At the risk of really opening a can of worms, let me offer another perspective. Admittedly this is purely speculative, but if we consider some of this from a biological viewpoint it might provide a bit of insight.
Biologically the genders compete with each other for partners so the means by which they can express ideas to each other is equally different. For example, when men compete with each other (for females)they may exhibit cooperation or aggression, but this would be interpreted differently than when a woman is equally aggressive (since it would imply rejection). Similarly if women criticize each other, this would be viewed much differently than if a man leveled the same criticism.
I realize that the business environment is supposed to be blind to these things, and arguably they shouldn't occur in this context, but I'm not completely sure we can escape from these ingrained attitudes. One is reminded of how male animals may show aggression to each other when competing for a mate, and then wonder what would happen should a female animal suddenly display similar traits. I suspect this would be a completely baffling experience to the animals involved, since there is no context in which to interpret such behavior.
Just from my own perspective, when men talk aggressively or cooperatively there are numerous subtleties that may be involved because of experiences growing up (whether it be fighting at school, etc.) As a result, there is a masculine subtext of violence (even if it never manifests) that is implicit in every exchange. The way a male deals with anger, insults, responses, etc are all wrapped up in this psychology, so when a woman moves into that role, the male doesn't have any context with which to interpret this.
I realize you were joking (at least somewhat) when you said "punch you in the face", that has a definite meaning and connotation to males that is not joking. The vast majority of men on hearing that from a woman don't take it seriously, because there is a general sense that women shouldn't be hit, so (1) there is no real perceived threat and (2) a woman that attempted it would be viewed as simply annoying. This is certainly not the response she might expect, but nevertheless it would be real.
Just to extend the explanation a bit, many women wonder why men equate female aggression with being a b**ch. If you consider what I mentioned previously that aggression signified rejection, then for a male that is not courting or vying for attention, then female aggression seems unjustified and brings out the sense of resentment.
Bear in mind that a significant part of the issue is that women often don't realize how many elements of relationships depend exclusively on their decisions. While I realize that this is a significant generalization, social etiquette and the law both reflect the fact that virtually every interaction between a man and a woman is ultimately up to the woman to establish the boundaries and the man is expected to honor that. Once again, then female aggression (in a neutral context) is viewed as unjustified hostility and not in the same vein as men amongst themselves.
This is not to say that men make no decisions in relationships, or that women can't be rejected, but rather that the woman must decide the direction any action takes first. Also, that doesn't mean there aren't extremes on all sides with obsessive behaviors, but if we look at normal circumstances then I think some of these perspectives might provide some insight.
After a sigh of relief, I've sworn off hot fudge brownie sundaes.
So "men learn to censor their language to be accepted ..." wouldn't get any press releases (or funding) but it's just as true.