I don’t read Copyblogger regularly, although I know a lot of folks who do, and who love it. But today my friend Meagan Francis pointed my attention to a post there by someone who appears to be one of the site’s regular bloggers, someone who goes by “James Chartrand.”
In the post, Chartrand reveals (GASP!) that HE is actually a SHE.
Why has “James Chartrand” kept up this charade of adopting a male online persona rather than revealing herself to be female? In his/her own words:
I had high-quality skills and a good education. I was fast on turnaround and very professional. I hustled and I delivered on my promises, every single time. I worked hard and built the business, putting in long hours and reinvesting a lot of the money I made.
I really, really wanted to make this work.
But I was still having a hard time landing jobs. I was being turned down for gigs I should’ve gotten, for reasons I couldn’t put a finger on.
My pay rate had hit a plateau, too. I knew I should be earning more. Others were, and I soaked up everything they could teach me, but still, there was something strange about it . . .
It wasn’t my skills, it wasn’t my work. So what were those others doing that I wasn’t?
One day, I tossed out a pen name, because I didn’t want to be associated with my current business, the one that was still struggling to grow. I picked a name that sounded to me like it might convey a good business image. Like it might command respect.
My life changed that day
Instantly, jobs became easier to get.
There was no haggling. There were compliments, there was respect. Clients hired me quickly, and when they received their work, they liked it just as quickly. There were fewer requests for revisions — often none at all.
Customer satisfaction shot through the roof. So did my pay rate.
And I was thankful. I finally stopped worrying about how I would feed my girls. We were warm. Well-fed. Safe. No one at school would ever tease my kids about being poor.
I was still bringing in work with the other business, the one I ran under my real name. I was still marketing it. I was still applying for jobs — sometimes for the same jobs that I applied for using my pen name.
I landed clients and got work under both names. But it was much easier to do when I used my pen name.
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 w 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.
In other words, this person says that she instantly experienced a much higher level of success as a professional writer/copywriter as soon as she began going by a male “pen name.”
I call baloney, MAJOR baloney on this. This story simply doesn’t add up. Now it’s possible that the person’s writing work picked up at about the same time that she began using a man’s name as her byline, but if so, that was coincidental. How can I say this with this level of certainty? Well, I can say it because I have made my living to greater or lesser degree (100% for many years and usually at least 20% of my income in any given year) as a published author, freelance writer, editor and copywriter since 1995. And I am thoroughly female. Furthermore, I have many, many female friends who are also highly accomplished, nationally published freelancers, web designers and copywriters. And I know a large number of the magazine and website editors who assign work to those of us who are competing for the freelance work that’s out there; at least 65% of them are female. Last, I myself have held several online production and account executive positions that have involved assigning freelance content, design and online community management work.
Obviously, the fact that I have focused much of my own freelancing over the years in the women’s and parenting categories means that I encounter more female editors and writers, but my own editorial and copywriting work has ranged far beyond these niche areas. I’ve written about the plastics industry, business development, marketing and branding – you name it. My motto has always pretty much been “WILL WRITE FOR FOOD.”
So I know this business well from all sides, and I’ve been involved in it for a long time; I can say unequivocally, without hesitation and with great clarity that the type of gender bias this “James Chartrand” describes simply does not exist. Now does that mean that there aren’t a few sexist jerks out there – as there are in any field? No, there certainly ARE some sexists in the online content and design biz, but they are incredibly few and far between in what is arguably a female-dominated profession overall.
Another reason that Mr./Ms. Chartrand’s tale doesn’t hold water is that I am not sure how she expects those of us who have done this for a living at the level she claims to be doing it to believe that none of the editors, account execs, clients, other writers, sources, interviewees, etc with whom she has worked on all of this content she claims to be publishing for pay ever want to speak to her by phone. The fact is that even in this age of online everything, the production of editorial content for publication – on the Web or in print – still requires phone contact. Editors want to talk to you by phone. Clients want to meet you. Interviewees won’t always agree to be interviewed via email. Tracking down sources frequently requires a phone call or two. Certainly there are projects where I never use the phone, but just about anytime I work with a new editor or client, at least one phone call is involved, and many interviews still call for picking up the phone. And if you are making the case that you have ONLY been hired or retained on a content project because the editor, online producer or account exec believes you are a guy, you can’t very well be female when you speak to the sexist pigs on the phone.
Unlike Mr./Ms. Chartrand, who states in her blog post that she “never wanted to be an activist,” I am a feminist activist. I consider myself an outspoken advocate for pay equity, reproductive rights and gender parity in the workplace. And that’s why it irks me when I read something like this blog post. While I cannot say for certain that Mr./Ms. Chartrand’s story is untrue – perhaps this is one of those outlier cases that simply doesn’t align with all available evidence – it seems highly, highly unlikely. My gut feeling is that it’s some kind of attention grab, or that the story has been constructed to support Mr./Ms. Chartrand’s decision to use a pseudonym – a decision that was made and has been retained for reasons other than as an antidote to raging, explicit gender bias, but now requires some more interesting explanation than the actual reason.
If this story isn’t true, as I suspect, it’s much like a (far less important, meaningful or impact-laden) fake rape accusation. It gives ammunition to the anti-feminists of the world who want to discredit the REAL gender bias issues that working women still face today. And that irritates me. I am happy for any freelancer who is able to support her family with her work, as Mr./Ms. Chartrand is apparently able to do. I suspect, however, that any success she has achieved is due to the quality of her work, and has nothing to do with whether her name is “James” or “Julie” Chartrand.
UPDATE: In the comments below this post, you will find several readers’ own tales of gender bias in the workplace, as well as a link to an interesting piece in Salon today on L’affaire “James Chartrand”
Let me reiterate, in light of reader’s telling their own tales of workplace sexism, that I am IN NO WAY suggesting that gender bias does not exist in our offices and factories. My point is that this particular tale of gender bias rings false to me. And I do think that when people make things up, or exaggerate – if that’s what has happened here – it undermines the hard work many people have done and continue to do all over this country to fight real, genuine sexist inequities in our workplaces.
In re-reading James Chartrand’s post, I again find myself thinking something we sometimes say around Bell Buckle: that dog don’t hunt. I find it particularly interesting that “she” titled her entire website “Men with Pens.” This indicates to me that the whole gender thing has been an “issue” with this person in a bigger way than just the pseudonym. I’m just sayin’…
26 Responses to ““James Chartrand” & “Men With Pens” – the skeptical feminist in me says “no way””
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Katie,
I usually agree with you on most things but with this, and I plan to elaborate later,I firmly disagree with you. -Cat.
I agree that the scale of the claimed inequity is probably grossly exaggerated, but I can tell you, as a woman professional, that inequalities persist, and men are still taken more seriously and have more and better opportunities than women, even today. This is especially true in law, and, I’m told, in medicine. Women certainly have vastly improved opportunities and are taken seriously and are respected, which is a lot more than we can say for our mothers’ generation, and especially our grandmothers’. But it’s not time to call the fight won, nor do I recommend making a nice comfy seat out of our laurels.
@Julie – let me clarify that I am WELL aware that gender bias exists in the workplace. Hell yes. I just don’t happen to find the specific details of THIS story believable.
Reinvention is a powerful tool. We all do it. New Year’s resolutions are made of imagining how we can be better. So much of success is believing people will accept you, and acting as if they will, then doing the follow through. Katie, I hear how implausible this is, and I agree that people can rarely remain anonymous professionally. Let’s say that somehow this was possible. Is it not possible that the real change was that she expected people to treat her a certain way and they followed through. If that is the case, this may have nothing to do with gender issues, and everything to do with presentation.
With all of that said, there is tremendous inequality. As a former female VP, I know the male VP’s were paid more and it was justified because they were in finance, or information systems, or operations. That is BS, a VP is a VP. They should be paid at the same scale, especially when they have the same impact on a company from day to day. In my personal experience, we are not there yet.
J
wow. i dpn’t know what to think about this. it’s fascinating either way. we do work in a female-dominated profession but maybe that makes it easier for ‘james’ to stand out? if the story is true, i hope s/he’ll make it public and come out of the closet to lots of media fanfare, so that we can better expose the inequities that julianne and your other commenters are mentioning.
I had the same thoughts as Julianne–couldn’t it have been a situation in which the writer adopted a persona that allowed her to overcome any personal inhibitions, show more confidence, and see greater income as a result? It seems plausible. I’m not a freelancer, so I trust Katie’s assertions that James’s gender would be ultimately revealed on many jobs, but maybe just wrangling the work under the assumed name to begin with gave the writer the confidence needed to follow through with the clients.
This post is super-intriguing to me. I’m going to check out the original in context. Thanks for the links.
So….yeah. I just read the article about James’s nominal switcharoo, and I have to say, Katie, I’m with you. Not so much because of what you wrote about the logistics of freelancing, but more because the article sounds totally fake and info-mercially. Blegh!
The concept is still interesting, though. I’m interested to read more comments about it.
“James” story sounds fabricated nonsensical story for publicity. Here we are talking about her!
I agree with Katie, how does “James” explain her level of success without ever talking on the phone to anyone?
I gave my daughter a male name (Tyler). In my experience there have been real hindrances to having a male name, in school and job applications or resumes when gender was not indicated that is not always good to be thought of as a male.
Writing articles does not strike me as a profession that being a women you’re at a disadvantage.
OK, I’ll agree with you that it seems to be exaggerated. But she does admit that she had many times that she would have to come clean because the person essentially demanded to speak on the phone.
I don’t doubt though, that she had an easier time using a male pseudonym. I know that there have been very many women who have been able to use the internet to launch or grow their writing careers (you’ve used it very well) but I think that the majority of them have used the parenting/mommy-blogger route. You have been able to get writing assignments outside of this realm, but you can’t deny that you were able to “prove” yourself through many contributions in the parenting arena.
Although, with that said, I seriously doubt she would have been more successful using a male pseudonym had she taken the mommmy-blogger route! Maybe she’s a better writer than parent!
“My gut feeling is that it’s some kind of attention grab, or that the story has been constructed to support Mr./Ms. Chartrand’s decision to use a pseudonym – a decision that was made and has been retained for reasons other than as an antidote to raging, explicit gender bias, but now requires some more interesting explanation than the actual reason.”
This was my gut feeling, too, Katie. Besides being off-putting in its tone and style (the article reads like a textbook direct-sales letter) the story itself comes across as less than authentic. I know many male writers and none of them have experienced the sort of nearly-overnight success Mr. Chartrand claims to have achieved after “becoming” a guy. Like the female writers I know, they’ve had to build their success slowly, one assignment and relationship at a time, presenting themselves as professionals every step of the way.
I have no doubt that there are certain topic areas where being a man might make entry easier. Technology, for example. But I very much doubt that the name was the ONLY thing that changed here. The whole thing fairly screams snake oil.
I’m a city planner. I can’t tell you how many times people have walked into my office (the one marked ‘planner’ over the door) and said, “Oh, I’m sorry, I was looking for the planner.” Yeah, that would be me.
Suzanne, that’s really not funny. But I still LOLd.
Salon doesn’t seem to think it’s major baloney.
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/12/14/male_pseudonyms/index.html
what’s baloney is we’re talking about a woman who allegedly denied her gender in order to sell her work. It’s no different from the lies all marketers tell to get the sale. That she had an “easier time” selling as a man is beside the point, though I’m delighted she outed some sexist jerk behavior, she’s still putting the sell before the substance.
James former partner left a telling comment on Deb Ng’s blog. The business was nothing more than an experiment between two women who already owned two businesses together. It is not the story of a welfare mom who is the victim of sexism. The plot thickens every time I talk with someone new.
Having some little bit of experience with nom de plume’s I have to ask how Mr./Mrs. Chartrand deposited those freelancing checks without tipping off her editors to her clever disguise. If she didn’t alert her clients/editors, she must be sitting on a pile of unfiled 1099s that have been coming to her house and addressed to Mr. Chartrand.
As a freelance writer who has actually worked with “James” for the last two years, I can clear up a couple of things, although not everything. I’m certainly not attacking anyone here, as I have questions of my own.
1. It is possible to have a successful freelance business that requires very little phone contact. I’ve probably only ever spoken to 10% of my clients on the phone, and they like it that way as much as I do. I think it really depends on the types of clients you have. Magazine editors may want to have that kind of contact while corporations looking for web site content might not care as much.
2. The last comment says that the two already owned a business together, but I read that as they each had their own business and decided to try the experiment by teaming up and starting a new business. I think this is consistent with what James said in the CopyBlogger post.
3. I think that James would agree that some of the “instant” success that came from using a male name was also reliant upon the fact that s/he had already learned a lot of the how-to stuff through the original freelance business.
4. This story was presented as one person’s experience. It’s been the rest of us who have extrapolated it out from there. It’s an anecdote.
I’m not personally too bothered by all of this, although I do think it is absolutely possible to be a successful freelance writer and a woman. I’ve done it myself, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, at least it’s made people think a bit about gender equality, and any excuse for that can’t be all bad.
Oh, and the “how did she cash her checks” thing keeps coming up. In my case, I have a business name, and checks are made out to that. I also accept PayPal payments, which go to an email account under the business name, too. Of course, James is in Canada, and I don’t know all the tax implications up there. For me, though, 1099s come in the company name.
Again, I’m not trying to stir up any hornets, just to answer a few questions that I actually can answer.
I’d just also like to point out that just because YOU didn’t feel that you had to overcome extra obstacles because of your gender, doesn’t mean that
a.) it’s actually true
b.) it’s true for everyone.
If you never wrote under a male nom de plume, how can you know that you wouldn’t have had it easier, received more jobs at better pay because of the “fact” of being male?
Katie,
It won’t do me much good, as a personal friend of James Chartrand’s, to say “trust me, everything in the story is true for her.” After all, you don’t know me… just as you don’t know her. Yet I’ll say it because that is what good friends who know three times what’s being put out there do—even while staying discreet and not adding to the stories being told.
On the telephone: My business is mostly traditional, local, in-person. But I do take on international clients whom I meet through my blogging, and in great contrast to your experience, no one has ever asked me for a telephone meeting. Ever. Heck these days, even my local clients usually email. Telephone has become the big time-waster that many folks seem happy to ditch.
So I think that points to the “everybody’s experience is different” thing, and as Lorna said quite well, this was simply one person’s experience, before it became today’s cause celebre.
My clients’ payments are all made out to my business. As are the checks I make out to everyone I deal with, come to think of it, from my dry cleaner to my electric company to the lawn service and my car dealer. I don’t know any of their full names and if anyone asked me to make a check out to them, I’d be suspicious. That line of questioning has me quite confused—do other folks make their payments for goods and services out to individuals? Surely not.
It also won’t do me a lick of good to say, as a woman business owner, that workplace and business sexism is not just alive and well, it’s living in your hometown. I sure am glad you haven’t had much experience with it, but the “skeptical feminist in you” has simply lucked out on that one.
Regards,
Kelly
Kelly –
Points taken, and while James’ story just sounds very, very odd to me for all of the reasons I mention, I appreciate the fact that I certainly do not have all the facts, as you do.
Thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you will visit again.
-Katie
Kelly – A follow up question, though. If people are making checks out to your business, or James’ business – meaning that’s who they are hiring to do the work, as opposed to a named individual writer or designer – how does gender factor into this? How can you know – if the client is hiring something like “AAA Web Design Company” – whether that company’s success or failure has to do with whether most of the employees happen to be male or female?
-Katie
Katie,
Thanks. I’d just told the boss (that would be me) she’d better get back to work, but I’m glad to come back around to answer that.
In my case, because there’s a lot of face-to-face involved, I’m the face, and the face is a woman’s. There have been times when jobs have been lost to other firms because of gender. Mine. Nevermind the men who would be involved in a project.
How can I know? I know because I’ve been told, sometimes quite directly. Sometimes, sadly, in words you don’t easily forget.
In the last few years my work has become (somewhat) more web-based, and I’ve remained the face. Again, for a client it’s not a totting up of the numbers of men and women who’ll be involved in a project. The public face is the inevitable way the company is understood.
Is amazon anyone but kind, gentle Jeff Bezos to you? Is Mary Kay Cosmetics anyone but Mary Kay Ash? Is Disney anyone but Walt—though he’s been dead for decades? If Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt took over any of those three would it matter to you that all of the employees stayed the same?
Simplistic, maybe, but small businesses don’t have piles of advertising dollars or years and years to make your acquaintance—and even with those powerful brands, a new face could potentially make a massive difference to the bottom line. Our clients very, very quickly make decisions, and when any of us do that, we draw on our biases.
To clients, it’s not about “most” of the employees, if you’ve chosen to be the face of your company. And for a small business, being the face of your company is unavoidable.
Even, in James’ case, when the face is a “voice,” or a style of communication if you like, rather than a literal face. And my goodness, that style of communication is authentically hers.
Until later,
Kelly
If I’m not being presumptuous, I would throw in my two cents’ worth on the check cashing/name topic. I also have my clients make checks out to the business name or even use PayPal. When communicating via email (as I said above, I have very little phone interaction), I do have an e-signature with my own name, as well as the company’s name, on it. By the time you’ve gotten to that point in the relationship, the client does need to see that he or she is dealing with an actual person. I happen to use my real name for those communications, while James did not.
Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com