Thank you Lysistrata. That's a nice thought. And I'm sure you mean well. But women are simply not wired for that function. Its just the latest tactic in the struggle to propagate the species and acquire resources.

In primates males defend females in the same way a mother protects her young. Its a reproductive instinct. But females flock to the dominant male. If that dominant male is defeated the females will leave him for the new champion.

The idea of romantic love did not even arise among humans until the last few centuries.

[QUOTE]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Historians believe that word "romance" to have developed in the French vernacular meaning "verse narrative." The word was originally an adverb of the Latin origin "Romanicus," meaning "of the Roman style." The connecting notion is that European medieval vernacular tales were usually about chivalric adventure, not combining the idea of love until late into the seventeenth century.

The word romance has also developed with other meanings in other languages such as the early nineteenth century Spanish and Italian definitions of "adventurous" and "passionate", sometimes combining the idea of "love affair" or "idealistic quality."

In primitive societies, tension existed between marriage and the erotic, but this was mostly expressed in taboo regarding the menstrual cycle and birth.[2]

Bernger von Horheim in the Codex Manesse (early 14th century)
Anthropologists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss show that there were complex forms of courtship in ancient as well as contemporary primitive societies. There may not be evidence, however, that members of such societies formed loving relationships distinct from their established customs in a way that would parallel modern romance.[3]

Before the 18th century, many marriages were not arranged, but rather developed out of more or less spontaneous relationships. After the 18th century, illicit relationships took on a more independent role. In bourgeois marriage, illicitness may have become more formidable and likely to cause tension.[4] In Ladies of the Leisure Class, Rutgers University professor Bonnie G. Smith depicts courtship and marriage rituals that may be viewed as oppressive to modern people. She writes "When the young women of the Nord married, they did so without illusions of love and romance. They acted within a framework of concern for the reproduction of bloodlines according to financial, professional, and sometimes political interests." Subsequent sexual revolution has lessened the conflicts arising out of liberalism, but not eliminated them.
[/QUOTE]

Where am I getting this stuff?
Psychology Today Oct 31, 2016 for one.

[psychologytoday.com]

Briffault's Law: Women Rule
Why can't a woman be more like a man?

Dale Hartley Ph.D., MBA
Machiavellians: Gulling the Rubes
Posted Oct 31, 2016

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948 ), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)

If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“ )

A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.

In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits. That Briffault – what a romantic!

Let's try an experiment. Tell your wife that you quit your job and took one that will pay a lot less money but will be much more satisfying personally. Let us know how she responds.

MGTOWs do tend to have the conservative mental disorder. But I think they might be right on this one. Feminism does seem to be the one issue they ever got right about anything in the history of ever.

I found MGTOW when I was chased off a Clinton supporting political site because I argued with a woman. I said that men have rights and problems too. She disagreed and called me an MRA. I looked into that and concluded that my experiences made me more MGTOW. But I hate when conservatives think that because they got that one right they might be right about something else someday.

It has also been suggested that women are attracted to jerks. That while women might Think they want a warm, sensitive, caring man they simply don't go for them in real life. And that mothers who tell their sons to be such are actually setting them up for a lifetime of failure with women.

Haha. Completely understandable.