The Times silencing women

[MissLucyEyelesbarrow]

Like many GC women, I subscribed to the Times because of the excellent Janice Turner, but also because of the intelligent debate in BTL comments. Times readers are generally GC but transphobic or abusive comments are, quite rightly, deleted. It was one of the few places other than MN where an intelligent discussion could be had, and there are some insightful regular commenters. Meanwhile, the Times has claimed to champion free speech and to oppose diversity and inclusion policies, where they have a chilling effect on respectful freedom of expression.

Until now.

They have now suddenly brought in a policy that anyone commenting must do so under their full real name because...inclusion. Given their editorial stance to date, they are clearly well aware of the bullying and doxing of women who have GC views, so they have done this, knowing that it will silence most women.

So, once again, 'inclusion' actually means, 'Shut up, Women', It is so depressing. Have cancelled my subscription.

I'm using my initial and surname atm. If that's not ok I'll get my partner to sign up and use his name - he doesn't use his real first name in everyday life anyway. I definitely won't stop commenting. I agree it feels silencing though.

It's fine. I use a shortened version of my name. Have done for ages and haven't been asked to change.

It's really fine

If you value commenting, cancel your sub. Then - as soon as they're doing a new reader offer with reduced rates, sign up using a different email & name. I've grown to enjoy the Times having dumped the Guardian years ago.

This is the worst part! I could use my son's name (generic first and surname, totally un-outing) but ... 21st century ... using our male relatives' names ..... really ?!?

I know the Times is conservative but that's a step too far (direction middle east)

I cancelled my subscription

Use your initial then.

We have different surnames. Mine is incredibly unusual and with either my first or middle name would be easily identifiable.

If I change it, to a shortened version, by phoning them up and arranging it then that makes a mockery of their system. Why bother at all?

In theory the policy of requiring real names from commenters is a good one, but in practice the risks it causes vary widely between different demographic groups (as names often reveal the membership in those).

The risks are greater for women because women are more likely to be attacked online in general, and may be even more attacked if they express gender-critical opinions as the attacks then can come from both misogynists and TRAs.

Just cancelled mine very clearly stating my reasons. I was offered a substantial discount to continue but robustly explained that I am not paying to be silenced and how disappointed I am that the Times have dismissed women's concerns.

Also, my subscription is paid for by my bank card, which contains my real name, so trying to remain anonymous is impossible.

I hope the very nice woman I spoke to passes on what I said to the men who made this decision.

There's an argument that people with names that are less common in the UK, funny sounding names are going to be far more impacted by this type of thing. There's been plenty of research on how people respond differently according to prejudice - some names that suggest or reveal the commenter as female or from a religious group or ethnic group are more liable to get attacked. So yes, anonymity did/does/can provide a measure of protection for disadvantaged groups.

Oh, Arabella, FFS, read the thread before commenting next time.

I agree with everyone.

Maybe you could identify as Bunny99 and use of your previous name is dead naming and literal violence.

Completely agree with you OP. There are lots of topics I occasionally like to post on and have opinions on which I might not want publicly recorded in my own name. I wouldn’t dream of being rude or dishonest but I do like to be able to freely and privately express an opinion. It’s quite a loss

100% with you OP. I have been using my mother’s subscription. She has the print and I use the online. I set the display name as just her (very common) maiden surname (not that the Times would know that). This week I added her initial. Seems to still be OK but I don’t think they’ve really implemented it yet.
I rarely comment on there but agree that BTL is better than the actual articles. Suspend the offensive commenters and leave everyone else alone.
When mum dies (she is now in a nursing home) I would have considered an online subscription, but not after this.

In the recent Reith Lecture by Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, she proposed that all social media should be named and not anonymous.

She believes this will improve behaviour.

I comment frequently, particularly on JKR and Janice Turner articles and was very concerned by this, as I have a very unusual last name.

I experimented with changing my screen name to an initial and surname (not my own) and this seems fine so far.

She is right. If viewed from one perspective. That of a woman whose uses her real name and whose livelihood is based upon the premise that she is a brave and outspoken woman. Long may she continue to be so.

But me? Unlike those women who have been doxxed and survived I can't afford for that to happen. It almost did and would have been catastrophic for the women I work with. I use a pseudonym to protect others - as pious as that might sound, in my case it is the literal* truth!

*Crikey, first time I've typed that word in its proper meaning, sans sarcasm, for years 😃

I'm using a tweaked version of my own first name, and a family surname which isn't the one on my account. Only commented a few times but haven't been picked up on it yet.

I have made all the usual harrumphings and ending my subscription, but as today's coverage shows, the Times is such an important news source and I want to keep supporting that. I will make another formal complaint though.

Same. I was offered a 90% discount, but it’s not about the money. It’s about the fact that anything permitted to women can always be withdrawn if it inconveniences men. The Times will be well aware that the new policy disproportionately affects women, but it will save them money on moderating, so they have done it anyway.

I comment there under my own name. Personally I would have taken the 90% discount and used an initial or shortened version of my first name. As long as there's plausible deniability!

I actually quite like the non-anonymity but then I am at the point where I don't give a shit that people know what I think about this.

It’s the principle, not whether I can find a way round it.

But sticking to the principle means you no longer have a voice there.

I appreciate that's your line, though. It wouldn't be mine, but then it sounds like I'm in a completely different situation to you. I hope the times backs down so women like you don't lose out and we don't lose your voices.

MissLucy - yes the principle and my unusual last name. Really annoying.