When someone says they believe in equality, why do you then say they have an issue with women?
That's simply exercising a choice in what sort of conversation is worth your time.
Sentence 2 is again speaking specifically about "women in tech" event, not about talking about the subject.
Sentence 3, is admittedly a defeatist attitude. However if there is nothing we can do about it, then why should we waste our time talking about it. In this case it is more of, if the people who are heavilly invested in this have not come up with something we can do about it yet, why should I waste my time unless I want to be a major activist. And, based on point 1, the movement is already hostile to what I have to say, so forget about it.
Admitadly, I am probably projecting my own thoughts on sentence 3.
This doesn't make sense. Most movements that are composed of many different groups with different interests never reach a status quo. Mass movements are rare and usually are not as mass as they are made out to be. Acting like feminism is a monolith and that all feminists act or think a certain way is one of the most common stereotype out there.
That being said, the largest factions don't exactly cover all sides of an issue, to put it mildly, so the existence of factions doesn't make anything better.
For example, the argument over transsexuals (mentioned by @rmc) has two main factions within modern western feminism:
1. "Transsexual women aren't real women; they're just men who are co-opting the brutal oppression real western women face, drowning out real women's voices."
2. "If you feel that you are a woman, then you are a woman. You do not need to present yourself as a woman, you do not need to be a woman every day, and you do not need to chose between being a man and being a woman at any given moment—you can be both. Anyone who questions your womanhood is a misogynist, because they are oppressively forcing their definition of womanhood onto a woman."
Would it be ok if we could discuss this without the profanity?