I think that's a significant factor but it's more the effect of an imposed illusion of a dominant narrative. Women need to follow the tribe to survive. If the whole tribe of cavemen worships the vengeful fire god Goobabooga, and a woman in the tribe says "Actually I don't see any empirical evidence for the existence of Goobabooga, it is possible for fire to exist by other causes", then that woman is being thrown into the pyre even though what she said is perfectly rational. So women evolved to follow the dominant narrative. They don't choose which rival chief to side with based on a rational evaluation of their domestic policies, they choose based on who has the most supporters in the tribe. They gained their means of survival (social status/popularity) by sucking up to whoever was the most powerful and making displays of loyalty, rather than by accomplishing work pragmatically.

So what this means in the modern day, is that if some hypothetical group with significant influence over media, information, and institutions imposes a particular narrative onto every screen, every billboard, and into every government/corporate meeting, it will be seen as the socially dominant narrative and it will be followed regardless of how obviously irrational and counter-civilisational it is or however unpopular it actually is among the general population. Any ideas against this narrative will be considered evil heresy regardless of how well-evidenced or rationally stated.

In Nazi Germany, the Chinese Maoist revolution, the French revolution, women were some of the most devout supporters of the new regime. "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."