And your conclusion is that if a man did the same (copying a woman's style of talking to other women, and going around introducing himself to (mostly) women attendees), the outcome would be different? If not, it's not really a case of male privilege.

Her conclusion is that when she follows the standard advice to get out there and talk to people, the men she talks to think that she's flirting with them. Whereas when you or I talk to men, they very rarely think we're flirting with them.

A subtext that you may have missed is that it's very awkward and uncomfortable to have only one party to a conversation think that the conversation is sexually charged, and the possibility of that happening is a disincentive to circulating and socializing.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward observation, but hopefully my summary helps you. Translating basic human experience to nerd-ese --- all part of the service we provide!

I don't like your tone. I think I got all of the subtext.

However, my argument was that if the situations were reversed, the outcome would be exactly the same. Go to a place where there are predominantly women (any dance class or even a Yoga class, feminist conference), and if you and I would try to "talk to them like we talk to men", many of them would assume that we're flirting with them. Or do my observations not concur with yours?

First, I think you're wrong. My wife does roller derby. I have gone to roller derby events with her. What do you think the male/female ratio is there? How many women there thought I was flirting with them? Zero.

Second, I think your response deliberately discards context. If socializing at "dance class" made women think I was flirting with them, and I was thus disincentivized from going to dance class, I'd... what, be a poorer dancer? Britta's story is about a career problem, not a "not fitting into dance class" problem.

Finally, I think your response totally misses the point. You do not win any kind of rhetorical award for coming up with some kind of table-turning scenario about "feminist conferences", because those scenarios don't have anything whatsoever to do with Britta's experience. She wasn't trying to score points. She was explaining why a piece of standard advice given to people about making connections in their profession is difficult for women.

Yes! Thanks.

Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.

Can you say what the adjustment was?

For one, I talk less to people I don't know; the potential for awkwardness changes the risk/reward calculation.

I am also more serious when I'm talking to people I don't know - less smiling, more matter-of-fact, cool instead of warm. This is artificial for me since I'm generally friendly, but apparently it's less confusing.

I spend a lot more time reading the situation to get a better feel for how people are likely to respond, including whether people at the conference/event are likely to already have a reasonable amount of experience working/talking with women as peers.

Or I find ways to meet new people while I'm with other people, such as joining groups that have positioned themselves to be open to others joining in. Or convincing friends - or people I've just met - to tag along with me to meet other people.