>perhaps it's a good idea to consider the possibility that they may be right That's fine, but why can't the other side consider that they may be wrong? The re

>perhaps it's a good idea to consider the possibility that they may be right That's fine, but why can't the other side consider that they may be wrong? The reason is actually simple: on the whole, the brand of feminism we're exposed to on the internet (that is, the west-coast, SanFran variety), is a very specific branch that vehemently opposes notions of essentialism. That is, their a priori hypothesis is that men and women are exactly alike, but are shaped from birth by social conditioning. As such, any observed discrepancy between men and women must necessarily be the result of sexism and mysoginy. I don't deny the existence of social conditioning, nor it's problematic effects, but anti-essentialism is a political and sociological stance, not an empirical one. I know your position comes from an honest desire to be compassionate and progressive, but it's entirely missing the point of those who are tired of the relentless proselytizing. It's not about sour grapes; it's about the fact that this recent wave of political correctness is laden with highly political social theory, and is lowering the level of discourse. I'm sure you're a great person (really!), but your appeal to emotion is ultimately favoring a cause with which you (hopefully) don't agree.