Women are called “too sensitive” by men because men don’t want to admit that their horrific behavior towards women causes women to be more often unhappy and irritable.
Men know this is true. It’s not a question of “teaching” them, or of men simply having a different viewpoint and “not realizing” they are saying something untrue. It’s done totally on purpose by men, for the benefit of men. It is because men do not want to take responsibility for hurting women.
The whole schtick about women’s periods making them irrational was invented only as an excuse to shut women up when there is no logical reason to prove them wrong. (Oftentimes, it is a complete mystery as to why the man disagrees with the woman in the first place, regardless of what excuse he makes to “prove” her wrong). Even if some women have problems with PMS, it still doesn’t prove that all women do, nor does it prove that this is the only thing that can possibly upset them.
It still doesn’t excuse you from asking the person why they are upset, and certainly doesn’t mean you can pretend they are upset from PMS when you definitely do know the reason you have upset them, which is usually something you have done to them yourself, out of meanness.
It’s no different than when they said Negroes were always hysterical. They knew it wasn’t true. They just didn’t want to admit that they had some hand in making the person upset and in ruining the person’s life. It’s not a matter of “oh, whites/men/etc just need to be educated…” They are doing it on purpose. They can’t not realize what is upsetting a woman/black person if it would upset them too. It’s not something they can possibly ignore even if they tried. It’s physically impossible. You can’t make something up on the spot that you never believed before without realizing yuor’e doing it.
You also can’t go from knowing 100% of people hate something to magically thinking that only some of them hate it. And that doesn’t explain why you would magically think any one specific group of people hated it with absolutely no prompting whatsoever. No man just happens to start thinking “Gee, only women hate [bad thing],” for no reason if he’s never thought that before, especially not COINCIDENTALLY five seconds after he chooses to do [bad thing] to a woman. (what’s the likelihood he would start believing it just then?) He’s OBVIOUSLY just trying to pretend it only bothers women for the same reason bullies pretend only kids are bothered by their behavior- to make it look like the victim is over sensitive.
It’s a lie. Not a “mistake”. Not an “accident”. A lie. You can’t lie by accident, and you can’t subconsciously, accidentally begin believing something that you never have before, unless you had some kind of external prompting. It was done on purpose. Things don’t just pop into the mind like that, especially not at such a coincidental time.
99.9% of the time- possibly 100% of the time- when a man claims a woman is being “womanly” or “hysterical”, he has seen what has caused her to be upset and knows full well that men would be upset by this as well- i.e., that is it not something that would upset people only of one gender; that it is not a gender issue.
However, since he hates women, he decides to make it a gender issue. He decides to tell her she’s acting “womanly” or to say that “girls are always crying”, not because he didn’t know that the thing doesn’t only upset women, but because he doesn’t care.
It’s not that men don’t know that women will be upset by the things they do, it’s that they don’t care.
After all, most of the things men accuse women of being “feminine” for disliking, are things which they would dislike themselves, and which they never considered to be things which women in specific disliked up until the moment they chose to do it to a woman.
For example, Man A decides to interrupt Jessica. Man A already knows ALL people don’t like being interrupted, and he has never heard of not liking being interrupted being a gender issue before. Yet, when he says to Jessica, “Gee, I guess women don’t like being interrupted,” we’re all supposed to believe he suddenly started associating it with gender. Even though it’s quite clear he is just pretending it’s a gender issue in order to:
A: pretend it’s something only women dislike (so he can pretend he wouldn’t dislike it himself, and that therefore he didn’t realize she wouldn’t like it)
B: pretend the person who was the victim of his behavior is only upset because they are uber-sensitive, not because what he did was wrong
C: turn the situation into a gender argument, because he knows he will be able to count on any men nearby to support him- even if they know full well it isn’t a gender question
This is because when he makes a comment about gender, the other men take it as a cue-word, a cue-word meaning “support me, the male, no matter what, even if it means gaslighting and lying to his victim/s)”. The men nearby hear him talk about gender, and they immediately offer opposition to the female, even if they were listening to the whole argument and know that she wasn’t doing anything feminine OR doing anything wrong, and that he is only pretending the issue is about gender to get their support and make it easier to push his opponent down.
The female or other victim is then confused because when she sees them all turn their support towards him, and claim he is in the right, she cannot figure out why, and is left wondering why they would support him. She wonders if she is missing something, if they all see something she doesn’t see- something proving her wrong. She desperately tries to figure out what this proof is, why they all think she is wrong, and why she doesn’t see it herself. Until she realizes- it’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes. They are only pretending they think she’s wrong. Such cruelty is never rivalled in any other type of torture but gaslighting.
Men need to absolutely be arrested and possibly jailed for this type of behavior. Free speech is no longer an issue here. Free speech is a male thing, since it allows males to verbally abuse females without punishment. That’s why rednecks and Teabaggers always go crazy when free speech is threatened. They are patriarchal. (Recall a hundred or so years ago when they also wanted the freedom to beat their wives- just reminding you in case they try to make the point that free speech is somehow “different” than the freedom of action- they are only saying it’s different so they won’t get the privilege taken away).
There are some men who don’t act like this, but, like I always say, those are the men who are beaten, stuffed in lockers, called pussies or fags or girls or homos or sissies and are brutalized on a daily basis. They might as well not even be called “male”.
However, I usually don’t like to spend too much time discussing whether or not there are good males, because that would be like a black rights blog wasting all its time talking about whether or not there are good whites; it’s like saying that being fair to whites is more important than fighting for black rights, and that proving whites- even some whites- are good is just as important as proving blacks are good. It’s also like saying that a black rights blog should be judged solely on its fairness to whites, even though we know white establishments are never judged solely on how they portray blacks (and also that a black rights blog is the proper place to do it- as if a bicycle shop is the proper place to fix a computer)!