The first rule of Binders Full of Women Writers is: you do not talk about Binders Full of Women Writers. But on Monday, a core tenet of that secret Facebook group was violated by one of its own, prompting a swift reaction from moderators.

Digital journalist and former NPR editor Melody Joy Kramer, a “Binders” member and longtime advocate for greater openness in public media, published an article on Poynter aimed at assisting “new voices” in journalism. It included a list of every hidden journalism-related social media group she could find.

That included Binders Full of Women Writers, an invite-only digital clubhouse boasting over 31,000 members . The group was created as a women-only group in 2014 in reference to Mitt Romney’s comment about commissioning “binders full of women” to apply for top posts in his cabinet. Its goal is to allow writers to network and exchange tips, and to expand the number of female writers published across the industry.

The 2014 Gamergate controversy , coupled with the ongoing online harassment experienced by many female writers, further cemented the group’s argument that writers need a private place to interact online.

Kramer, a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism, said the Poynter article saw her quickly banned by administrators, who have repeatedly argued that secrecy is necessary to protect its membership and provide a “safe space” for discourse (their rule for admission: “women, genderqueer, and non-binary identifying writers are all welcome, but cis men are not”).

Kramer takes issue with the fact that Binders, as well as other minority-oriented journalism groups, require an invitation from a member. Because the group is secret, it’s not searchable, and a prospective member has to be sufficiently plugged in to the existing community to know to ask for one. In other words, it is exclusive, and requires an existing network to join – something many emerging writers don’t have.

@mkramer what I learned today is a lot of journalists believe that they're in Fight Club. #MelodyKramerIsTylerDurden pic.twitter.com/9XRzCBJbNk — James Luevano (@JPtri70_3) August 4, 2015

Members argue that it is this exclusivity that allows them to share private information without fear of abuse (they regularly post contact information, personal stories and real-life meet-up groups).

On Tuesday, in response to Kramer’s article, Binders moderator Lux Alptraum posted an announcement to all members:

“...The Binder is intended as a space for sensitive conversations; we want our members to feel like they can safely have those conversations, without fear that their comments will show up in a friend’s feed.”

When reached for comment about how the Binders Facebook is reaching minority or underserved women writers, Alptraum said she could not talk about it. “Given the confidential nature of the group, I’m not at liberty to speak publicly about its inner workings,” she said via direct message.

There's a difference between secrecy and privacy, and neither is the same thing as elitism. — Lux Alptraum (@LuxAlptraum) August 4, 2015

Alptraum has expanded the concept of Binders Full of Women to a non-profit group. Formerly an editor and subsequent CEO of ex-Gawker Media porn blog Fleshbot, Alptraum is now co-director at Out of the Binders, Inc, which gained 501(c3) status in January.

Alptraum and co-director Leigh Stein also run BinderCon, a two-day career-building event in New York City for an anticipated 500 women who will purchase tickets for $175 for partial access and $350 for full access. Sponsored by the online women’s magazine Bustle, the group offers 50 slots for tuition-free scholarships. “Our strategies include strategically partnering with organizations that serve to represent the voices of marginalized communities,” Alptraum told the Guardian over email, “such as VONA and the OpEd Project, and regularly applying for grants that allow us to provide stipends to marginalized populations.”



In response to the Poynter post, Alptraum explained on Tuesday that the administrators had opted to put a hold on including new members: “Going forward, we may start adding new members once or twice a month, so that we can better serve new members with a regular orientation post.” Alptraum posted that the current administration’s processes for keeping men out of the 31,000-person group involve “often just a name and photo”.

Critics of the group’s secrecy policy point out that the Vegas-style “what happens in Binders stays in Binders” rule does not seem to apply to the group’s moderators. Stein, whose debut novel came out in 2012, has spoken about the group to the blog the Conversant, which describes itself as a “monthly journal featuring serial interview projects, talk poetries, and interviews with poets and other language-based artists”.

Frustration with the moderators’ secrecy policy and treatment of Kramer has kicked off a firestorm of debate among established and aspiring writers within the group. Some members have quit as a result, taking their grievances to Twitter.

@AmericaLee TL;DR it's sad to see Binders become some no boys allowed tree house rather than a place to raise up women. You can have it. Bye — Ann Marie Awad (@AnnAwad) August 4, 2015





Among those who responded in the comment section on Kramer’s Poynter article, which had garnered 13,000 page views and reached 22,000 people on Facebook as of Tuesday afternoon, were those who thought that Kramer had violated privacy rules.

“What the hell,” wrote ToniMacAttack. “You can claim you’re doing some kind of noble act all you like (I for one doubt your savior complex) but what you’re doing is kicking over rocks no one asked you to disturb for no reason but to flaunt your own access. Get some perspective, please.”

In response, commenter Alexandra McFadden defended Kramer: “I understand that you feel like the rules are super important, but you have the luxury of access. People like me don’t even know there are doors to knock on, let alone that there are rules for entry. Mel’s just said ‘here are the doors you’re missing.’ Why are you so angry that I know there are doors now?”



Reached by direct message on Twitter, Kramer told the Guardian that she believes in the importance safe spaces online – but she also believes that fostering new points of view is essential to better journalism.

“And I don’t mind if groups are private or require approval,” said Kramer. “I think safe spaces are absolutely necessary. It seems like the big question is: when does ‘safe’ rub up against ‘accessible’?”

