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