There’s a difference between being sarcastic and being pompous and condescending.

Yes, my initial response was sarcastic, but I didn’t attack you personally.

Didn’t you tell the author of the original piece to “try educating yourself.”

Wasn’t it you who stated: “Next time you want to claim you are telling someone how something works it would probably help you to have a clue what you are talking about first.”

I merely mirrored you own attitude back to you.

Now according to you my responses are “poorly written.” (in contrast to your masterpieces of wit and erudition?). To top it off you state that I should “quit while I’m behind.” How modest of you to proclaim yourself the victor of this exchange.

Your “evidence” about a woman being scammed is completely irrelevant to my point which is why I didn’t bother to look it up.

In your first response you raised the issue of men being pilloried since Chaucer’s time for dating younger women as evidenced in The Canterbury Tales. You brought up the issue of representation in the Canterbury Tales, which is why I mentioned Hollywood, and why I thought it was obvious I was talking about culture and representation (obviously I’m aware there are many wealthy non-famous men in Hollywood). It’s also common for much older men to be paired with younger women in films, again refuting your argument about ‘shaming.’

I’m not suggesting Hollywood stars should be “shamed,” for divorcing their wives and marrying younger women. I’m merely pointing out this is still the dominant and accepted cultural narrative, not something men are regularly “shamed” for as you implied. Yes, more people are drawing attention to it, which is something a lot of men find enraging.

I made zero comment on the quality of these men’s art, so your personal comment about me being “unable to differentiate” between the artist and their work is completely groundless.