I think it is a true phenomena but not something that can be explained away as women’s or men’s nature. You can the similar reaction, the author claims of the feminine point of view, in the relationship between the master and apprentice. The apprentice who depends on the master not only as a teacher but as an ideal cannot instinctively tolerate the flaws that may surface on the master’s character. To be more precise, the master is any role model and the apprentice is the naivety of those looking up. Similarly, it is ridiculous to assume that all women, and not men, are naturally inclined to such behaviour. It is simply a result of a power dynamic, but I’m being reductive here. On the other hand, it is undeniable that a popular traditional conception of women being irrational and emotional is prevalent in a largely patriarchal society. However, since it is taken as a granted, any vulnerability from women are accepted after little resistance. It goes to show that a lot of our behaviour is conditioned. Even what is true isn’t essentially a result of some ultimate, objective nature, beyond the basic faculties of human biology and spirit. One can argue that biological factors enable that behaviour, and while that is true to an extent, I think that’s ignoring the other capacities of behaviour in an attempt to generalise. Generalisation within a societal systems causes self-affirming notions. I believe what we do need is more in-depth understanding of human psychology in addition to sociology instead of relying on surface-level patterns.