It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.

> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.

That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.

You extrapolate a lot.

> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.

I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically men.

> She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.

The "pre" in prejudice means something.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice

prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.

I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).

> I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. [...]

And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?

> Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.

You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa.
I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".

> So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?

The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.

> The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.

Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.