I went and read _Men and Women and Marriage_. It didn't strike me as a hate piece. It's the kind of thing that I could see some version of myself writing as an

I went and read _Men and Women and Marriage_. It didn't strike me as a hate piece. It's the kind of thing that I could see some version of myself writing as an angsty teenager with a Mormon upbringing that was extremely focused on gender roles. Multiple comments on this sub-thread have gone as far as accusing the author of "hate". The parent comment stops at "this sort of trash". I don't think that the authors of these comments would use those words if they heard this piece in person from the author, in an environment where they could question its more extreme assertions. Perhaps this person has themselves been through (or had a close friend go through) a bad divorce, and is simply venting under the guise of philosophical ramblings. It's totally natural to project your personal experience on the rest of the world in this way. It's something people have to be trained not to do. We seem to be in the habit of turning our ire all the way up as soon as somebody barely crosses some invisible threshold of harmful opinion. That habit makes us a lot less effective at communicating. If it weren't for the article title and excerpt, I would assume from some of the commentors that this person had written a piece calling for wives-as-property or genocide or something. There's just no way to tell if it's all "trash" and "hate". Isn't there such a thing as a poorly-written post with vaguely sexist undertones that _isn't_ an atrocity?