When the male assumes his role as 'assistant women collaborator', it becomes necessary and to hold, to grant pays off.
On several occasions I have commented that humans, as we are a mammalian species, organizes its only mission, (conserving the species and the individual), taking as a main actress the woman, it is she who, when she is ovulating choose (1) a male to fertilize and is the father of her children.
If we can accept this and leave out the traditional belief according to which the man is he who captures a woman he likes, he seduces with her charms and marries her when he pleases, we can also express other points view.
For example, we say that families are founded, (created, instituted, put in place), by a woman.
The situation resembles a capitalist who invests his money to start a company, but delegates the conduct and administration of it to a manager.
Why women starts a family but then is the man who seems to rule?
I know two important reasons. Not rule out that there are others.
One reason is that the woman has a body that makes her take care of 90% (estimated percentage) of the one mission we have as a species, that is, reproductive function that allows us to keep it.
The second reason is more subtle, but no less important : the presence of the boy in a family may or may not be necessary. He, after impregnating the mother becomes expendable. Nothing too serious happen if he disappears.
However, when the man actually assumes his role of ‘auxiliary contributor of women', it becomes very necessary and to retain, stimulate, gratify, to grant pays off.
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El varón con poder es útil para la mujer.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 2.043)