That complaining about it is pushing back. And you whine about it right now.
The "not standing up for themselves" is in the actual situation, against the actual person they need to stand up against.
The "complaining afterward" is after the situation has passed, and complaining to a completely different person not involved in the original interaction.
That is the exact opposite of "standing up for yourself", and it is also not "pushing back", because in order for it to be a push "back", it has to be a push against the original force, not against some random other person.
If I got berated by my boss, which I just let happen, and then reacted by, a while later, berating you, a completely uninvolved third party, would you consider that "standing up for myself" and "pushing back"?
It exactly means standing up, well, for yourself, and not relying on or waiting for others.
Stand up thing worked great in this story. I trust you that your relative could suceed in standing up instead of being treated as crazy bad women. A lot of it is residuum from old times when gender roles were different and some of both genders keep going old way.
Her existence does not excuse dudes who attempt to dominate women more them men. I did won those fights in the past, but the older I am the less I care about whether it was intentional or subconscious. It affects me all the same.
That is why stories like this are good to hear about - it is good role model for women lime your relative - to see that she can stop the dude, not to consider his interest and win.
Maybe you could show her the story to make her inspired for that.
This stereotype doesn't come from nowhere.
I found a video of this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo
This "push to Hubeny's field of expertise" seems to start at 1:02:00, "let her speak" is at 1:05:35.
The OP's account is overdramatized and sometimes plain wrong, like the suggestion that Holt didn't let Hubeny speak at all for these three minutes (she had two long blocks) or that there was a dead silence after the OP spoke up (there wasn't). And that's a part of the problem: feminism is routinely being represented by individuals whose subjective perception of events seems to diverge from what others see. FWIW.
It fundamentally includes "in the face of adversity". And that means that you do it well knowing that there can and likely will be negative consequences. If you only do it under a guarantee of no repercussions, then you're not standing up...for anything, really.
If women have to learn to stand up for themselves as you imply they should, they need to find a way to hurt people who treat them the way they don't like.
Yeah, that must be why blacks got lynched in the Deep South. They just couldn't be bothered to stand up for themselves when the KKK came for them.
/s
This comparison is ridiculous beyond the pale. Show me evidence of women getting lynched for speaking up.
I already said above that I was rate limited. I believe this was essentially because when I first joined, I would get dog piled simply for being a woman opening her mouth here. You ignore that and accuse me of misbehaving as the reason I was concerned that I might wind up banned, no matter how hard I tried to behave. Thankfully, I no longer worry about that like I once did.
Or women, in general, just don't want the bother.
> giving the guys push back
Excellent. Too many women don't, in my experience. In my personal experience, I find women not standing up for themselves in the situation at hand, and then complaining about it for ages after.
> highly likely to get me banned, no matter how reasonable I am about it.
That seems unlikely. If you are getting banned, maybe you're not being reasonable about it?
> If you do, you can be actively punished for it.
This is not a women-only issue. Men get "punished" just as much for unpopular opinions. Just like they get talked over if they let themselves be talked over. etc.