Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

>> Actually, as a matter of fact, it isn't my problem.

>> The problem is obviously slave owners, who will rationalize their behavior as they continue to oppress you

> I'm glad we're on the same page here.

One of the above quotes refers to modern times, the other refers to a time when some people owned other people. Don't even think about trying to equate the two.

Women have the freedoms they fought for. They won the good fight for the best of reasons -- their cause was just. Now they have to accept the fact that any remaining problems are of their own making.

I've never heard it described in those terms. It seems to crop up fairly frequently in areas such as feminism, "social justice", or atheism - topics which are frequently discussed online, which have vocal opponents that repeat certain arguments, and where the opponents tend to use certain rhetorical techniques in arguing.

See, for example, "Derailing for Dummies": http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

As well as a counterargument: https://feministrag.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/derailing-for-d...

"Railing" is necessarily context dependent. Using this particular article as an example, the "agenda" is women's issues in the tech industry in the USA (and, presumably, other developed countries). I suspect it would be interpreted as derailing, for example, to remark that women in the USA are (speaking in a worldwide context) relatively very privileged over many people in the third world, both men and women.

Ultimately, a conversation requires two parties. If someone is speaking over you and doesn't want to hear what you have to say because of their agenda, or their anger, or whatever, that's not a conversation, it's a lecture. They might be speaking on an important topic, or transmitting important information, but no one should pretend it's a dialogue.

If it's twitter, or blogs, or similar, you might as well just withdraw. In fact, you see people do this all the time - back away from conversations when they realize that the other party does not consider it a dialogue but only a means for them to transmit their own 'perfect' opinions to other people.

Woman: "Tone policing is destroying communication"

Hacker News: "Don't you dare use that tone with us!"

Honestly, it seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. Although you might think the author is being maximalist, you don't need to respond in kind. I realize you said you aren't and that you're being sincere, but it's hard to reconcile how those were the points you took from the article with a sincere desire to understand what the author wrote.

In fact, to quote the author: "They bring nothing to the table except ... self-involved demands for “education”, endless derailing techniques paraded as “logic”, [and ] disingenuous bewilderment."

I'll take you at your word, though.

> I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words....."I don’t know much about this, but"

I think if there were one thing the author never wants to hear again, it's something like "There there, I know you're upset, but let me educate you on just how wrong you are." That conveys the quality of it, at least.

> - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?)

Personally, my main qualm with the phrase "white male establishment" is how cliché it is. Here are some lighthearted reflections on what the author was talking about, as I understand it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8
    http://bit.ly/JZJYMv

> - do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer)

No, her point was that Sandberg and Mayer are exceptions and shouldn't be used as a counterexample to statements like, "In technology it is more difficult for a woman to become a member of executive management than a man." This has the same flavor as folks arguing that racism in the United States is a thing of the past because we elected a black President.

I'm sure the author would love folks to talk about the everyday experience of women in IT -- which is to say their experience, not your picture of their experience.

> - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me

Yeah, man up. Don't take it personally. Maybe instead of getting defensive, ask, "Have I ever done anything to make you feel like that or disempower you? Please let me know in private if I ever do or anyone else working here does. I don't want to make you feel that way, I don't want to implicitly model that behavior in front of other people, and I don't want other people to feel they have the license to do it."

When feminists talk about "allies" they mean folks who both say and inhabit this sort of thing.

The underground railroad was composed of compassionate white people forming a network of hospitality and discretion. Both suffrage movements would have been for naught without the vote and voice of white males. You might think that things are different, but institutional oppression is plain and simply impossible for the oppressed group to overcome without either (1) revolution, or (2) allies among the privileged.

And really, it's the little things that count; it's not much more effort to be part of the solution that it is to disparage those that perceive the problem.