Did you even understand that sentence? Let me clear it up.

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"?

They don't stand up for themselves because they are often outnumbered and/or outmuscled and habitually don't believe that we have their back, for various reasons.

You understand the meaning of "for yourself", right?

It exactly means standing up, well, for yourself, and not relying on or waiting for others.

If you stand up and get punished and ostracised/mocked as a result then standing up did you no good. You will learn not to do it.

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.

> crazy bad women

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.

Exactly. And when that is pointed out, they chalk it up to "oppression", like any other kind of criticism. Nice little self-reinformcent mechanism that easily leads to completely decoupling yourself from reality.

You don't appear to understand the concept of "standing up for yourself".

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.

Everybody knows what it means, but there are people who are too scared to try. Nobody should really have "a guarantee of no repercussions" when throwing accusations around but at the same time there exist people who could use more support to deal with situations when bad things are happening to them.

Nope it does not. Standing for yourself in those situation is about hurting opponent so that he does not try again. That is what men actually do - they are surely as hell less likely to stand up to the boss - such behavior is quite rare. If you succeed, you successfully stood for yourself regardless of whether there were risks or not. It is also a lot about acting aggressive before there was the actual need, to prevent the situation from even happening.

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.