As she's your "better half" (by this I presume you mean your wife), it is to be expected that you do battle on her behalf, and vice versa.

But, the males-without-testicles who amuse me are the ones who see me treat a woman as an equal man and step in to protect and defend her to the point of threats of violence.

Completey unaware of the doublethink necessary for them to regard women as "equal" and yet requiring masculine protection from other men.

In particular I find it amusing because it's almost always a verbal battle (I don't hit girls because I don't hit people), and anyone who's known a female verbal combatant knows that women need no protection in that arena. Some of the most horrible comments I've heard have come from incensed women in an argument.

Femininity expressed by men is a sign of weakness to other men. (more of that "instinct" stuff some people say we don't have <cough>).

Do you agree with banning extremist groups form public universities? Therefore people will pay for universities from whence they are banned with their tax dollars.

Who should do the banning, in the case of private universities? The university board of trustees, or the local, State or federal government?

"certain standards"? Who decides?

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" - Robert A. Heinlein

Once upon a time, within my lifetime, a 'certain standard' of conduct demanded that one not date outside of one's own race. In spite of the media propaganda, such racism was *not* reserved to the province of a small, ignored minority; if it was, the civil rights movement would never have been necessary.

Should we stick to that standard of conduct?
"A woman's place is in the home"
"It's a man's moral responsibility to provide for his family"
These were 'certain standards' at one time. Which ones should we impose on the population, and which ones should we "allow" them to adopt or dismiss?

Someone once said that it's the speech we hate that most needs protection. I maintain that speech, in the form of with whom we choose to do business, needs such protection.

""Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."" - Henry Rearden, "Atlas Shrugged"

If I choose business practices with which you disagree, you are free not to do business with me. If enough disagree, I may be forced to change my practices or go out of business.

Once upon a time I designed a GUI for a 3D terrain manipulation program. During a meeting, a colleague gave me a copy of the finished product. As I looked the box over, I saw on the back where a percentage of the sale was going to the Nature Conservancy.

I joked, "it's a good thing I didn't have to pay for this; I wouldn't have bought it knowing they were donating to the Nature Conservancy".
Outraged, another colleague said, "They can spend their money however they like! You can't tell them how to spend their money!"

I calmly pointed out to him that they chose to advertise their support of the Nature Conservancy. They almost certainly did so in hopes of increasing their revenues. In which case, they have no gripe coming if that same blurb *costs* them revenues by people who disagree with their support.

Since when is femininity synonymous with weakness? Femininity can still be a source of strength, even when expressed by men.

You ought to choose a different word.