Women are not expected to fight or be direct in their demands because they are expected to yield to men, or, appear to yield to men.
They must yield to their men because men are stronger physically and have control of all the resources that are necessary to a woman's survival.
A woman could only exercise power through her man and this concentrated her mind on choosing the most powerful and wealthiest man she could find.
If she were poor and all the men available to her were also poor then she would choose a tall strong man, if she were being rational.
The short stupid weak mentally unstable man would presumably under these conditions become extinct, and the race thereby taller and stronger since stupid, short, weak and mentally unstable males would not get to pass on their genes. If all women chose rationally and were not "cheap", yielding their favours to any Tom, Dick or Harry who was short, poor and stupid or mentally unstable., then the race would not become degenerate.
While the poor women would choose strong men, rich women would choose rich men to maintain their father's position and wealth. This distortion of wealth would in time lead to degeneracy since wealth tends to be held in the hands of the few and a certain degree of inbreeding would necessarily occur.
With this tendency that exists in all societies, the best way of preventing degeneracy was to allow for a degree of social mobility so that a poor but clever strong tall and mentally stable man can rise in society by dint of hard work and talent and be considered a good catch by either women of his own class or women of a higher rank.
Millennia of yielding or appear to yield to men (or else receive a clout by men who have control over their lives) has equipped women to be more emotionally astute than men, or manipulative if you prefer.
In terms of dating, a man has the easier job really. All he has to do is ask the woman out. All she can do is say no, and all he can do next is ask her again, or ask another.
The woman however is not as passive as she is supposed to be, even in the bad old days of the patriarchy. She does choose, but has to appear not to choose, and had to do all the things that will make the man ask her out. This actually requires extraordinary self-discipline and many artful contrivances.
With the best of men and women MARRYING and having legitimate children would tend to prevent subsequent generations from becoming degenerate.
To be degenerate is to be lower in wealth, rank and morality to your parents and ancestors. If your parents were married when they had you, but you were not married when you had your children, this means you are degenerate.
When most of the people in a society is degenerate, then that society will decline and fall and eventually become extinct to be replaced by other peoples and other cultures.
Now that we know how natural selection applies in human societies, we come to consider the purpose of marriage in this process.
If it is the case that a woman can only choose one man to be her husband, and that she can only have sex with a man who is her husband and the father of her children, do you think she will choose her sex partner carefully?
If it is the case that no such institution as marriage exists in society, and we would copulate with each other like dogs in the park after sniffing each other's bottoms, which society do you think would do better? The one in which marriage is respected or the one in which it does not even exist?
HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC
Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year? Go on, go on, go on!