I think you are confusing doctrine with culture.
Perhaps in some circles it was the norm for the woman to be the minor who is totally helpless without a man.
Historically women were as much the provider as the man

Anonymous wrote:I am married into a Jewish family (but am not Jewish) and I happen to be a SAHM. Pretty much all the women in my husband’s family work and many earn more than their husbands.

They can work but religiously husband is still responsible for their basic expenses?

“Provide” in the sense of taking the psychological lead - heading the household as a role model. The world is a very different place economically and men often cannot be the sole breadwinner. But they can still model that caretaker role of always wanting and working for what is best for their family. By the same token, women represent a nurturing/supportive role by also stepping up to do their half of the partnership in ensuring the family unit is successful. It’s not a matter of who is on top, both parts are equally important.

I am married into a Jewish family (but am not Jewish) and I happen to be a SAHM. Pretty much all the women in my husband’s family work and many earn more than their husbands.

In Judaism and Islam, husband is religiously responsible for providing for his wife according to his status. Is there something like that in other religions?