There is a huge spectrum of people. Diplomatic, blunt, passionate, reserved. In fact we all have the capacity to be any of them at any given moment. Just to confuse matters the blunt person can have a really good point and someone appearing to be diplomatic can be spouting nonsense.
This whole discussion to me boils down to frustration. The status quo is massively frustrating both for women, and those men who support them. Although without question it's worse for women. I interpret the nam response as basically minimising that frustration. When in actual fact the frustration itself, coming from so many women should be evidence enough that things need to change.
Facts are touted and debates are had, but little is made of the fundamental emotional reality. In clinical "intellectual" discussions it is all too easy for the passionate, angry and frustrated to be goaded and the criticised for "harshness".
I will start a thread on it to stop banging on about here, but arguments for the slave trade were framed that when slaves rebelled they were often violent therefore they were barbaric and needed civilised supervision of the white man. I see a parallel here that the genuine emotional reaction is used as a stick to beat women with.
Actually we should call the frustration and harshness exactly what it is. An honest human reaction. We shouldn't be minimising it or trying to make it palatable it needs to be taken an proof that things are deeply deeply wrong.