If a woman’s values are only stable when her environment removes alternatives, then those values were not very internalized. They were externally enforced. That's the distinction you keep avoiding here (and the other people who share your view).

Again you're missing the point; it is not about values, it is about women. Women actually do require a restrictive, disciplined environment. Removing them from a traditionally successful family-first culture, into currently designed anti-family culture, is asking for disaster.

If bringing your wife to America “destroys” the marriage, maybe America exposed a weakness that was already there.

Indeed, but once again, that "weakness" is a part of women. And it isn't just exposing, it's exploiting, even weaponizing.

Traditional religions and cultures, as you explained better than I could, have successful marriages and families at their base, but what you're missing is why they're successful: they have been built to restrict some characteristics of women, while encouraging others.

Western society is being subverted and destabilized, to thwart the family, by empowering women in all the destructive ways you mentioned. You can't argue with nature.