Given that our behaviors are as much a product of evolution as our physiognomies, it would be surprising if our behaviors didn't reflect the fundamental economics of reproduction & child rearing. This is why women are more choosey than men regarding mating opportunities, and it is why women are more focused on the present and future while men are more focused on the present and past. Consequently, for men and women (as a generality) our catch-all and conveniently undefined word "love" has very different meanings, though these differences are generally not recognized by most people because our entertainments are (as always) wildly misleading and paint a completely false picture.

Women must be resource-oriented, because during the hundreds of thousands of years of our evolutionary history females were far more dependent on males that we can imagine in today's modern world of near-equality. It would be surprising, therefore, if loss of resources by the male partner didn't trigger strong emotional and behavioral responses in the female partner because in previous eons this would have been a potentially fatal event and the woman would have needed to take rapid and decisive action in order to preserve her own reproductive opportunities.

Evolution and nature have no interest in "moral values" but simply pass forward whatever happens to work on average over an extended period of time. The fact our modern PC babble pretends that gender is merely a function of pronouns simply leads us to have totally unrealistic notions of the male-female relationship. A more accurate viewpoint could probably save a lot of people a lot of emotional distress because they would see that what happens is usually not anywhere near as personal as it seems. It's merely hardwired patterns of behavior being triggered by predictable external events.