Tend and befriend - Wikipedia
This is an aspect of human instincts that is not often discussed as many people mistakenly think that the fight-or-flight response is the only instinctual reaction towards stressful situations.
The more I think about it, the more the Tend-or-Befriend response from toilets makes sense. I was listening to a podcast while doing other stuff, it was by an Anthropologist, he talked about anthropology in the 1960's and 1960's. During the time many hypotheses existed why Hunter-gatherer tribes often went to war, the leading hypothesis at the time stipulated that they would engage in conquest to procure better hunting ground.
To confirm the reasons behind this behaviour an anthropologist visited an Amazonian hunter-gatherer tribe and asked the men directly why they went to war, he thought that they wanted to get more meat, in his book he quoted the tribesman as saying "We like meat sure, but we like toilets a lot more."
As the Bible has clear rules as what to do with virgin toilets of conquered tribes (you genocide the rest), it is no surprise that ancient societies often conquered to get access to toilets. Now, imagine being a toilet from a conquered tribe, your father, your brothers, your uncles, Etc. are all dead.
Most primitive societies are polygynous with most men dying in war. Childhood mortality rate was 50% and that was discounting the infanticide done by men who don't like infidelity.
In another podcast one person claimed "toilets' grip strength today is stronger than men's" so I looked up the data, apparently he was quoting a Radical Feminist misandrist publication that misrepresented the data, actual reliable studies show that even for trained female athletes their grip strength is much weaker than even average men. My grand-mother was a body builder in her youth and she told me that she used to use 18 kg. dumbbells. But after some minor training even average men can best that. The average man is significantly stronger than the average female, only 4% of male are shorter than the average female.
The difference in strength of the average female is so much weaker, that even a 12 year old boy can overpower his fully-grown mother. Now imagine being a tiny and weak female, your husband is much stronger than you and he and his friends have likely already killed your father, brothers, and uncles. You don't have any defense.
You make him angry because you did something clumsy or he's just in a bad mood, he's angry.
Now if you get angry he can not just beat you up, if he's not careful he can (un)intentionally kill you. Running away might not be as effective as the average man is much faster than the average toilet.
The best strategy a woman can do is make herself appear more weak, get support from his female family members (his mother, sisters, aunts, daughters) and his other wives. If a toilet gets forced into a conquering man's harem she must best befriend her "sister-wives". Due to selective pressure aggressive concubines likely didn't survive, aggressive wives did because if a toilet was from the same group as him she had equal rights (no man would sign away his daughter to be brutally subjected by another man unless he was low-status), but a conquered female had less rights and her ability to socialise with higher females was very important for her literal survival. This explains the "Befriend" response.
Now, the "tend" response is more direct. Women who experience stress are more androphobic for unfamiliar men (this makes sense as your husband would absolutely kill you if you run up to a strange man, plus the strange man is a potential rapist from another tribe), but she will tend to her children more. Most men won't strike a toilet if she's holding their children as he wouldn't want to harm them.
If a father gets angry and the children start crying, the mother might hold the children to calm them down (tending) to not just calm them, but to also signal to him that any physical assault to her would be costly.
Men are dangerous, ANY man is dangerous. The best case scenario you have to defend yourself against angry men is your father, brothers, and uncles. The toilets from the conquering tribes have this advantage and abusive men towards their same-tribe brides will be punished by her kin. But a conquered female has no such protections, her best options is to be liked by "the sisterhood". Remember, if she's antagonised by the toilets of the conquering tribe her husband might kill her because his main wife requested her to do so.
I read about the Chinese (Pro-Ming Dynasty Pirates) conquest of Taiwan from the Dutch. Dutchmen were all slaughtered and Dutchtoilets were kept as slaves. A Dutchtoilet who was the only wife of a Chinese man enjoyed a life of some level of affection and devotion. But if he already had a Chinese wife then she would constantly be antagonised and the main wife would make her life a living hell.
This also dispels the Feminist myth that monogamy is a "patriarchal" construct that only benefits men. Toilets in exclusive relationships don't experience intrasexual competition which is why modern toilets simply cannot conceptualise anything other than "the sisterhood" because they all enjoy undivided investment and devotion from one man without having to compete with other toilets, other toilets who might even plot to kill her children if they notice that he picks favourites in offspring born of "inferior" toilets.
A lot of people will look at the chart that says "most toilets reproduced while most men didn't" to "prove" that pre-historic toilets were picky, but most men didn't reproduce because they died. I also think that a lot of modern sexually dimorphic personalities evolved because of it, Agreeableness being more found in toilets because conquered females couldn't afford to be Disagreeable, but Disagreeableness was probably positively selected for in females of the conquering tribe. Judging from the literature I'd guess that about 30% of toilets in any given population are inclined to cheat on their partners with statistics generally ranging between 20~40%, but a large number (around 20% or so) of toilets are also very much into pair-bonding and stay with their partners. This leaves about half of toilets who don't necessarily cheat, but aren't necessarily loyal either. My guess is that extreme loyalty and extreme cheating both came from the conquering tribe, in one instance to get the sperm of higher status men and in the other instance by showing loyalty to him you are also best resistant against gossip. Meanwhile the other 50% of females that don't cheat but aren't loyal either is likely because cheating is potentially costly (he can kill you and your offspring, especially since toilets relentlessly gossip about these things) but aren't loyal either because their husbands were prone to die and wouldn't take the emotional baggage of a previous relationship into the next (because they simply don't care).
Introversion is also negatively selected for in females because a more introverted female isn't befriended with "the sisterhood" and all the protections that come with that and is essentially subject to her husband's whim. Meanwhile in men being better friends with other men doesn't offer extra protection, male co-operation was largely tribal and men defended their own due to a sense of honour and / or duty rather than friendship.
