>In this article you were actually all nice and I read right to the bottom. I certainly do find it a lot easier to listen to and agree with people that aren't s

>In this article you were actually all nice and I read right to the bottom. I certainly do find it a lot easier to listen to and agree with people that aren't spilling hatred at me. I never want to feel like I'm giving time to somebody trying to extract some psychological harm as revenge on my gender - whether or not they have a reason to be angry with the status quo, the target market often doesn't last long enough to receive your message. This is true, yet such a delicate matter. Allow me to digress from the primary issue at hand to share an anecdote. When I first read about the "check your privilege" controversy at my alma mater [1], my reaction was "we definitely have acute class issues, but by opening in such a confrontational way, we're taking away any possibility of having a constructive dialogue." Delivery so profoundly affects how we respond to the raising of an issue, and can be the difference between an instinctive defensiveness or a considered opening of the psychological gates. The letter to the editor to the NYT piece puts it well: "Most disturbing about the “check your privilege” comment to people making arguments at Princeton University is its utility in changing the subject away from their ideas, conservative or liberal. This kind of dismissive labeling needs to be called out for the ad hominem attack that it is. Recognizing it for what it is could undermine what it does, which is to sabotage debate." It's a delicate line to walk -- being assertive and resolute, yet communicating understanding and cooperation. But if our goal is actual, gradual change for the better, rather than simply feeling good about ourselves for putting someone down or taking the pulpit for ourselves, then I feel that the means we choose must not fail to encourage our intended audience from lending us their ear. It is so hard though, since each person's interpretation of language differs in so many subtle ways. We can see it in this very thread, where the same given post is interpreted in a wide range of intent. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/nyregion/at-princeton-privilege-is-a-commonplace-b-misunderstood-or-c-frowned-upon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/nyregion/at-princeton-priv... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/a-hot-topic-at-princeton-check-your-privilege.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/a-hot-topic-at-pri...