Real Men Don't Love

In I.ii., Carol chastises Fairfield as one of the many men who, "neglect / Yourselves, the nobleness of your birth and nature, / By servile flattery of this jigging, / And that coy mistress; keep your privilege, / Your masculine property" (p. 472).  This is a woman's perspective of the definition of masculine identity as something above the obligations of courtship (and love).  If Carol is indeed giving us a definition of "maleness," what does this do to the patrilineal inheritance system and her place in it as the mother?  I think she's having dangerous thoughts here, and throughout the first three acts, about the irrelevance and perhaps even outdatedness of love in a society that revolves around a familial structure which demands marriage and children.  She is not just a coy female playing with the hearts of her admirers, she is challenging the masculinity of almost every man in the play because she reduces their words and actions of "love" to meaningless dribble.  Why, then, is she "conquered" in the end by a simple act of reverse psychology?  Does "love" win out or is she merely bested by the denial of "having her desires"?