Thanks for the conciliatory tone, Sherry. Like I say, I’m not one of the bad guys, and while I’m sure I do have blind-spots, the purpose of this essay was actually an attempt to shed some of them.

You’ll forgive me if the only way I can explain that assertion is by going back to your observation that I might have treated male and female commenters differently. Honestly, I find it intriguing that anyone, whether you or these other men you mention, could sit and read through the various responses, and derive from them the idea that I have replied differently based on gender. Seriously, if you’ve the time and the inclination, sit and read through every single one of them again, as I’ve just done. I issued one terse rebuttal — to a man — and was quite blunt with Jordan Bray, though nowhere near as antagonistic as she was to me. I responded to an equal number of male and female responders, and complimented both men and women when I thought their comments showed especial perspicacity. It’s just bizarre that anyone could look at that list of interactions and interpret a gender bias, and I think it says so much about the blind-spots and chips-on-shoulders that we, as liberals, carry with us that you and others should have done so.

This is exactly the sort of thing that I was driving at in my essay. Contrary to appearances, I’m not especially bothered by the erroneous presumption, and I don’t generally have any problem with people punching up (we white men have held all the cards for long enough). I only labour the point because it demonstrates the kind of reflexive judgemental sanctimony that turns people off progressive politics. THE EYE-ROLL , Sherry— it happened, right then, when I read the jibe.

I get why you don’t want to hear it. The world is burning. I said as much myself here, here and here. I just look at the potential end-games if we keep up with the current tub-thumping, point-scoring discourse, and I don’t like what I see. All the best to you, Henry