I see what is exceptionally obvious. I don’t see that someone took “advantage”, I see that someone did what was needed to feed and support a family, and that it wouldn’t have been necessary if things were different. I also can’t help but wonder if I had made these comments as a man if they would have been perceived differently. Less self-righteous and “pissed”, and more focused on a human rights issue.

Just for the heck of it, try reading my comments and pretend a guy is saying it. Is there not the subtlest shift in your mind?

In my experience, when I’m passionate about human rights issues, no one feels I’m “pissed” or “self-righteous” as long as the issue I bring up has nothing to do with anything I am. If I passionately speak about genocide, or war, or gay rights, or any other issue that doesn’t have to do directly with women, people might disagree with my position, but that’s it…a disagreement on position. If what I am talking about involves women however, some men automatically pull the “angry” card. That is the “punishment” of which I speak. If a woman speaks up about women’s issues, it is implied, or she is told outright, that she is angry, she has a problem. Yet, when I bring up other issues, no one thinks I have a problem or that I’m angry. Instead, we generally agree that society has a problem, even if we disagree how to solve it. When I’m talking about other issues I’m seen as strong and passionate, when it’s women’s issues I’m seen by some as angry, and I find that it often says much more about that person than it does about me.

Speaking clearly, and strongly about an issue that I feel is important doesn’t make me “pissed” or self-righteous, and I expect that the argument/debate at hand is what will be discussed, not my mood, perceived as it is.

What if a man were in a similar situation? To put a lighter “what-if” scenario into play, consider the movie Mrs. Doubtfire where Robin Williams plays a father who has made some mistakes, and therefore isn’t able to see his children except under disguise, and as a woman. Does anyone fault his betrayal in the end? No, because he did it for his children, as did James. I suspect if this were to happen in real life, a man posing as a woman in order to help his family because time was of the essence, and the walls were too many to scale, we would all be taken aback for a moment, and then soon realize the greater social statement at hand.

That is how I see this situation.

“And since you still haven’t disclosed your real name, it makes it difficult to back up your facts and move forward. For example, this could be my imagination, but I vaguely recall a post at MwP where you talked about NOT having a college degree, now I have been told that you have two degrees. No one knows for sure, nor can anyone back up your resume the way they could any other public figure.”

Here’s a quote from James taken from “Someday Syndrome”

“I went through the University application process and began taking courses at a part-time pace. Unfortunately, life got in the way when I reached the point of earning half my degree and I’ve set learning aside for the moment.”

Based on my reading, James had no intentions of addressing the gender bias, the glass ceiling, unequal pay or any other feminist tenants. Nor have those issues been addressed by the decisions that James made. James simply saw a way to earn more money and took it. The gender pay pot has certainly been stirred among those who have read the Underpants and related posts and comments. That is true without question. Not sure how big that population really is though.

I leave the determination of betrayal to those who know and worked with James far more closely than I did. I am interested in thinking the issues through, but am I not out to judge an individual.

There are distances that we all go to in order to survive. I suppose that some go further than others and for many the distance that James went was too far for their liking. I don’t know the situation enough to give Harry (Deb) a complete pass on this issue either. That is another discussion and likely a worthy one that would include a beginning (intention), middle (execution) and end (introspection and retrospection).

@Justin Indeed the quality of work has not been a question in anything that I have read, which is not that much outside of these comments. The bias exists. And we could all list a hundred biases in this world we live in; gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, height, hair color, body shape, many forms of handicap, wealth, even geography. However, none of them is a passport to deceive, but rather an opportunity to over come.

@Velvet Thanks for your comments. Certainly Justin can speak for himself, but I read his comment to say that he sees the bias and is not blind. I couldn’t find words to substantiate that he encourages or dislikes the bias, but I figure he doesn’t support it. As far as what you said, I read a lot of self-righteous indignation in your comments. You seem pissed. You see a crooked system. You feel that James figured out a way to use that crooked system to her advantage and you salute that effort. You don’t see anything wrong with what that James has done. Have I got that right? You see no deception, poor judgment or lack of integrity. So, when do you start up your male persona?

@James Thanks for your comments as well. Interestingly the issue has never been quality or gender. If a man had presented himself as a women to the same extent and with the same result, the issue would be the same. However, it is becoming clearer that those who focus entirely on the gender issue can’t fathom that.

I am happy to choose to hire the right person for the job (based on my project requirements), even if he happens to be a little green man. But I will be disappointed to learn later that he is a giant blue woman. I didn’t hire the person based on their size, gender or color, but it was a fact (maybe even an incidental fact) included in my understanding of who I was hiring and later working with. Does this mean that the little green man did bad work all of the sudden? Of course not. Is this a gender issue for me all of the sudden? No, no more than it is a color or height issue. It is an issue of credibility and trust which are components of most successful relationships. Why I was told (tricked into believing) that a big blue woman is a little green man is a separate issue, as is the motive. No less important, but separate. It is the deception that has got me thinking, not quality or gender.

I toyed with creating an anonymous blog about two years ago, and corresponded with Gordon by email a few times. He shared the background why he came out of the anonymous closet and reminded me that unless I am OK with being truly anonymous, details will slip and people will guess. That’s why RLP is now Gordon — and why I presume James is not a man.

However, I want to say that although there may be at this time other designers, I would be curious to know how long they have been there and how long they have been doing the designing? I know that Deb was the only designer that I had contact with, in fact she was the only one I recall speaking to when my design was done at MwP. I don’t believe I am alone in believing Deb did the majority of the design work…if not all of the design work at least in the early and mid days at MwP.

As for trust. I do believe trust goes beyond just service rendered when someone presents themselves as an expert in their field and blogs accordingly. It isn’t has nothing to do with gender,it has to do with the fact that if you aren’t honest about one thing, are you honest about other things as well? And since you still haven’t disclosed your real name, it makes it difficult to back up your facts and move forward. For example, this could be my imagination, but I vaguely recall a post at MwP where you talked about NOT having a college degree, now I have been told that you have two degrees. No one knows for sure, nor can anyone back up your resume the way they could any other public figure.

I don’t bring these things up to cause trouble. It’s a point of discussion that when anyone works works under an alias everything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt because facts can’t be confirmed. It makes trust difficult and gender has nothing to do with it at all.

That said, I want to address a couple of things mentioned.

Jim, you mention that trust and integrity is crucial to your business and personal relationships. Our relationship was in business (not personal), and I think that you were well served each time we worked together. I think you’d agree that your emails were responded to quickly, the goods you requested were delivered in a timely method and that you and your clients were pleased with the results, as well as the team’s skills.

That’s what counts. Yes? You trusted our team to provide what you needed, and we did. Whether I was a man or a woman was irrelevant to the fact. You received professional treatment and services that met your expectations. I find it curious that you’d discredit that so quickly based on my gender.

Also, you mentioned in your post that I must be immensely relieved, all things considered. Truthfully, being who I am and being respected for my ideas was never a burden to bear. There was no hardship in sharing my knowledge and having both clients and readers tell me that my advice improved their business or ability to earn income.

It wasn’t a burden to be me. I am the same online as I am offline, with the same likes and dislikes, the same hobbies, the same personality. I find it odd and amusing that people think I should become someone else now, write differently, have a different attitude… No. I am who I am.

In one of your updates, you mention that Harry/Deb was the design genius behind Men with Pens, but I’d really like to give credit where credit is due. There are three full-time team members at Men with Pens beyond myself and they’ve been there for quite some time. Yes, Deb did perform some graphic design services as a subcontractor, but she wasn’t alone and other people worked just as hard to provide the great copy, design and services we’re known for.

Let’s not take away from what these people have accomplished, and let’s not forget their good work amidst all the brou-haha, please.

To finish, I just want to say that I think Chris Brogan summed it up best: “James just needed to be James.” Thank you for that.

You say yourself that men are making more than women here. That there is an overarching bias toward men in the field. And you’re ok with that? You’re more concerned that James lied about her gender (while still producing the same quality of writing for clients mind you), than you are with the reasons she had to lie?

And this is what will happen with one of the most important accidental social experiments of our time. People will personalize the issue, put their own spin on it, pull it apart piece by piece until the most important truth of this story is diluted down to nothing, and we all forget about it with barely a ripple through the status quo.

A single mother couldn’t get enough work to support her family. With a man’s name, just a name at first, and the same exact work, she made enough to support her family. THAT is the truth, and it is appalling. Put yourself in those shoes for a minute. No really, sit down and really contemplate what this means, what this would be like if you were in that situation, and so on.

Society betrayed a woman here, as society betrays women every day, and yet women aren’t allowed to bring it up, talk about it, feel bad about it, be angry about it, or generally point out that The Emperor is Naked! We are punished personally and professionally when we do. So my hat is off to James, who may not have known that what she was doing would have an impact, but it has nonetheless. We can demonize her and miss the point entirely, or we can stop and reflect on what this says about the beliefs that still pervade and affect people’s lives.

Doesn’t the quality of Men With Pens stand on it’s own, regardless of gender?

Then, the more the discussion goes on, the more the whole reasoning behind it starts to gall me.

We are continually told that we need to build trust, be authentic, be real-that’s what our customers deserve, and what our communities demand. Doesn’t this fly in the face of that?

There are plenty of women that are doing just fine without hiding behind a pseudonym. Would they be making more as men? Most likely.

There is a broad bias in the blogosphere and the social media scene towards males. It’s not quite an all boy’s club, but a quick look at many “panels of experts” of events in 2009 sure makes it look that way.

Is it okay for James to capitalize on that? It’s smart, but does that make it okay?

I’m leaning towards no. If the modern era has taught us anything it is that cynically taking a low road to make a fast buck undermines your authority, the trust in that authority, and the community trust you’ve worked so hard to build.

I think it is a shame that people are making this a gender issue, and not a trust issue. It has little to do with the former, and everything to do with the latter.

How exactly did James really betray anyone? She was selling her writing, and she did so under the pen name, and identity, of another gender, but her writing was still hers.

The only “bad” here goes to society for continually turning a blind eye to the real issues at hand here. To make this an issue of betrayal entirely misses the point, the fact that James has inadvertently participated in one of the most startling social experiments today, and the results are in.