I'll probably get shit for saying it but I think that movement has coincided with colleges push to bring in more women.

Not that there aren't very smart extremely capable women that need to be in academics. There are, but I think that when you bring in a large influx of women into what has been developed as a traditionally male institution you get a lot of the "women's study major" stereotype. Where they take things personally or very emotionally as for what's supposed to be a dispassionate academic discussion.

I think when it comes to women's issue specifically it very much difficult for the average person and especially the average woman to have a dispassionate logical discussion about horrible things like rape genocide etc. But unless we can play devils advocate and discuss ideas that are frankly offensive to the general public we can't really learn about what makes the world tick.

Like if we were to do a statistical analysis of the outcomes of kids that were adopted and compare them against kids that were not we might find that kids that are adopted are less likely to be successful in life and some very emotional undergrad or the general public may well interpret that as "adoption is bad" or "adopted kids are inferior" which is far from the truth. The emotional reality of it is of course that adoption is a good thing, and that ideally the adopted kid is exactly the same as a genetically related child, that's the ceremonial purpose of adoption to erase such a distinction. But reality doesn't exactly follow the ideal and any number of complication can occur that are worthy of study and understanding, but that doesn't indicate the underlying condition itself is bad.