Today, in western societies, a man being a "provider" does not grant him power or dominance over his partner. Not any more than historical peasant farmers and servants who provided for the nobility.

Likewise, a man whose partner habitually financially provides for him shouldn't be regarded as "weak" or "submissive", if anything he's likely very attractive since they were willing to overlook his relatively low income. She probably treats him better than most women treat their partners.

Providing people with money is not a form of "power", unless you're making most of the spending decisions. But primary/sole breadwinners tend to be busy and statistically women account for most consumer spending.

And modern family law ensures that women who are financially dependent on their partners get a substantial payout in the form of asset division, child support, and alimony if the relationship comes to an end, especially if they were married.