I think a lot of it is just internet dynamics. There is something very distinctive about discourse within a written community.
In an oral conversation, there are lots and lots of nuances that aid a mutual acceptance of the fact that each of our utterances is only an approximation of what we think, and that our statements will evolve as we refine our ability to communicate the ideas that we have (as well as evolving in response to the contributions of others in the conversation). So we aren't routinely and relentlessly held to account for our former, superceded contributions.
In a written community, what we lose in nuance we "gain" in the existence of a complete written record of all of our superceded conversations. So we feel kind of shackled to these: we feel held to account for them, we feel defensive in relation to them, we feel the temptation to exploit others' earlier poor approximations to the spirit of what they were trying to convey.
And then discourse becomes exegesis. It is no longer about the subject matter directly, it is instead about the texts that constitute the body of ossified former thought. In this respect the internet is weirdly like, say, medieval scholasticism: we circle around former writings that become obsessed over like sacred texts just in virtue of never disappearing from view.
So, much more to do with a general pathology of internet convo than with feminism as such.