Women can protest their subjugation as long as they aren’t insufferable about it.

They can regardless, but the fact is that being irritating for no reason is objectively counter-productive toward the cause. Also, there is a distinction to be made between being disruptive, and being insufferable; I use the latter word only to describe counter-productive disruption/aggression.

As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.

They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, with equivalent effort, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.

Is B doing a better job overall of furthering the cause than A, in your opinion?

One could consider workers conducting a sit-in at a workplace treating them unfairly, for example, to be very disruptive. But they're not being insufferable, because they're being disruptive where, and to whom, it matters, re serving their cause.

I'm sure you're fully prepared to interpret this comment as negatively as you can muster, but for others reading this, I hope this makes it very clear exactly what I'm saying, which is obviously not the sentiment Velma is characterizing me as having.