Okay, now I understand what you mean, thanks. That did not occur to me at first. I think part of why was that /u/kickme444's departure was not well-publicized until after /u/chooter's, so it seems natural that the response was more muted. But more fundamentally, I'm not looking for sexism for the sake of looking for sexism: I'm looking for plausible causes of why one person was on the receiving end of way more obviously awful behavior than another, and how we can minimize the vitriol that anyone gets. If sexism is a plausible cause, and calling it what it is helps to eliminate it, then let's do that.

Kindness does not cancel out or excuse vitriol. If women get more kindness and also more vitriol online, getting less vitriol to women is still important; I am not concerned about some sum between positive behavior and negative behavior.

Let's say that the Star-Belly Sneetches either get rich beyond their wildest dreams or find themselves starving and begging on the streets. The Plain-Belly Sneetches don't tend to do better than middle class, but they don't do worse, either. To me, there is a single obvious injustice here worth our immediate efforts. If we make sure that Star-Bellied Sneetches have a place to live and food to eat, and if they still get super rich sometimes (i.e., there wasn't an underlying economic problem that advantaged some at the cost of others), then we can look at why that is and why the Plain-Belly Sneetches don't. But worrying about the Plain-Belly Sneetches first is misplaced, and it's clearly not the case that there's some net equality between the two groups because their average wealth is the same.