No, I'm calling it uninformative when it uses the wrong terms and acts surprised that I didn't read minds for the real intended meantings.

This is the part where the problem is: you aren't separating "words that make sense to me" from "real intended meanings"... which then leads to an exclusionary result.

No, like I said before, even if you can claim specific instances of women giving advice that (by hidden transformations) is true and useful, it's still drowned out in the sea of advice that is ineffective and countereffective. How should I have known that this advice is reliable, but the (far more numerous) instances of "oh, be deferential to her, make sure not to cross these six trillion feminist lines" isn't? How should the majority of men have known it?

How should you have known that the world is round, when all of the immediately-available evidence is that it's flat... unless you specifically go looking for obscure and "hidden" information?

Reality is not under any obligation to be comprehensible to human beings, so what makes you think you have a moral right to have comprehension handed to you on a silver platter?

Why do you (seem to) think women are so frail and stupid that they shouldn't be expected to carry out this introspection?

Because, being a human, I'm too "frail and stupid" to carry out the reverse introspection in response to a casual inquiry. I also don't expect the average person of either sex to have the degree of intellectual rigor required to refrain from confabulating, when asked.

(My own experience shows me that it is hard to get people to not confabulate, about any topic. Non-confabulation is unnatural to most humans and requires sometimes-difficult training, even if you're highly motivated to learn... and people who think they already understand confabulation and the need to refrain from it are usually the ones who have the most difficulty learning not to.)