I would have loved the first one.

But I do think it’s a deeply sexist dynamic when someone shows up in a space where a woman is writing and starts demanding that the writer modify her writing to suit him–to use different sources, to strike different tones, etc.

I mean, look at the way he says that Bridgett is obviously new to this history and that I might want to run my things by an experienced historian in the future. Even now that cracks me up how condescending it is, especially when you consider that he knows NOTHING about Bridgett and nothing about how she might stack up against Jim Hoobler, if one were to have some kind of historian smackdown.

Nothing about that feels respectful to me. It feels exactly like what he himself identifies it as being potentially–condescending.

“One is, of course, the sexism. How can we write about history if we don’t check in with the male historians who are here? We might come to different conclusions. We might put our emphases on what’s important in the wrong places. But the other is that this is, somehow, not my or Bridgett’s history, because we’re not from here.”

He seems genuinely respectful. Not something you often get on the internet, which shouldn’t excuse him in anyway. Anyways, don’t you think you’re being a tad sensitive? I’m not trying to snarky or to accuse you of being a hysterical woman or of playing the gender card. I’m genuinely curious. Like, could you point to the exact phrases where you see the sexism? And the thing about the emphases? Thanks! And again, great post! I love neat little historical anecdotes!!! Especially about women. =)