zlacker

> I'm unclear if anybody is entertaining the notion that a debate among dozens cannot happen because one person wanders in who's distressed by it, or what?

The problem is not with having a debate; the problem is the sheer level of hostility present in this thread.

>>rbehre+(OP)
What if we replaced the word "hostility" with "frustration?" Hostility places blame, but I sense frustration all around by people who all think they're standing up for an important cause (and both sides are).

Also, to clarify, I don't think people in this thread are frustrated at/by women. There's no "hostility" there. You may be seeing frustration at a social-justice-movement that they think either A) goes too far or B) debates unfairly by making it "un-pc" to make certain points they consider important to the debate.

If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.

>>alexan+C8
> What if we replaced the word "hostility" with "frustration?"

I specifically meant hostility, not frustration; no need to beat about the bush. Frustration expresses itself differently. It's not about standing up for a cause, it's an attempt at aggressively controlling the debate.

> If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.

I had already stated that the problem is not with having the debate, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up again. The problem is with the form of the debate.