Why aren't more people, men especially, shocked and outraged

[sibelian]

114. That's certainly not an unreasonable question.

Unpacking my own thoughts, I guess I would say that it's simpler, and the habit of the Internet, to respond to the "plain English" reading of a statement rather than delve more deeply into it. The subject of a statement is usually the focus of its response, and the subject of Hume's criticism is women, whereas that of Witchwind is men. One can certainly draw the inference from Hume's statement that he has stupid ideas about men, whereas Witchwind openly despises them.

From the examples you used to ask your question, I think it's pretty obvious that there is also a rather pronounced difference in the degree to which each individual has expressed their gendered bias, Hume thinks women have exerted some kind of nebulous, influence over what he considers a "normal" social process which has resulted in his feeling unable to say things, whereas the redfem blogger is far more specific and refers to well-understood biological processes as if they are articles of political oppression and depends on an understanding of men as fundamentally unwholesome.