Agreed.no one called it sexist. but there was an actual implication that you suspected sexism. i will always laugh when people think that the concepts of social and rational have any relevance to one another. but yet you ignored this side of the argument completely and went straight ahead with the feminist agenda. if you're a female, well that could be a self interest thing. i suspect it has more to do with brainwashing by peer pressure.
the values invoked by the proverb are seen in every culture i've ever heard of. it could be that those values were simply carried down through every generation since the pangea-mother culture the rest of us must have spawned from. more likely, we have biological motivations/incentives for acting that way.
when you say that these things are necessarily not the highest calling [and i sense undertones that you discourage the things suggested in the proverb], you say equally that men and women have no need for one another at all.
the truth is, even if protectiveness of females is not something we see in males in their individual relationships, or soulfulness of females in the same, it exists on the large scale all the same.
it's not an insult to either "gender" [i'm pretty sure you mean sex]. it's just humanity.
the only insult is spun by a perspective which holds that women under protection by men are weak.