So your first comment was to pick on an utterly irrelevant and minor point just to show that you are, what was it? aggressive and authoritative etc? Congratulations, you are obviously proud of that great achievement. Completely irrelevant to the original post and to the one you were responding to, but hey since when has relevance mattered? As long as you can talk about yourself and how proud you are of your obnoxious traits, then all is well in the world.
And your second post was to dismiss something in its entirety, when the part relevant to the OP is obvious and only part of the whole. Dismissed, further, without allusion or critique. Prone to ill considered sweeping judgements are we? Don?t believe anything unless it is supported by ?empirical? ?studies? which are ?peer reviewed? no doubt.
It seems as if your signature tune is composed of two parts, namely:
1 missing the point entirely and,
2 being angry
Pretty much everything the blogger states is ?true? and supported evidentially, should you care to look for it. Refreshingly, she doesn?t need to append her writings with endless citations of studies for presumably she trusts her readership?s ability to seek out the studies and doesn?t need to set it in the context of an ? academic study? which presents the ?facts? to give it a false air of authority. If you are the type of person who dismisses the ?facts? which are supported by ?evidence? you will do so if they conflict with your belief system. It matters not to you whether they are to hand or you need to make an effort to seek them out. The next step after dismissal, (for the impoverished or criminal intellect) is to discredit the source, the next step is to shoot the messenger and the final step is to level unarguable ?isms? at your victim. The equivalent of the gulag in Stalinist times (Pussy Riot anyone?)
As an aside -
If you were to check out various ?scientific? studies published in Hitler and Stalin?s times I would expect they were peer reviewed as well but those peer reviews no doubt coincided with the zeitgeist and were produced within the context of a society that brooked no other valid opinion other than the one that prevailed. Sound familiar?
Suppression of the truth, Propagation of myths, miss-assignation of motive etc?
Perhaps this blogger is disinterestedly espousing higher values than ?attracting the boys? like truth and justice and protecting her children. I?m not sure if your ?considered? assessment is projection on your part or cynicism.
Are you really saying that any woman who writes something that you happen to disagree with, despite its validity, is only doing so to ?attract the boys??
How dispiriting. How low an opinion you must have of women. Thankfully I do not, or else this would probably have occurred to me. It must be either that you have a very low opinion of women or just another case of projecting your obvious self-loathing.
Is the gender of a writer so important to you? Think about what you are saying. ?I can dismiss anything this woman says because she is only doing it to attract boys?
With that level of ability to analyse discourse and dismiss it out of hand, based on the gender of the writer, I?m surprised you can even manage to get out of bed in the morning
I find it curious that you are interested in a stranger?s relative happiness or sadness. But wait! Can it be another case of your clearly exemplified projection of self-loathing or the all too common ad hominem last refuge of a scoundrel? When arguments cannot be refuted, then look for a chink elsewhere? Shoot the messenger? I am neither one nor the other since you interest yourself. The whole concept of happiness is just a superficial entitlement thing. Puerile and just up your street I guess, Dearie.