To be fair, you both contributed to the frogmarching along to the building. It isn't that you didn't have valid points it's that the tone of your discussion didn't lead to anything fruitful - it was a bad faith discussion from the get-go, both of you attempted to win and so neither of you did. That's pretty much how the internet works.

And yes, to some extent you're right - I do give more ground to people I disagree with than those who already share my position. That isn't romance, that's a logical conclusion based on the state of discourse. Far too many people on this platform write exclusively for people who already agree with them. There are echo chambers which lead people to believe they have an exclusive monopoly on morality.

As a result of nearly two years of mutual respect about our differing opinions, SC and I have managed to have many fruitful discussions about why we think the things we do. So yes, I agree with you - it is a full blown protection issue, I think if we allow misandrists to solely raise boys then we have an issue that needs addressing, but it's one we have to address through conversation.

So when I spoke to SC, she clarified for me that she doesn't hate men. She was putting the misandrist position into words for the author - and she was at work and under time constraints. She feels hated by men - and she has now unpacked that a little more for me in an article here. https://medium.com/p/65df2663ddf5

It may be worth considering why women think men hate them when references like 'Chris Browning in the comments section' are used. It isn't equivocation and appeasement, rather good faith debate and being reasonable.