The answer, as with everything, is a constant "it depends". This "Male dominance" myth is perpetuated by consistently ignoring division of labor and division of privileges, and often focusing only on the uppermost of human societies. As men are the ones who fight the wars or battles, obviously it then stands to reason it will be the men deciding who they fight, why, and where. So it isn't necessarily agriculture, but war, and trade, that end up with male leaders in societies.

That a very few, often very rich, men end up in positions of ultimate authority more frequently than women is not evidence of some "male dominance" as a whole - and this is where the myth breaks down. At most points of human society any woman married to such a man could have any other man killed, any hundreds of men. Men, in general, did not have this mythical "male dominance". Only a tiny fraction of a percent of men, and very often only in certain areas or circumstances. The sole major exception to something like this is a very narrow band of religions, particularly Abrahamic religions.