Not always the case. Sometimes it’s just a general frustration with another side’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue unless you agree with them 100%. I mean, when someone has said, “I’m offended, here’s why” and gotten a lot of “Well, here’s why it’s wrong that you’re offended.”

I mean, let’s break it down to this:

M: “I’m offended because the legal system is skewed to penalize good fathers and reward even bad mothers. A father can’t get custody just because he’s more fit as a parent, his ex-wife has to be deemed UNfit before he even has a chance, and most of the time he still doesn’t win.”

W: “Well, you shouldn’t be offended because a large percentage of divorced men probably aren’t interested in being full-time custodial parents, and because women are the primary caregivers most of the time, and because women in general are more suited to being primary caregivers, and that’s why the law is skewed.”

M: “You’re missing my point. The question isn’t what’s true most of the time in general. It’s what’s true all of the time in practice–even if a father wants custody, and he’s more fit than the mother, custody is awarded to the mother. Every single time.”

W: “Well, you shouldn’t be offended because you have male privilege and life is easy for you.”

M: “You’re missing my point. It’s not about privilege–even if men had it. Men not only have no privilege in divorce courts in the US–they don’t even have basic parental rights. My ex can not only get custody even if she’s a crackhead, she can deny me visitation and the courts do nothing because she’s a woman and I’m a man. Yet if I don’t pay child support so she can use it to buy her drugs, they put me in jail.”

W: “Well, you shouldn’t be offended because women’s lives are hard.”

M: “Well, here we go. Just goes to show you can’t argue with women, they have no logic. Bunch of midol junkies.”

I mean, if every person who resorts to insults is said to have no defensible case, well, no one would have one, right? Because even if most of the people engaged in a dialogue have defensible positions and reasoned arguments on both sides of an issue, there will be some on either side who resort to ad hominem attacks and insulting stereotypes. Does that mean everyone whose opinion coincides with those people don’t have a defensible case, or that they’re simply not articulate enough to defend their position, or that flinging insults is just more fun, or that they’re frustrated by the other side’s refusal to consider any viewpoint but their own?

It’s not always going to be that the case is indefensible.

I, for one, encourage discussion by all sides, as long as we can engage each other as adults.

But it’s so much easier to make with the insults!

Ironically, the insults are a clear way of knowing that the original point was correct and those who disagree can only do it through insults or “emotional logic” (I’m offended so you have to shut up!). No logical discussion by the opponent is a win for the team.

First we have to get people reading the material, and dry, academic stuff isn’t necessarily going to attract all that many readers. However, those that want to engage on a deeper level can easily find a lot of thoughtful material, and I, for one, encourage discussion by all sides, as long as we can engage each other as adults.

Ironically, your site makes the same mistake as the feminist blogs that I follow: arguments are made passionately, and the writer moves on. The environment of the website(s) are vitriolic and emotional and this leaves members of the Group B in that context discouraged to engage in dialog.

Are your goals a consistent, rational argument, strengthened over time through citable evidence that is more involved than anecdotal (that reminds me of this one time…) evidence? Occasionally I see a post listing stats, but the are interpreted by a lay reader and not the researchers that did the work.

Accusations of raaaaaaaaacism are like that, too.

Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie are laughing at you.

Did they write science fiction? If not, what is the relevance of this?