This misses the point, and makes a lot of assumptions about what happened as "power dynamics" which are unwarranted. I would not have faulted Hubeny herself for

This misses the point, and makes a lot of assumptions about what happened as "power dynamics" which are unwarranted. I would not have faulted Hubeny herself for chastising Holt, because he was a bad moderator and obviously treating her unfairly. This is about the fact that Hubeny herself did not think his offense merited that, and that Talkington decided on her own in the moment that she was so righteously justified to take upon herself to disrupt the event in a way Hubeny neither asked for, nor in her reply conveyed that she was personally thankful for after the fact on behalf of herself of women in science. If civility is really such a barrier to equality (or whoever perceives it so), why not take this to its logical conclusion as Femen has? Or if it can be conceded that a more nuanced approach is better, why assume the worst of the offender with direct social attack, if you're willing to admit already that the behavior might be subconscious and indirect?