In Early Buddhism was marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women?

I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge': > In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must > be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not > something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures > in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental > component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature, > of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal > institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women, > yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women > from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address > this deeply irrational male anxiety. > >[On the gandhabba and male anxiety](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-gandhabba-and-male-anxiety/30928) In Early Buddhism: 1. Is marriage a patriarchal institution? 2. Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women? 3. Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father? Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.