That’s actually a really reductive (and inaccurate) view of women in medieval European society. In a time and place where every pair of able hands was needed, women worked alongside men in labour-intensive jobs like farming, as well as skilled crafting jobs (there was even a specific type of armourer’s mark to show that a piece of armour had not been made by a particular armourer, but his widow).
Of course, when we start talking about noble women, born to great power and privilege, we start seeing women who not only leveraged their marriages to garner great political power (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Margaret of Anjou, Isabella of Castille and Anne Boleyn) but were able to use the resources of their absent or dead husbands to great effect in times of war and crisis (Katharine of Aragon, J’eanne de Clisson).
Which, incidentally brings me to one of my pet peeves: using a commonly accepted “grade school” version of history as basis for your setting, and saying something to the effect of “this actually happened”, or “this was the way things were” when no, they really weren’t. Women as non-entities in Medieval Europe serves as a good example, same thing with say, black people in Medieval and Early-Modern Europe (General Ganibal, Alexander Pushkin’s grandfather, and mentor to the great Field Marshal Suvorov is a fantastic example of a prominent black figure in 18th century Europe). There’s a certain version of history which we’re taught as children, which is easy to teach, correct within very broad boundaries, but ultimately leads to a very flawed interpretation of the societies and people who came before us.
It’s that sort of interpretation that builds what we now see as “standard western european medieval fantasy” or the national myth which the American rendition of their war of independence has become, and the sort of thing that results is the sort of shoddy, overused framework which sets my teeth on edge.
Just my thoughts on the matter.