Fickle Pickle, the topic of anonimity vs real names has been covered numerous times on various threads. I'm not convinced that those who publish their real names in this space behave with a higher level of responsibility than others. Enforced use of real names would stop many from commenting on issues which are important, in some cases there may be professional consequences for expressing views which a current or prospective employer may not agree with regardless of the relationship of those views to the employment.

For those commenting on family law issues the mix of legal issues which are raised if the parties involved are identified is difficult as well as the risk of retribution from a former partner.

Others may welcome the opportunity to discuss frankly issues which in their social setting may cause them real grief. Not all our circumstances are the same.

R0bert

"As Ginx implies, a Tom T would not have been treated with kid gloves and critics would surely have been more direct. Being girlie allows one to act miffed and lash out with emotional blackmail - which can be quite a weapon - but it is always at an eventual cost to one's credibility." (Quote:Cornflower)
________________________

Pants on fire!!

I said nothing of the kind. Your neat little twist makes it a 'female' problem. Naughty, naughty!

I SAID: if the writer was acknowledged as a male,-his detractors would not have gone so easy on HIM. A MALE thing.

Gawd!

...1 server error.

Hi Ginx,

Goodness, you would be pulling a very long bow to find discrimination against women in the subject threads if that is what you are saying.

Surely you don't believe that male respondents go 'easier' on male authors because they are male, because I have yet to see any evidence of that on OLO or elsewhere.

If anything I would have thought that males are probably more inclined to demand facts, evidence and logic from other males, while possibly some of the older men are inclined to allow a leeway for women, especially young women. Elderly men can be a little old-fashioned in the respect and courtesy they display towards women (not that everyone complains about that). However that is fast diminishing as the WW2 generation exits this world. Sigh.

Women want to be treated equally and taken seriously. That means not being patronised by men or by other women. For an author, especially one seeking something as important as change to a country's rules for voting, criticism is a gift. The author and the readers should take what they want from the table and be thankful that respondents have taken the time to comment.

Anyhow, big girls can handle a bit of criticism even if it is somewhat florid or terse at times. Heck, that is far better than being greeted by a stony silence.

To Susan's credit she has responded with some more information and she is probably kicking herself (as would any other author) for not including it before. It is a learning experience, keep them coming Susan!

Cornflower, I might be wrong but I got the impression that Ginx was suggesting that some male posters would have gone in a lot harder if they thought that the author was a Tom rather than a Susan. If that's what Ginx is saying I tend to agree.

R0bert

This is an interesting twist to the thread.

Would you have treated me differently if I'd been a man not a woman?

If anyone is interested in continuing this, I'd be interested in:

why you would treat me differently,
and how?

many thanks for the input.

Susan

Robert,

I did not say you HAVE to publish your name. What I tried to say was that the author should know who is posting comments unless there is a good reason not to know. It is important for the author to know whether to take the critique seriously or not. Although less important another point is that if you are defamed you have the possibility of some recourse by naming the offending party. This hopefully makes for a more civilised debate. The problem with anonymity is the abrogation of responsibility and accountability in some cases.

In debates such as this I don't mind your critique of what I have said and find it helpful. However, if you called me a crank or that I had other personal characteristics demeaning of me then I believe I need a way of redressing the injury you have caused.

It is impractical for onlineopinion to do this but on line opinion can encourage people to behave in a way to foster debate not stop it.

I am not talking about family law cases and you may have noticed I said if there was a good reason - such as whistle blowing - for the person to remain anonymous then that can still happen. What I am saying is that if I am bullied or insulted then I have a right to know who is doing it. Until we get this into online opinion I suggest we will continue to get a large number of infantile responses instead of civilised debate such as the one we are having:)