> being very sensitive about real or perceived aggressions from men. Perhaps justified, but now it means a small misstep or failure to walk the line can be costly in a social sense.
Not at all justified. Crying victim over vague aggressions is as pathologically toxic and sexist as it gets. They can't even be bothered to make an actual false accusation they can later be held accountable for, it's just "waaah, there's a man here who's not behaving the way -I- want them to. Minions, attack!"
It's regressed so badly, any sort of attempt to hold this subset of women accountable for their own behavior is met with them trying to rile up a mob against you as they publicly squawk about you being vaguely "aggressive." The point is to intimidate male targets (legitimate or not) into compliance and silence. It's not justified, it's female-perpetrated abuse (DARVO is passive aggression).
Not a fun time to be a parent or teacher with any sort of legal responsibility for this demographic; there is absolutely no support for custodians because everybody has been conditioned to uncritically associate all men with abuse and all women with victimhood. God help you if you're a male victim of anything, because nobody else will!
IME: In a recent workplace violence complaint, a female employee played this card against a male manager who was "aggressive" in giving her a negative performance review for job abandonment (ironically, this wasn't a younger employee). She later stole thousands of dollars of equipment and quit.