I agree completely with Eric Siegel's intelligent and perceptive critiques of
Sally Ann Stanton's thesis.  I too question her premises, assumptions, and
obvious biases.  I hope that her thesis will not be rejected by her advisors
so that she will have an opportunity to research this topic, as I believe she
will find that some of her observations will prove to be inaccurate.  Her
ideas need more than "sharpening."  When she stops grinding her axe and
starts doing actual research and analytical thinking, I suspect she will be
able to contribute some valuable insights to museum literature.

Um, Stephen Nowlin, Hank was right.  Check your dictionary.  "Misogynic" is
both a noun AND an adjective.  "Misogynistic" and "misogynic" are other
choices as adjectives, but Merriam Webster says "misogynic" is OK too.  Look
before you leap.

Hank doesn't need me to defend him, but Robert P. Van Eyk's characterization
of him as a "simpleton" is a ridiculous and egregious insult.  I think Hank
was right in criticizing Sally's simplistic, knee-jerk thesis as sounding
like "newthink-cum-nonthink."  His retort was strong and cranky, yet he
didn't stoop to calling her names, and calling him a name like "simpleton" is
completely unwarranted.  I don't always agree with him, but I think he is in
part asserting (if I may read between his lines) that the situation is more
complex than Sally's portrayal.  "To go through life seeing only what you
want to see" may be more applicable to Sally than to Hank.  To call Sally's
bleak (and, I think, inaccurate) thesis a "brighter" perspective seems
particularly strange to me.  Anyway, Robert owes Hank an apology.  We can
disagree vehemently with each other without being jerks and resorting to
calling each other names.  (Oops!)

Let me hasten to point out, lest anyone misunderstood, that I don't think
Hank's comments about "grammer, sintax, and speling" were directed at Sally,
whose talents in these areas appeared perfectly adequate to me (or did I miss
something?); I assume everyone got Hank's little joke, right?  Actually,
we're all critics part of the time, are we not?  "Usually overpaid and
without talent"?  Not necessarily.  (There are two kinds of people in this
world: those who generalize and those who don't.)

I was amused that some of the commentary about money and values being more
significant than "gender" echoed my own suggestions of several months ago
concerning "value" vis-a-vis museum-going vs. other diversions.  I predict
that Sally's investigations will show that concepts of value are the "common
denominator," not gender.

--David Haberstich