Against Pseudonymity and Sexual Shame

The thing is, writing under a pseudonym is absolutely great for blogging. Unfortunately, it's not much good for anything else. If you want to write for a major publication, even one that's just online, and if you want to get paid for your work writing anywhere, you basically have to write under your own name. Which is all well and good, except for that without my writing that I've done under a pseudonym, I'm nobody, just a young lawyer with a little work experience and a lot of attitude.

...

What is the source of my nagging feeling that if those things were on the internet, popping up under a Google search for the name I was given at birth, that a wide swath of the employers I might someday want to work for would never hire me?

It's one thing only: externally-imposed bogus sexual shame. It's not as if my political opinions are so far out as to represent some kind of employment liability. I'm a pretty standard liberal. I haven't written anything racist or offensive. No, the only reason I'm worried about these writings is that they acknowledge, frankly and openly, that I'm a sexual being. But it's not like I'm writing a sex blog filled with the details of my exploits. I'm simply exploring the ramifications of sex and sexuality in the life of a young woman, a politically-minded feminist. And that, to my mind, is dangerous.

In my case: replace "writing" above with the swathes of web work and ICT I've done in fandom over the past 7 years. Sigh.

via Slashdot: new geek-inspired words in Merriam-Webster. One of those words is "fanboy", which Cnet appear to be attributing to the juggernauting Apple craze. Because of course, the only people who like Apple, technology, and hell - are geeks in general! - are boys. Duh!

Although, a lot of the new entries seem to be from very old words that M-W is totally, like, cool, to integrate. Here's the definition of "fanboy":

_Fanboy (1919): boy who is an enthusiastic devotee, such as of comics or movies. (via here)

But, it's not exactly nothing new to have male groups legitimised by being instated officially in and therefore acknowledged by the dominant lexicon...

But is there an alternative female term that's legitimising/positive (I won't go so far as to say "neutral"...) rather than being pejorative? One that hasn't just been re-appropriated and used by the 'subculture', but now has mainstream use? I mean, does "fangirl" mean the same thing as 'fanboy' does above? In my experience it has more negative connotations than simply being enthusiastic about it.

When "fangirl" is a noun and you're talking about someone else being a fangirl, it's mildly critical of that person's behaviour or manner - i.e. "and then the crazy fangirl attacked Jensen".

When it's about yourself, "I'm a total fangirl", it's kind of ironic and self-aware - same way you compare yourself to a teenage girl going into hysterics because you want to have Jensen Ackles' babies. (Even if you don't seriously want that, you're poking fun at yourself as you express how enthused you really are.)

Then there's the verb, "fangirling" - which is self-aware like the above, but still connotes that out-of-controlness when you ironically say to someone "I'm totally fangirling you right now!" to evoke the image of yourself jumping up and down and squealing.

Not that there's anything wrong with jumping up and down and squealing. But fangirl still connotes that distasteful history of 'female hysteria' and being out of control, whereas 'fanboy', while it might have once been a pejorative term, is now linked with cool, smart and stylish geekery (like Apple).

[note: just musing on my experience, I certainly don't expect that the term has the same connotations for everyone.]

Anyway, rambling. Just seems to me that a girl can't be an enthusiastic devotee, such as of comics or movies in such a way that it's perfectly fine and dictionary-ised.


On a slight tangent, Mary and I were bitching about the ageism in the blatant othering/generalisations of "Gen Y" and whatnot when she came across a newspaper article talking about how "Gen F" adopted technology.

"Gen F" as in: Generation Female. As in, more than 50% of the population. As in, that OTHER group of people who aren't NORMAL but require categorising as DIFFERENT. Females. And in relation to new technology, no less. WHAT THE.

NY Times has done it again!

Via Slashdot - The Alpha Geeks is an opinion piece that talks about "the rise of geekdom".

David Brooks traces examples of "alpha geeks" through from 1950 to now. Naturally, the only time women are mentioned in the piece is a brief reference to "sorority sisters" persecuting geeks (alongside jocks, preps and frat boys), and a note that Tina Fey "has emerged as a symbol of the geek who grows into a swan" thanks to being on the cover of Geek Monthly (I don't know much about SNL etc, but she's an actress with a geeky aesthetic, right? not an actual geek in practice/profession?). Her name's sandwiched in amongst George Lucas, Elvis Costello, Holden Caulfield, Harry Potter, Lawrence Lessig, Bill Gates, Barack Obama...

Sigh.

A most excellent follow-up to that flow chart, undoubtedly.