For those of you who mock benevolent sexism..

[Kurovski]

60. There are so many people who read these arguments and just stay out of it,

but it might be that they actually see both sides of the equation, and as casual observers also see where the personal animosity colors the discussion. And it really does.

It's like tag-team wrestling, where we all try to engage those outside the ring to jump in. Wrestling someone to the ground accomplishes a sense of victory in sport, but doesn't do well in communicating a message, or to get someone to actually take in the info and apply it appropriately.

Even when someone is perceived to be literally trolling in every nook and cranny, why not highlight the cranny that has actual sharp corners and acknowledge it? I think it gives a person a better position from which to disagree with on the less persuasive matters.

So to be effective against sexism, say, in issues and attitudes regarding rape, we are free to shift the focus onto what we believe to be the stronger point of view, and convince others to join in to that discussion, rather than delivering the smack-down of a messenger whose focus may (even unintentionally) be closer to getting a wayward rise out of someone rather than communicating new information, or a different point of view for one to examine--you can shift it anytime and bring the focus to some point of agreement.

I think a person can be affective against anything that is a real problem, no matter what the style of communication because, like I say upwind, I think most sincere people make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to info. And you know--this does sound obvious, but it is important that we not merely reject all information out-of-hand, even when it comes from people that we may actively--and very personally--dislike.