I was giving my personal experience as a woman of 63 who had lived in a specific place (the Northeast with a short happy bump to the South) and whose parish experiences were the above. Again, I said I’m sure other people based on where they lived, their ages, other demographics etc had different experiences.
In my neck of the woods the main anti-thrust has been from people who love the OF (and I also love the OF just as I love the EF, both being valid rites) but who, unlike me, really have a loud, condemnatory and vocal animus against the EF. Again, that’s my experience, not made to make EF lovers look ‘good’ and OF lovers look ‘bad’, but simply my experience.
As far as people go, I’ve read Infiltration, liked some of it, had concerns with some of it; a mixed bag. I like Peter Kwasniewski and Father Z and Anthony Esolen and REALLY like Cardinal Sarah, but I also enjoy Thomas Merton even when I get a little confused (he’s very nuanced IMO) and C.S. Lewis. I like a lot of older devotions like the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, but I also like the Liturgy of the Hours which is ‘newer’. I don’t think of bloggers or writers as being ‘traditional’ or ‘progressive’ because I don’t like to label people. A person can write absolutely winning thoughts on some aspect of the Faith (like Origen did) and then be totally, totally wrong on others (like Origen was) so claiming that he was either a perfect saint or a perfect heretic based on a given work doesn’t give a clear picture because he was NEITHER of the above. He was a man who got some things right and others wrong. The ‘label’ I give is 'man" not ‘saint’ and not ‘heretic’. That’s why I don’t label people today as ‘traditional’ or ‘progressive’, because they most probably are not EITHER; they are people with traditional views on some things and not-traditional on others. People, not labels.