We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In my experience, males are just as emotionally-vulnerable as any other gender. Without male emotional vulnerability there would be no country music.
What the people promoting this notion miss is that most males spend years trying to be, or trying to at least act or appear, emotionally strong, brave, and tough. There are many good reasons for that, not the least being because these are things that appeal to women.
It's not just cultural, though. There's a biological substrate to it, obvious to anyone who has raised kids. Guys work to be emotionally strong in the same way they work to be physically strong, and to be tough in their effectiveness in the world. It's their job. Might be womens' job too, but that's another subject.
So enough of this baby-talk, Princeton, unless you wish to become a high-end kindergarten..
B48, People come in all sorts, whether they're male or female, so you can't generalize. You may have found yourself living in a world of Verucha Salts, maybe your mother, your wife and your children exhibit that behavior, but that doesn't mean it's true for all women. I'm pretty sure I don't have a Verucha Salt bone in my body, and neither does my mother, or either of my daughters, (any of the men in our family would agree).
Like LP said, there are some good women and some bad (same goes for men). Before I met my wife, I dated some very predatory girls/women. My wife has been very good to me through the good times and the very bad times. The same could be said for my mom sticking through the tough times with my dad, though I am sure there were men who would have given her a more lavish lifestyle if she had married them. So not all women are in it for the money.
To me the purpose is obvious: the more emotionally vulnerable a person is, the easier it is to manipulate them. It's even beyond Big Brother and the rat basket used to break Winston Smith. It's purposeful programming to make people terrified of being branded as a part of the outgroup,, then hammer in the idea that any kind of dissention from the approved way of thinking will place you in the very outgroup they have defined.
Another Guy named Dan
We had custody of our three grandkids for three years. Their mom was in jail. We would take the kids to visit. Reasonably nice visiting facilities in the prison dining area. A play area for small kids and lots of visitors and families. So it is my wife, a 4 yo girl, a 6 yo girl, a 9 yo boy, me and of course mom in her prison blues. The kids handled it pretty good. Kudos to mom she did good too (she is a good kid, smart, personable but a drug user). My wife did just fine. I cried the first 15 minutes and had struggled to not cry for the rest of the visit. We did numerous visits and I struggled with it every time. What a shame to see her in jail. What a shame that her children had to deal with this. I'm tearing up just remembering all this. And then I hear people say drugs should be legalized.
P.S. She wasn't there on a "drug" charge she was there for the many crimes she committed while on drugs.
I don't know. I am not a psychologist, but I have been around for a long time; through some difficult times. Dad was in WWII, and Mom was home with three kids. She could not have by any stretch of the imagination done what he did; and he could not have done what she did. Mom, died at 45, and Dad picked up the pieces. But, he needed and sought, help; e.g. step-mother.
I spent 25 years as a Naval Aviator; my wife held the family together for months at a time. She had no desire to do what I did, nor did I to fill her role. It is possible that either could have; but, not as well. The partnership worked.
Anyway, studies be damned. I know there are different kinds of strengths. There are different natural roles, and they generally follow gender lines.
Why is that controversial? Why does it bother people to admit it? Why can't the "social scientists" accept the evidence that any honest Anthropologists would testify to? Biology, has dictated natural roles for the sexes. Social pressure blur the roles; sometime successfully, sometimes not. So, yes, there are exceptions, but that is what they are.