>What stands out to me from your comment is the extreme differentiation of men & women as if they were different species Sexual dimorphism within species can b

>What stands out to me from your comment is the extreme differentiation of men & women as if they were different species Sexual dimorphism within species can be extreme. See the angler fish: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/565905509399387626 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/565905509399387626. The physical and behavioral differences at the macrolevel can be equivalent to different species. There is zero fundamental mechanism stopping this from happening. >It’s just a genetic bit-flip in the womb - let’s not get carried away. We are in the same league just drafted into different teams. It is not a genetic bit-flip. It's an entire chromosome. About 1000 genes on the X and about 50 on the Y chromosome that encode for proteins. The side effects arising from these proteins propagate exponentially into actual macro differences. >Your post catastrophizes and over-generalizes to reach a worst case outcome >- Man unable to care for his family: Temporarily? Forever? How many men can’t get a job ever again ? Not many There's no over generalization here. I am talking about an extreme where the man is permanently out of job. That's where the differences between male and female psychology become readily apparent. If a woman becomes incapable of getting a job ever again, the male will not leave her solely FOR that reason. If the opposing extreme happens, the female WILL leave him. There's no point in talking about things that aren't extreme. Because our normal operating mode is in an area that isn't extreme anyway. We understand ordinary daily life because we live it everyday. We don't understand the extremities as well. I can tell you what I brought up here is a topic that often women and men don't understand about each other. The women doesn't fully understand how impractical, deep and romantic a mans love for her is... a man often doesn't understand how practical and conditional a womens love for him is. The love is indeed one sided. It is similar to maternal/paternal love as well. If a mother has one child, she will usually love that child more then that child loves her. There are exceptions to this rule and multiple children can complicate the matter but the generality remains true. >Reality: people have ups and downs. Wherever you are in life there’s people doing fine with less than you Yeah so? this is orthogonal to my point. Women are the practical sex. Men are the romantic sex. Couples may never hit this extreme long enough for the differences to show and thus never fully elucidate the true inner psychology of their partners. Your point here doesn't offer anything to the argument. It's just an off topic fact. I agree with it, but so what? >Reality: free people meet, and break up all the time for a multitude of reasons. Not the end of the world. So? I don't disagree with this statement. How does this build on any of our respective points? All I am saying is that the man will be less likely to leave for practical reasons. Not leaving is ALSO a free market decision. If a women is out of a job, she needn't worry about the man leaving her. If a man is out of job, he's on a timer, the women will leave him eventually if he doesn't contribute anything practical. As a man, I personally would wish I were just as rational and logical as women are, but I'm not and that's just a fact of reality. The women will usually characterize the reason for leaving as the man not doing his "fair share" of the work and just staying at home all day. Something of that nature. There are tons of relationships that end this way. What women need to understand is that a man will not leave a women for this reason. There are other dark reasons that can cause a man to leave but THIS is not one of them. >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion This applies to you more than me as you have demonstrated with several orthogonal points that lend zero relevancy to your point. I actually agreed with several of those points without effecting my initial stance.