If you want a decent dialog you need to practice decent dialog yourself. That begins with dropping weaponized generalities like "feminist outrage" and "Women of the West have succeeded in perpetually shaming men" (edit: and, of course, the same the other way around).
Every side in divisive arguments lobs such weapons at each other. We all know exactly what those leads to on the internet: more of the same, only worse. We don't want that kind of war on HN. We want thoughtful discussion, which means dropping preconceived formulations and really engaging with each other.
I don't think your censorship and invoking the site's authority to shut down conversations because you don't agree contributes to thoughtful discussion.
They're really not. What's true are the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way. But retrofitting that into a social theory with a grab-bag of data points doesn't yield truth. It's just a form of intellectual armor so you can make aggressive claims without being vulnerable where it hurts.
If you gear up with that armor and then charge into HN threads and throw your weight around, that's not dialog, that's battle. It'll get angry disagreement from those who don't align with you and angry agreement from those who do, but what we won't get is thoughtful discussion. That's a problem for two reasons: (1) it's predictable and therefore boring—the true sin on HN; (2) it produces more of itself and destroys everything else. Flames are a good metaphor for this, so the term flame+war is about perfect for it.
Facts are data points. There are infinitely many, and they don't select themselves. Humans do that. You could as easily construct an opposite generality by picking different facts.
The energy behind comments like this isn't intellectual curiosity. It's pain left over from painful experiences. That's important, maybe more important than intellectual curiosity. Almost certainly more important. But we don't get anywhere when we argue about this through the armor of ideological categories, because that's not really what it's about. All that happens is that those with similar pain line up on one side and those with opposite pain line up on the other, each seeing the other as the culprit. What dialog is possible then? None.
So anyone with a painful experience is not allowed to participate in discussion? Are you going to ban rape victims from working to improve handling for rape cases next? You aren't even approaching these people from a neutral position and evaluating their data honestly, so if anyone should be disqualified from commenting, I think it is you at this point.
Those generalities are true. We just often don't have the statistics to prove them. It's either because the research isn't funded, either because it is undercommunicated (journalists extract the one sentence that is profitable to women and so on), either they're entirely banned (ever tried advertising on Twitter for a male cause? Yes, it's banned, "sensitive topics" can't be advertised whereas feminism can), or either because such researchers would be afraid to nail the coffin on their career.
Research on male problems needs equal funding to women, throughout the world.
Every side in divisive arguments lobs such weapons at each other. We all know exactly what those leads to on the internet: more of the same, only worse. We don't want that kind of war on HN. We want thoughtful discussion, which means dropping preconceived formulations and really engaging with each other.
Also, please don't do the preemptive downvote announcement thing. It's tedious, it's embarrassing, and it breaks the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13796919 and marked it off-topic.