Not necessarily. Why would such a strong tradition among women come about, if women themselves didn't support and believe in what they were doing?
There is no room for a decent answer here; nor can I write prose well enough to keep people's attention focused for that length of time. I will try a short answer, knowing even I will be dissatisfied.
1) You make an assumption when you say that it is "a strong tradition among women." The assumption is that it is a tradition originated by women, maintained by women, and happily carried into the future by women AND ONLY WOMEN. Not true. The traditions were cultural and cross-gendered.
I cannot speak to the utility of such tradition while humans were strictly hunter-gatherers and lived in small somewhat genetically isolated bands. It does seem that the closer societies seem to be to that situation, the more strictly they maintain such conventions. There may be reasons for this. If anybody knows, please fill me in.
However, after people settled down in cities, one of the first things that show up in written records are attempt to come up with contraceptive formulas. I've seen examples going back to Egypt, and they keep pace with the growth of civilization. Women, pretty much from the beginning of recorded history, have sought control over their reproductive lives, to limit the role of mothering to times and partners of their choice.
The customs in these societies were at odds with these wishes. We know mostly about people who were written about. But daughters seem to have been commodities. Mothers probably cooperated in making these marriages, though, truthfully, I don't know for sure. In most modern arranged marriages they seem to. You can call this taking pride in a tradition or Stockholm Syndrome or—my current favorite—Mystified Oppression.
Why is it so hard to imagine that women actually took pride in their own traditions?
Circumcision in some cultures is still occasion for a blow-out party. Geza Roheim, the Hungarian psychoanalytically-trained anthropologist, filmed a rite of sub-incision, a male rite of passage for one group of bushmen in Australia that was a matter of intense pride for those who took part in the ritual. It has been used to show college student volunteers undergoing aversion-training. Most can't sit through it. The bushmen though this the height of virtue. So do the women today in Egypt who perform female circumcision. Many of them have had the ritual performed on them in their time. (I put in here another plug for the notion of Mystified Oppression.)
It is, in other words, not at all difficult to imagine the women taking pride in their traditions. Nor is it difficult for me to believe they could believe their traditions to be virtuous. Nor is it difficult to believe that some of them may actually be virtuous. Now, if only we could come to some stable understanding of virtue.
My problem is when people treat the past as if women were somehow imprisoned by masculine hands into not being politicians, tyrants, and warriors.
Alas for all of us, not only by male hands. It's always so much easier when there's a convenient baddie to blame. Men are as caught up in the system here as are women.
The reason women were less involved in what men were doing is simply because they were more involved in what women were doing.
The word "simply" drags a lot of weight here. If a woman decided not to do a lot of the things that women were doing—raise kids, do her own housework, care for family—she would have difficulty. It would be the exceptional woman indeed who might venture into the world of male enterprise and make her own money and create a life that would be as satisfactory as that of a man. She wouldn't be able to vote, own her own property or make the majority of her own legally binding decisions. In some countries she could be married against her will in a legally binding ceremony and all her assets could be taken over by the new "husband."
In short, Essorant, there is actually plenty to be upset about, should upset be your thing.
My opinion is that it's pretty tough being straightforward, kind and real with each other in the here and now. In England, I was surprised and happy to find they don't celebrate Mothers' Day, but instead a "Mothering Day." Most of the glory still goes to good old Mom, of course, but you get to understand that mothering is a human function and that anybody can help out anyone with a little decency at any time.
And yes, men and women are built different, not just visibly, but in the head as well. I was around through that there's no difference between men and women routine in the sixties and seventies, and boy do lots of sociologists feels a little bit funny now. But I wouldn't give up any of it. I got to talk to a lot of people, men and women both, about who they thought they were and what their gender had to do with it, and I don't think things are anywhere near as open and frank now as they were then.
I feel really unsettled when I see anything wearing an Answer costume walking around. I start wondering whose Masked Ball I'm attending, and what I'm going to have to deal with at midnight. But maybe that's just me.