3 ms·

I am unsure what the purpose of this comment is, which apart from making the assertion that Beard is "routinely subjected to horrific misogynistic abuse online"

by prvc 5y ago

I am unsure what the purpose of this comment is, which apart from making the assertion that Beard is "routinely subjected to horrific misogynistic abuse online" merely consists of copy-pasted snippets of the article. Perhaps we can assume that the purpose is simply to include is this former component. One must wonder, however, how much of this "abuse" is merely criticism brought about by perceptions of shortcomings in her work (such as those outlined in TFA), rather than by any inborn prejudice.

ggm 5y ago
You might read https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suffers-twitter-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suf... or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer which is about the "abuse" problem. I don't think the problem is just criticism brought about by perceptions of shortcomings in her work. As to the relative ratios, and nature of the problem, I don't know how that could be assessed. I posted one snippet and a link. I stated why I posted the snippet. It is to set context: the blog author is aware of this abuse problem and wants to draw a contradistinction between their view and the abuse. I agree with them, and I too wish to draw a contradistinction between my view and the abuse. Also, the link is relevant here. Not every latinist agrees with the statement of the problem, there is an debate amongst latinists about the complexity of the language and nuance in the meaning of unfamiliar texts. It bears thinking about. I found it interesting, which is why I posted. I'm sorry you think my comment is pointless. Although in hypothesis, it is tenable to argue the complaints about Prof. Beard are simply misunderstood, and in fact its legitimate debate about her thesis and lines of reasoning, I think its not solely down to this, and I don't think the problem is mischaracterised. That's informed by having read popular history works by Prof. Beard, and also read about her problems being a public TV figure.

by prvc 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

You might read https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suffers-twitter-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suf... or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer which is about the "abuse" problem. I don't think the problem is just criticism brought about by perceptions of shortcomings in her work. As to the relative ratios, and nature of the problem, I don't know how that could be assessed. I posted one snippet and a link. I stated why I posted the snippet. It is to set context: the blog author is aware of this abuse problem and wants to draw a contradistinction between their view and the abuse. I agree with them, and I too wish to draw a contradistinction between my view and the abuse. Also, the link is relevant here. Not every latinist agrees with the statement of the problem, there is an debate amongst latinists about the complexity of the language and nuance in the meaning of unfamiliar texts. It bears thinking about. I found it interesting, which is why I posted. I'm sorry you think my comment is pointless. Although in hypothesis, it is tenable to argue the complaints about Prof. Beard are simply misunderstood, and in fact its legitimate debate about her thesis and lines of reasoning, I think its not solely down to this, and I don't think the problem is mischaracterised. That's informed by having read popular history works by Prof. Beard, and also read about her problems being a public TV figure.