This is not what I hear from the leading theologians of complementarianism, but more from rank and file hierarchalists who use the Bible to defend why women should submit to them:
Christian complementarianism …sees [men and women] as being identical in nature but different in function and role. For example, women are to bear children where men are not. This obvious biological difference is a complementarian necessity within the family. Likewise, men are to lead their families with Godly direction, and the women are to support their husbands in their leadership. – Matt Slick’s wording of an argument I have often heard from complementarians
The thing to notice here is that this view compares male rule to an obvious biological fact. Who will do that?
1) The they-can’t-do-it sexist?:
Do they think it is obvious that women have no capacity to rule? That men, not women, ruling is as biologically unchangeable as women, not men, carrying children?
2) The unappealing man?:
Are their wives so unattracted to them that the wife would never initiate sexual contact? So that, if they as men do not lead their wives to the bedroom, they would have as few children as when women do not have wombs? In that case, this refers to how they see male and female roles in procreation. But it does not reflect well on their marriages.
3) The (potential) rapist?:
Are they saying that the way that bearing children is something female anatomy is designed for, ruling is something male anatomy is designed for? If so, men forcing women to have sex as would be seen as a good, manly thing – it is ruling over women.
If leading is seen as men’s natural, biological ability, where is the evidence for that? And what does it say of the men who see it that way?