The normally chirpy Greg Gutfeld must be on his period or something. Why else would his oversensitive, emotions-governed male brain interpret angry female reaction to a Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby as "hysterical" or "shrieking"?

In his shrill rant, punctuated by the sort of ignorant mixed metaphors ("...this is their world cup and their world cup is empty!") that characterize the discourse of a boy who doesn't understand sports but wants to impress the men who do, Gutfeld claims that the Supreme Court specifically singling out women's health care as something that is subject to the religious beliefs of the companies that employ them is analogous to his being unable to swear on the air.

No grace involved in this, just shrieking. And it's because for a lot of these women who are activists, screaming is what they majored in. Campuses provide degrees in grievance.

Gutfeld, who graduated from UC Berkeley with a degree in English and later went on to run Men's Health magazine before becoming a valued member of Fox News's professional #Benghazi cheerleading squad, added, "Women have fought the stigma of fragile, emotional behavior for decades. For being accused of not being able to handle things. This hysteria by feminists has set back their cause by decades. They are truly resembling hysterics over a lot of this stuff, and they're being dishonest to other women."

The normally vivacious Gutfeld, holding back tears of rage and sexual frustration behind his comically wee Santa Claus glasses, was then interrupted by his cohost Andrea Tantaros, who added that she's tough and strong and cool and chill and doesn't need the government or her boss paying for her birth control (since insurance is technically part of an employee's compensation, it's actually the employee who is using her compensation to pay for birth control, but whatevs. We've got gun toting old man-friendly talking points to stick to here). She's not like the other hysterical girls. Take it from her, a cool girl. (Fox News personalities are only in favor of pro-woman policies when it directly affects them, you see.)

Now, gentle, rational and mostly female readers, you might think I'm being a little unfair to Greg Gutfeld here. After all, his tone is even, his facial expression slack, and his delivery, although colored by the longing of a diminutive man who desperately wishes he were funnier, is fairly even keel. He's a man, so he's allowed to be disappointed with something without being accused of hysteria, of irrationality, or "shrieking." Hell, he's allowed to reach near Bill O'Reilly levels of forehead vein popping anger before anyone urges chilling out.

But when women — or, as Gutfeld calls them "internet feminists" — are upset by something that could directly negatively affect their health or, if we're talking bigger picture here, the ability of women to be given a fair shake professionally without bumping up against the superstitions of puritanical dinosaurs, any angry reaction is characterized as somehow borne of feminine weakness. We're told to be "classy" and show "grace" in reacting to news that a group of five Catholic men have decided that their feelings are more important than women's health. We're told to shut up and take it when a 49-page ruling spelling out exactly why discriminating against women is okay and discriminating against any other group is not only mentions women 13 times, and if we don't shut up and take it, we're somehow acting unfeminine. Classy women gracefully accept being shat upon by men hiding behind religion uncomfortable with the idea of "sex without consequences," which is smart and good. Reacting with displeasure over their bosses' unhealthy obsession with women's sex lives, would be unladylike and bad.

Apparently, women are only supposed to enjoy getting fucked when the government is doing it.