I'll readily admit that English is not my first language, so there might undertones in that quote I'm unaware of. I also agree that the use of "feminist academics" was unnecessary, but mostly for not making a greater effort at "avoiding unrelated controversies" as per guidelines [1].

I might glossed over some detail there, and instead gave the original poster the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that the meaning was as following:

- Unknown female geniuses lost to history due to gender inequality are many - The article itself does not make a good argument of why Ranelagh in particular might be a good example. The bar should be higher. - Maybe the book gives a better argument

As mentioned, I might have gotten the first one wrong, though I did not, as you put it, defend it. Disagreements are appreciated. Instead, I believed you created an argument, which was based on a lot of assumptions (gender, motive, misogyny, etc, hence "straw man") and went much, much further in the opposite of "avoiding unrelated controversies".

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are mistaken that I am devaluing the article by labeling the author as feminist. I'm fine with the author being a feminist. I'm just pointing out that feminists are more likely than other academics to write books like this. That's a statement of the obvious.

I agree that that is an interpretation worth considering if Parent Commenter has provided corroborating evidence. A charitable interpretation would suggest that this man has seen many arguments about the ostensible brilliance of some otherwise unknown or lesser-known person and that such people make for good propaganda (I use the word propaganda without trying to imply that this piece is propaganda, just to be very clear). A charitable interpretation would also admit there is no necessary malice in saying describing someone as a feminist academic. Feminist academics are, approximately, a class of academic and they do have idiosyncrasies, views, and methods unique to them. It is not an insult to say something is from feminist academia and feminist academia itself would like to admit that that is the standpoint from which it is arguing.

There are many women who have failed to get the recognition they deserve. In fact, there are many people who have, full stop. There is also a market for upselling historical figures.

Saying someone or something is underrated and then making a compelling case for it is incredibly difficult, man, woman, art, or whatever.

It is not win. It is simply assuming and claiming she is getting unfair credit without bothering to look at the case -- on the basis of her gender. The comment did not asked for tldr, the comment literally made claims about her lack of achievements.

Admitting that you did not checked it and being theoretically open to change if you would bothered does not change all that much. Plus, this is just how bias works. In assumptions claim when you don't check evidence.

I laid out why I thought this book might be overclaiming for the status of its subject. I said "I might be wrong", and then gave evidence from the fact that the achievements mentioned in the review don't seem huge. This is a "dog didn't bark in the night" argument: if Lady R had amazing achievements, the review would have mentioned them. But again, maybe I'm wrong! Feel free to read the book, or other sources, and rebut me with evidence. I'll happily hold my hands up. That would be a much more effective argument than accusing me of bias.

Having bias but being open to change one's mind is a correct application of the Bayes' theorem, isn't it?

(I agree the root comment was a bit... weird, let's put it that way, but the author themselves acknowledged that)

I mean ... who cares. Having bias, then calling it as win or acting like no one is allowed to point out it is bias is not correct application of the Bayes' theorem.

I did not flagged the comment nor downvoted it. I responded to claim that it was win. Which responded to claim that the comment took offense.