[from Querulous, May 9]:
"Top papyrologist Roger Bagnall was also convinced that the fragment
was real, but though their conclusions were identical only the female scholar
came in for harsh criticism." [quote from Mroczek paper] Why have you
neglected to mention Prof. AnneMarie Luijendijk? I am not aware of anyone
directing harsh criticism toward her, though her role in the publication of
the fragment is far more important than that of Prof Bagnall.
[reply to Querulous from me, May 13]:
To which may be added that this particular complaint is rather like complaining
that the female star of a play that's badly acted all around got more negative
attention than a male supporting actor. Which is especially not surprising
given that the supporting actor hid behind the curtains for much of the play.
He's getting it now, though, since his quoted remarks in the NYT.
From the comments section of DeConick's blog:
[from me, approx. May 16]:
Not to minimize the Mroczek piece, but two of her examples seem ill-chosen:
1. The early Smithsonian article is put forward as an example of the
general tendency to report on women's appearance, but not men's.
While this no doubt generally true, the Smithsonian article is a bad
example. A look at the same reporter's other articles indicates that he
routinely comments on the appearance of his subjects - both men and women.
2. Eva repeats as an example of nastiness a Facebook posting originally
mentioned by Candida Moss. A Facebook posting? A venue where anyone
can post pretty much anything they want? Any public figure is going to get
nastiness there. That's not at all remarkable or significant. Again, the example
doesn't adequately support the point.
-- M.W.Grondin, 23 May 2014