled.
Debra at December 15, 2009 7:35 PM
David M. Myth? Are you kidding? For example, recent article: http://www.tcbmag.com/dailydevelopments/dailydevelopments/121506p1.aspx
More than 45 years since the Fair Pay Act and women still only make 80 cents on the dollar compared to men in the same jobs, apple to apple.
To answer your question, men are hired over an equally qualified woman because men are still (sadly) not considered the primary child/family care providers. Therefore are not perceived as ever needing periodic-sometimes extended time off from work.
Roni at December 16, 2009 1:10 PM
Good god. How many times does it have to be PROVEN that the wage gap is a MYTH?
Hey Roni, you might want to check out that pain in the ass study that the current administration didn't want anyone to see. You know, that annoying thing called CONSAD.
Enough with the crap. If women made less than men, no employer in thier right mind would hire men.
Put down the kool aid and step away from the NOW pamphlet and no one looks like an idiot.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 17, 2009 7:55 AM
Roni,
There is no ignoramus like a determined ignoramus.
Try not to let reality intrude on your feminism. The cognitive dissonance will likely make your head explode.
If they weren't so perverse, feminists (the modern version of "know-nothings") would be such a HOOT!
Jay R at December 17, 2009 1:28 PM
There is at least one study that i know of that concludes that yes women writing under a mans name get their work published more. Here is the kick men dont discriminate based on gender. It turns out that its the women who rate work by other women more harshly. I read several articles on this and the women who did the study wanted desperately to find discrimination, just not discrimination thats done by women. The papers spun the story to make the sexist women publishers more sympathetic. If you guys want i could try looking for it.
Raziel at December 18, 2009 1:45 PM
Leave a comment