My friend E grew up in Europe, but went to a large American university for grad school. She carefully observed the other grad students, to learn how students are supposed to behave in America. E taught herself to behave like the other grad students in her field, all of whom were male.
The consequence was that some of the faculty and staff told her that she was too aggressive and too difficult.
According to E, her thesis advisor told her that because she was "diminutive", he thought she would be feminine and compliant. He told her that he was disappointed that she was so assertive, and that her behavior was unbecoming.
E managed to get a PhD. But her relationship with her advisor was so strained that she never asked him to write a letter of recommendation for her, which hurt her on the job market.
Meanwhile, the male classmates whose behavior she copied were praised for their ambition, drive, and determination. E was punished for behavior for which her male classmates were rewarded.
We're told we're "difficult" or "adhere to views too strongly." Or we're "not a good colleague" or "not a team player." Or we "should smile more." I've been told each of these. It confused me, since when my male colleagues behaved the same way, they were rewarded for having "grit", or being ambitious (which is sometimes said sneeringly as an insult when applied to women).
Peter Pan was the boy who refused to grow up, and Wendy was the little girl who both mothered him and flirted with him. After watching the interactions at UC Irvine, it seemed to me as if too many of the male faculty and administrators want the women to behave like Wendy to their Peter Pan. Sometimes, I'm taken aback by the anger towards women who don't flirt. Through positive and negative feedback, female faculty and staff are being trained to be Wendy. When we're sufficiently obsequious and ingratiating, we're less likely to be punished, though we're not necessarily rewarded.