I thought maybe the first two replies I'd be a bit diplomatic and all, but truth is you're really prejudiced to be honest. You got no idea who I am, I'm a complete stranger to you, and you're making all these conjectures about what I want, and what I do, and what I read, and what I believe, and it's all just based on a single piece of writing.

Who do you think you are? Sherlock Holmes? You think you can just figure people out with magic like this? It's bizarre, and hostile, and even though I think that last part was actually a really insightful thing, reality of the matter is that you're just too mean spirited. I haven't done anything to you, and you're insulting my honour and calling me stupid. Who needs it?

And moreover, it says more about you than it does about me, I tried putting myself out there, study and write on a subject I am usually not writing on, that's an act of vulnerability, and it's funny how revealing that can be when people respond to it.

You think you had me at a disadvantage here, but you don't. Because for all your accusations of how I don't read, I can actually prove you don't read. I can demonstrably say that you have no idea who I am, that I am a perfect stranger, and yet by some magic you're ready to proclaim who I am, what I do, my thoughts, my motives, my ideals, everything. It's farcical.

When you focus on what I actually write, I think you make useful contributions, but when you keep pretending as if we've known eachother for years and you can even tell what my thoughts are as I write articles, that's just kind of creepy to be honest. You're a stranger to me, have some composure.

Also a lot of the time your criticism is tangential too. I talked about classical labour divisions, and you're giving me guff about the industrial revolution. That's over a thousand years later. How is that criticism? You take what I write, interpret it into something ridiculous based on absolutist fallacies, and then respond to this made up notion.

Same thing with my point about reading women in philosophy, I prefaced that with the idea of philosophical institutions, such as Athens, that I was curious what would happen when women had the same kind of resources to produce institutions, that's never happened in history. I said I was curious to read works produced in this particular situation.

Your response?

"You don't need to wait. You can read now. There are already plenty of books by diffent types of women and feminist. Some use sociology, others not."

This is just blatant manipulation. That's not what I was referring to in the slightest.

I don't mind being challenged, but how is this a challenge? How is you twisting my words, and speculating upon my personal life a challenge? It's a circus is what it is. It's a place of peanuts and elephants and clowns. I see no purpose to it.