I suppose this can be chalked-down to another phenomenon of feminization.
There is a strongly differential tendency for women to evaluate the seriousness of a threat by monitoring people's emotional reactions to it.
This is probably an aspect of women's greater alliance-building, peer group orientation (whereas men must compete as well as cooperate - so peer groups tend to be task-orientated and hierarchical).
I can see why this way of evaluating seriousness might be evolutionarily adaptive for women in hunter-gatherer tribal conditions; where many women would find themselves as wives living in a relatively strange tribe among her husband's relatives - and would need to 'learn the ropes' quickly, and make alliances with a new group of women.
Thus, if somebody is offended by what you have said - it is wise to assume that you have said something offensive. When people are avoiding something or somebody - it would be wise to do likewise - to adopt the same attitudes.
"There is no smoke without fire" is a proverb that was probably invented by a woman; and certainly has been embraced by womankind.
Yet - of course - under modern conditions where the most powerful female 'peer group' is a virtual construct of the mass media that acts as a maladaptive, hyper-amplified super-stimulus*; and where 'offence' is mass constructed on an assembly line; The System can generate blinding smoke without even a spark of fire.
So; The System can generate real objective threats (terrorist atrocities, forest fires, outbreaks of arson and violence) in order to justify to men taking some kind of action which The System wants to take.
The threat is real, but it was deliberately contrived.
The fact that the threat was deliberately contrived by the authorities can (more-or-less plausibly) be denied, or simply muddled - especially when there are a few steps in the causal chain leading to implementation.
Then men can be made to believe that the threat comes from some external or internal enemy (against whom they have resentment), or is a kind of 'natural' disaster; and men can be made to focus on short-term, 'practical' measure to address the immediate threat.
And for the women? The System can even-more-easily generate hysterical, terrified responses - reporting, quoting, and (spontaneously or simulated) depicting women (or children) sobbing and weeping, exhibiting apparent fear and trembling and other similar responses.
These depictions and 'verbatim' reports operate strongly to activate women's empathy - even with strangers - when these are subjectively-experienced as within the woman's (virtual) peer group.
So; when events are cancelled, products withdrawn, activities forbidden - this response means the supposedly-causal threat is perceived as dangerous: hence it is 'is' dangerous. If a person or group is shunned, avoided, or excluded by the (virtual) peer group with which a woman empathically-identifies - then likewise. In effect: "They must be dangerous, or people would not react like that!"
Such responses 'prove' to women - at a subjective, subliminal, physiological level (that requires no further 'evidence' and indeed which cannot really be refuted by objective evidence) that the threat is real, serious and must be acted-upon immediately.
This, even when in reality there is no objective threat, or a microscopic and merely theoretical objective threat.
David Icke usefully described the sequence of "Problem - Reaction - Solution" - and this can be observed as a standard trope of modern governance. I am suggesting that there is, within this, a sexual differentiation such that men typically focus on the Problem, and women on the Reaction.
And that for women the Reaction is of such overwhelming importance that there need be no underlying Problem.
Even it is proved objectively that there is no underlying Problem at all - this may make no difference for women; because they are focused on the Reaction.
It can be seen that in this respect as in many others, women are more easily and effectively manipulated than men, in the context of the modern, media-dominated society.
And this is one major reason why the Global Establishment favours women in 'middle-management' type positions - which nowadays includes even national and corporate leadership.
(i.e. All those whose job, especially from 2020, is to represent and implement the policies of the covert world government.)