Yes.
A woman's role is her household, her family. A man's role is the world. The larger world of the man can't exist without the smaller world of the woman, but the skillset a woman needs to be useful is so much lower than that of a man. Cook, clean, take care of children, provide emotional support and comfort. A man's role is to provide safety, stability and order. Any woman, whether she's 17 or 77 can rub a man's back, bring him a sandwich and some tea, lift him up and make him feel like his efforts are meaningful, but a 17 year old is probably a lot more willing to do so than a 77 year old, so why choose a bitter woman over a more optimistic one?
In short. Men can exist without women, women can't exist without men.
What women expect from men is so much more than what men expect from women as well. Maybe there are some men out there who would genuinely be happier with a "mature" (experienced) woman who is more jaded, more cynical, more "equality" oriented in the relationship who essentially acts as a roommate who the man can fuck when she feels like it, but I don't many would actively choose that sort of woman over a submissive, receptive, woman who listens, "honors and obeys" and follows her husbands word like law.
The bible and Socrates both agree
"It's better to live in the corner of an attic than with a bad wife"
"By all means marry! If you find a good wife, you'll be happy! if you find a bad wife, you'll become a philosopher"
No one would choose a nagging bitch who doesn't listen or obey, who emasculates the man. No one, except probably a very submissive, latent homosexual male/cuckold.
So yes. The subjugation of women is justified by this. They need to be controlled, otherwise their chaotic, emotional nature will run through society and undermine any establishment of order.
