What makes you think the realm being entered is any more reality than the one being left?
Interpretation. Believing that marriage is about "love", when it's a convoluted exchange of resources, makes a world of difference. Ramifications parallel cults.
But that is not the only necessary component. If "reality" entails an abandonment of love, for purely calculated exchanges of benefit, that doesnt sound like reality at all. That more sounds like running scared from traumatic emotional consequences if such relationships go awry.
The issue is the notion of "love": an evanescent lust coupled with nonsensical interpretations of said lust. At its core, sexual relationships are of transactional nature (most commonly: money and security exchanged for access to a vagina). This accurately explains desertion of marriages worldwide: the moment women are no longer financially/societally required/shamed to stay with men, they leave in droves. Hence, there is no "abandonment of love" because it never existed.
Feminism was as you pointed out, offering the kind of emotional security that comes with groupthink opposition to, and fear of men. "It's not my fault, its the patriarchy". That is a path that offers hollow meaning.
But instead, by your judgement it seems, Women are running from the security of an eschewing of assuming responsibility for themselves, to another form of security, in avoiding vulnerability altogether
Firstly, female infantilisation is something worth running from -- I hope we can agree with that.
Secondly, I have no qualms with women forming relationships, I merely think they should be conducted in an honest capacity. Rather than feigning helplessness in order to extract resources covertly (female infantilisation), women should be honest about what they find attractive (alpha males, status, money etc.) In fact, pursuing such desires is tantamount to *more* vulnerability, given that she no longer relies on the safety of a beta cuck, but pursues the hard-to-please alpha male with an abundance of options.
Ignoring that a part of masculinity is in protection of others, yes, through aggression, but that is necessarily transposed with the capacity to be gentle with those they are protecting. This gentleness necessarily entails vulnerability, letting ones guard down.
If the future standard is to be cold and calculating exchanges of resources for self-interest, then you are fmpov, merely removing much of the necessary component of vulnerability in romantic relationships. And if the end goal is meaningful(material and spiritual) co-existence, then such a course of action would necessarily preclude that.
And then we will start reaping the rewards that we sow with children born of such relations, and the necessary societal failings that result thereof.
Not cold, just honest. If a woman enjoys a man's capacity to protect her, then she should pursue that. If a woman doesn't enjoy a cucked, weak beta male, then she shouldn't rope him into a marriage under the pretense she's attracted to him, only to extract his resources through misandric divorce and family court ten years later.
Vulnerability, in concordance with insane interpretations of lust (i.e. "love"), is woefully unsatisfying to both men and women, and one of the major concepts I advocating against in my thread. It is entirely possible that women can be "vulnerable" in their attraction to protection, without the fantasy of love.