Count me as one of the unhealthily sympathetic. That said, different people and/or cultures have more or less tolerance for argument. One person's 'spirited debate' can be another's 'flamewar'.
Now, preface my following comments with the fact that I don't have data to back them up, so really you can take or leave what I'm about to say--if it resonates, then maybe I'm on to something--if it doesn't, then maybe I'm just projecting.
What I've noticed is a pattern that a dispassionate article about the plight of women in the tech industry will survive, but an article by a woman who is actively angry about being harassed will get a large number of angry, devaluing comments and will disappear very quickly.
On a positive note, this reflects a culture that values a level of scientific detachment, and also a recognition of the fact that Internet arguments can get very circular and ugly and can ultimately destroy an online community if left unchecked.
The problem is that this pattern also belies a cultural devaluation of the role of anger in combating trauma. Where trauma exists, anger will exist. Angry people are not always fair and balanced--in fact the state of the emotion actively undermines such a thing. Anger and scientific detachment are quite antithetical, because an angry person is very much inside of the thing they're supposed to be detached about--and it's hurting them.
So when a woman who is traumatized writes an article out of anger, there is inherent value in that, even if the anger behind the article makes it one-sided, because in the end that person is (bravely, in the face of the inevitable harassment that will come of it) bearing witness to what is (in my own experience) a major problem in the industry, a problem that is not only hurting people but limiting the talent pool significantly.