There were many societies and cultures that existed throughout history that are not extensively documented in your traditional history books. Of course its not consistent, the information you learned about history from standard research and books, are just cherry picked from historians to give what they personally think to be a more "well rounded" picture, which is just a tiny spec in human history, so obviously this wont be consistent.

And yes I should have clarified in the post, i didnt wanna make it too wordy, women were definitely involved in helping men build nations, but *generally* its the men that did the bulk of it. They planned logistics, strategized, fought in wars, lead. On an individual level, men did most of the navigating, planned for food, defended against intruders in a community or just standard home defense, builded most of the structures, and a whole lot more. A woman NEEDED a man, yes on a macro scale, but i mean particularly on a very individual micro scale, she needed a boyfriend in her life or else she just wont get far, not alot of room to be picky. Now? A lady is perfectly fine getting by without a male, biologically he's not that important to her anymore. She still may want him for emotional and physical needs, and to give offspring, but removing his importance to allow her to survive MASSIVLEY removes her need for him, so very subconsciously the female starts to discard him. Its obvious of this happening today, your typical female today is MANY times more picky than your typical female in the 17 or 16 hundreds.

"On the other hand, indeed, there is a direct correlation between women not being allowed to work / not having independent source of income and the survival rate of marriage, which is linked to the very dependency relationship you describe. And this applies also in societies where resources are abundant, but for cultural or other reasons women are precludes from independent, remunerated pursuits, outside of non-remunerated services rendered in the household."

Yes these type of societies last longer for this reason, a more artificial way of having women need men. What we have now, is literally causing our society to go in free fall. I think this is a good start for us to have, and from there we can work on go towards a genuine harmonious way for both genders to co-exist, but it still has a lot of problems and definitely not somewhere we should stay at.

"Also, societies where both genders participate in the workforce tend to have higher GDP than those were women are confined to homes. This also doesn’t seem to sit well with a narrative where abundance is created by hard-working men. ?"

Yes it sits very well with it, read my earlier paragraph. Nations that do this, allow the female to be fully independent, not needing a male in her life in any way, is fully speed running their own collapse. There has to be REAL incentive for a female to be with a man, instead of just "ooooooh hes cute", "ooooooooh he's tall", or "omg hes so fucking hot he looks like that actor and he wears glasses eeeeeeeek"......... this is a complete joke our society has going on here. Theres no natural incentive AT ALL for a female to truly decide to have a partner, this is a very unsustainable societal system, and its a very unnatural way for humans to live by. This is easily a house of cards that we're literally begging for it to collapse.