Alison Jones finds in the writing of her students who take up post-structuralism, a confused humanism, an illegitimate appearance of a prediscursive self. She attributes this to some aspects of my writing and to the students' failure to understand the structuralist base of post-structuralism. Jones argues that I and her students are guilty of humanism when we use active verbs such as 'positioning' or 'forced choice', or when we try to imagine what agency might be in a post-structuralist framework. In this reply I produce a detailed reading of Jones'. In doing so, I attempt to find how she produced her reading of my writing, and at the same time to extend my understanding of what the 'post-structuralist subject' might be. I attend to this in the dual sense of human beings as subjects, and the subject of post-structuralism as we teach it to our students.