We are expected to put a premium on women’s sustained happiness in a feminine-primary social order. Women’s happiness has become the prime directive and the metric for a relationship’s success. Any concern for men’s happiness is either a sign of his weakness or his problematic misogyny.

My theory is that you can get rid of this social order or culture where female happiness is more important than male happiness in relationship success, and it will still exist, since women end relationships more and are generally more emotional, and want more emotional cues from their partners; but its also not necessarily antagonistic to men.

You get men who are conditioned to think that stoicism is always good for a relationship, who might show love by working a lot or gift giving, but who never show love through emotional vulnerability outside of sex. And without that emotional vulnerability present, a woman doesn't feel like she's fully secured commitment, feels like he's hiding his emotions but offers less vulnerable thoughts, where his emotions are what really matter to her, and she can start going to the worst case scenarios. This is a case of each gender projecting their brain structure onto each other, a woman can't be as happy with a man who never talks about his blunt thoughts and emotions, and men find this so uncomfortable that they'll try all manner of ways to make women happy without being vulnerable and honest, along with the general fear of it, which in some cases may be warranted, since women can leave men or never get involved with them over male vulnerability.

This emotional vulnerability and honesty could benefit a man and give him an overall happier relationship because it feeds female emotional curiosity. Its when vulnerability turns into blaming the person, the woman feels this blame more than thinking about it, and this makes her more vulnerable so she begins to withdrawal more or entirely. Through male vulnerability she can be nurturing and create a positive emotion feedback loop in the male, which makes her happy, but if she can't do that, due to female solipsism, she sees it as a problem with herself not being insatiably desirable and being able to secure his commitment, and will begin withdrawing more or entirely. This seems like another case of each gender projecting their brain structure onto each other.

Male protection is subconscious based on emotional connection, provision is a form of protection, and blaming or verbally attacking someone is antagonistic to protecting them. But without blame, the happiest relationships seem like it has emotional vulnerability and honesty. The question I have is, do women leave men more over showing honesty and vulnerability, or is it more out of blame being attached to that vulnerability? It seems like its when blame comes in that things start to go downhill, as women see that as antagonistic to protection; and when women do it, men find it emasculating which is "protector demeaning". Women like confidence and some degree of dominance in men, but if so many men have an innate desire to understand women with thought or logic, why wouldn't women have an innate, albeit culturally-suppressed desire to understand the men through their guarded emotions, not just the inner romantic, or some vengeful opposite, but the entire, imperfect human being? Which would match up to womens' own more pronounced mood swings, so its not they we as men don't actually have these mood swings, its that they are more buried and to some degree this is biological.

If women are emotion-focused more than thought-focused, by devaluing men and their emotions at large, and pushing away the desire to be feminine and nurturing towards men as a default, like feminists do, theoretically it seems like womens' negative emotion or misery would be an indication that they are going through life cutting off an inherent aspect of themselves.