I don't really see a difference in tone between Frank's reply to you and several of your replies to me.

You also say but don't show that he doesn't see happily partnered women. To me, it looks like he responded to hostility with hostility, and that's about as deep as it went. No indications of any content-awareness at all.

Regardless, you might want to work on your mockery so it's not so over the top. The Brits have elevated mockery to an artform. Argumentative Penguin sometimes does brash mockery, but you'll find more sutble and deadly jabs in there too.

Flaming is a different thing and serves a different purpose.

As ChatGPT-3.5 says when analyzing your text for features of each, "In summary, the provided text combines elements of both flaming and mockery. It contains elements of flaming with its hostile language and attempts to belittle the target, but it also employs mockery through sarcasm and ridicule to emphasize what the author sees as a lack of understanding on the part of the target."

You elicited a response to the flames. ChatGPT-3.5 agrees! "In summary, the response leans towards flaming due to its confrontational and critical tone, along with the use of hostile language and an expressed sense of frustration with the article's content."

Mockery is harder to deflect than flaming; if you mix both, people hit the easy target.

On the off chance that people actually want to drive things in a productive direction, mockery is easier to turn than flaming, because it's less overtly antagonistic.

So, mockery FTW.