[automatwon]

> Beatriz Gimeno, a feminist, writer, activist – and former head of one of Spain’s national equality bodies, the Women’s Institute – attacked the men for creating a female persona in their publicity for Carmen Mola books, over several years

[PeterisP]

Cross-gender pen names are an common tradition. Have they also condemned the Bronte sisters or George Elliot or George Sand for creating a different gender persona for their writing? Or JK Rowling and Andre Norton literally changing their name for marketing purposes so that their gender would not be apparent on the books cover while they were still unknown as authors?

[bitwize]

Men outrank women on the privilege stack. A woman adopting a male persona is "punching up"; a man adopting a female persona is "punching down".

[PeterisP]

I would argue that adopting a persona has literally nothing to do with the concepts of "punching up" or "punching down", which refer to cases of e.g. "verbal violence" of aggressive jokes and such; where the "up"/"down" determines the extent of how much "verbal violence" would be considered appropriate in that company.

However, the women I mentioned (like Bronte sisters) were not "punching up", they were not "punching" anyone in any way whatsoever, the choice of persona has no relation to some kind of aggression, they're simply choosing an arbitrary identity and that's it, there's not the slightest moral concern about this act, it's a well-established (and frequently used) writer's right to choose a pen name or persona and there's not the slightest thing wrong about that, no matter which group is adopting which persona - and the same applies for those three writers choosing their pen name. "Punching up" is considered less aggressive than "punching down", but adopting a persona is not even on the same scale, there's zero aggression about that.

On the other hand, attacking writers for their choice of pen name is punching. In this case it is the less-bad version because it is "punching up", but it is a form of bullying; a much more aggressive act than what those three writers have done.

[dudul]

Who were armed by these guys' choice of pen name? Who got punch? What "privilege" was taken from whom?

Either their writing was great and would have been successful regardless, so it doesn't matter. Or they were successful only because their pen name was a woman's name, and then women have more privilege when it comes to publishing.

[jl2718]

1. Explain why it is bad to give up ‘privilege’.

2. Explain why it is good to take ‘privilege’.

[YetAnotherNick]

Then we should encourage that even more. That they are sacrificing sales/money for experiencing being a female.

[polartx]

I was born with membership in the less popular protected classes, woe is me.

[dogleash]

This line of criticism frames it as if the Carmen Mola public persona is unacceptably dishonest compared to the acceptably dishonest fake public persona called Beatriz Gimeno.

I don't mean to throw shade, it's simply the inescapable nature of cultivating a public image. Mola may be fiction, Gimeno is "based on a true story" fiction. (And interestingly enough, pen names are a time honored literary tradition.)

So when I see statements like the one you quote, my brain immediately interprets it as deflection. After a bit of turning it over in my head, I expect it's not a purposeful deflection but still find it worthwhile to make explicit. It leads us to the question: to whom and for what reason(s) is it important I see the distinction as meaningful?