<i>The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don&#x27;t like to fight. Which means if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices will be silenced.</i><p>It&#x27;s my impression (primarily from lurking) that the more nuanced, observant conversation tends to take place in less publicized fora, which while not exactly closed are at least so little publicized that they are not &quot;public&quot;. Sometimes this is termed a &quot;safe space&quot;, sometimes the essential characteristics are arranged without calling it that. Anyway the conversations are very much &quot;here&#x27;s my impression; it&#x27;s different than yours but we can agree on at least these things&quot; and &quot;I&#x27;m sorry but that is just so far out of bounds that we&#x27;ll have to part ways and not try to work this out&quot;. There&#x27;s a conversation, but not a debate.<p>Maybe some would lament the &quot;filter bubble&quot; aspect of such an arrangement, because after all everyone should prefer to debate each point to death, but in fact not everyone does prefer that. (Of course, I do, but I&#x27;m slowly learning not to assume everyone else is like me.) It&#x27;s tempting to put this all on &quot;the feminists&quot;, but that is selling ourselves short. We can all listen without speaking, long enough to realize that feminism is not monolithic and that many feminists are aware of women like Livingston. The ignorance of the media and the Twitterati is a property of them, not of all of feminism. (Of course much of feminism is, for want of a better word, &quot;masculine&quot; in the sense of wanting to dialogue each point until we have a party line for everyone to toe, but much of feminism is not that.)