I think it has to do with feelings about what it means to be a man. The idea such men follow is that a real man must lead the household. He must make the money and take care of everyone in the family. They are all subordinate to him, as a result.
His wife always backs him up and always defers to him in public (although not necessarily in private). Although, if she does speak up, some men think this is a questioning of their manhood and they will use force to cow the woman.
Usually it is men who doubt their manhood, I think, that feel they must have this rule as the man of the house. The man whose woman adores him and will do nothing without her permission. It is macho men who think that being behind a woman will make them look unmanly to other men.
It starts from the very beginning of dating, where virtually everyone, these days, thinks the male is the one who pays. The male is the one who initiates the date by asking the female out.
When I was growing up in the 70s, the women’s movement was fighting against this kind of thing. They wanted equality, and I always was a little confused about whether women wanted men to pay for them or if they wanted to assert equal standing and go dutch. In any case, I didn’t have any money, so I didn’t date. If I was out with someone, it was usually in a group and we all paid for ourselves. But after I got into college, it seemed like the equality thing was even more important.
Then again, I went to a college where everyone had to be a feminist (including the men), or they would be ostracized by everyone else. Didn’t much matter to me. My goal in life at that time was to be a lesbian.
It has been somewhat dismaying to find that things are back to what they were like in the 60s. If my daughter and her friends represent teenage girls these days, then the girls expect the boys to pay for them. Unquestionably. Young women, in general, seem to think that feminism is a dirty word. Many aspire to be housewives, subordinate to their husbands. Many believe in traditional relationships, and get very disappointed when their man can’t take care of them. They might have a law degree and be able to make big bucks on their own, but they still get really pissed that they have to earn a living.
My wife grew up in the same era as I did, and she was brought up to be able to take care of herself. What was the saying of the time? A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. So she became a lawyer, not because she liked law, but because she could support herself and a family doing that.
The idea that a woman can support herself, and therefore doesn’t have to agree with her husband, because if he doesn’t like it, he can’t threaten her with destitution, probably threatens a lot of men who think their only value is as a breadwinner. Really. A lot of men don’t know there is anything else they can do. They don’t know that a lot of women want to talk to someone, and share their emotions about things.
There is a stereotype that men don’t do emotions. I think a lot of men don’t. So if they can’t be the breadwinner, what are they? Where do they fit. So many men who don’t have jobs and rely on their wive’s earnings feel emasculated. This can cause domestic violence among other things.
A strong woman can threaten the manhood of many men because they place the proof of their manhood primarily in being a breadwinner. Apparently, according to a study shown in another recent question here, another place men derive proof of masculinity from is by having lovers. Perhaps they might think of it as making conquests. According to that study, men who make less money than their wives are more likely to cheat on their wives than other men. The speculation is that this is because it is another way for men to demonstrate their masculinity and virility.
So the men who have a problem with strong women are those who feel less confident about their masculinity. These men believe they are men only if they fill traditional roles. A woman who won’t be the “little woman” presents a problem for them.
