But people's social structures weren't very different. For most of human history, we lived in nomadic hunter-gatherer bands with very similar social configurations and mores. Then, even when villages and even cities came about (starting about 12k years ago), there still was little centralized hierarchy, and a huge amount of personal autonomy balanced with the needs of the collective - not really all the different from the H/G model. There were some social differences but in many ways, they were quite nominal.
And, quite clearly, patriarchal dominance hierarchies weren't around for "millennia" - they only began about 5k years ago - as was laid out very definitively in this story. As was the fact that dominance hierarchies spread because they were so disruptive - driving migration. Acting like this took hold because it was somehow better to have slavery, and to wipe out entire villages, killing all the men and children so that you could take the women - that's just laughable.
You are correct that people who had never made weapons or who had always lived on open plains with no defensive properties were not equipped to withstand these onslaughts but it doesn't make it in any way a "better" model.
Denmark has one of the strongest economies in the world. It also has one of the highest happiness quotients. They teach children empathy in school and encourage them to compete against their own previous achievements, not against their peers (other than in sports, obv.) Modern Western Democracies can move in this same direction - but they have to want to. We have to finally get sick of all the loneliness, and performative pecking order jousting, and we have to get rid of guys defending patriarchy out of hand, even though it harms them as well. Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon, because most men LOVE to defend and uphold patriarchy, even though it's not really their "team."
