Friday, September 04, 2009

While the biblioblog top 50 list has tended to be a fairly loose and ad hoc association, another list was groomed and shaped somewhat more deliberately. The list does not include me, and for a long time I did not consider myself to be acceptable to the gatekeepers of the biblioblogging community. I don't really have a big beef about it if someone rejected my blog on the basis of content. I want to do my own thing - I am fine with that.

But, considering all things together, it is a little odd. There is a dearth of female bibliobloggers and I was once invited to the SBL biblioblogging dinner. But after being called a bunch of names like pro-abortion, pro-divorce on demand feminist, I kind of lost interest. (the first is blatantly false, and the second is blatantly true, so what?) I don't need to travel to be insulted. I am sure I could find someone local to do that for me.

But let's go back to Of some 40 plus interviews, 3 were with women. Naturally it was based on the fact that the biblioblogs had to be academic to meet the high academic standards of the folks who run that blog. I understand that. And I don't want one of them rushing to interview me now. That would just be embarrassing. I am happy to see the focus shift to Biblioblog Top 50 for now.

I do think that the Biblioblog Top 50 is somewhat different and not so controlling and biased. No interviews, but far less of a gatekeeping ethos also.


J. K. Gayle said...


Thanks for shining a light on the fact that the interviewers have only chosen 3 women so far, far from 10% even. But I do wonder about their insisting on "high academic standards."

When Jim West chose to interview the pseudonymous N. T. Wrong, he had to ask to presume:

"JW: You seem very knowledgeable about biblical studies. Might we presume that you have training in the field, or are you an amateur?

NTW: You can correctly presume that I have training in the field. [I'll leave out the nasty follow up of NTW here]."

And when Brandon Wason interviewed Loren Rosson III, the latter confessed he's not an academic of any standing but, rather, "a librarian at the Nashua Public Library."

And when Brandon Wason interviewed John Anderson, the latter was a "candidate" for a Ph.D. (and I think he still is).

Haven't paid attention to others' credentials over there. But 3 non-academic (or not yet fully highly academic) men equals the total number of women interviewed so far...

I'd agree with you that there's bias, then.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

But I do wonder about their insisting on "high academic standards."

It was pure saracasm, Kurk. I had hopes of nudging someone else to uncover the "high academic standards" of that site. Thanks.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

I don't think much of the notion that all the men can buddy together, academic or not, but the women have to have published a book already.

Let's list all the male bibliobloggers who haven't published books yet.

Mike Koke said...

Suzanne, I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience in the biblioblogging community. I want you to know I linked to a couple of your posts in the biblical studies carnival and I have started up a meme that you might be interested in where I ask bloggers to list the 5 most influential female scholars on their scholarship. I hope you will respond to my meme.

Suzanne McCarthy said...


I want to assure you that I don't feel ignored in any way. I seem to have a loyal readership and I have decided to stick with women's issues because a lot of my readers are women.

It is a complex matter, and most of the time, I find that the bloggers I interact with are great and I enjoy it very much. But there are certain times and certain circumstances that are not great. Thanks for your comment.

Mark Goodacre said...

I'd just like to second Mike's comments and say that I too am sorry that your experience of the biblioblogging community has sometimes been a bad one. Sorry not to have seen that before and not to have commented on it myself. That's one thing that I think some of us can be more vigilant about in the future. If we see something that we think is unacceptable, we need to say so.