Everything about social science is complex and multi-faceted and I've never said anything different than that. And at the same time, it's a widely accepted sociological and anthropological fact that when patriarchal dominance hierarchies arose, the world changed to a much less equal, more more violent, much more stratified one, and that in fact, patriarchy spread because it was disruptive.

Women in Egypt had the final say in household finances until the 4th c BCE - when patriarchy came along. Slavery didn't become "a thing" in Egypt for several thousand more years. Also, weeping men in the late Renaissance were indeed acting on patriarchal norms in other ways for men. If you don't see the Renaissance as prime example of a patriarchal dominance hierarchy, you don't understand the concept. The modern Man Box essentially is the patriarchal norms of the moment, how we define what a "real man" is in this time period in a violent and coercive system of enforced social stratification - demonstrably, "real man" norms still have a lot of similarities across patriarchal cultures and across the 5 or 6 centuries of that particular social system.

Romans were incredibly uptight about being a "receiver" in a homosexual encounter. It was considered extremely unmanly and could even affect a man's status.

"Allowing himself to be penetrated threatened his liberty as a free citizen as well as his sexual integrity."

Roman society was patriarchal (see paterfamilias), and masculinity was premised on a capacity for governing oneself and others of lower status.[7] Virtus, "valor" as that which made a man most fully a man, was among the active virtues.[8] Sexual conquest was a common metaphor for imperialism in Roman discourse,[9] and the "conquest mentality" was part of a "cult of virility" that particularly shaped Roman homosexual practices."

It just makes me a little bit nuts when someone who isn't a social scientist and who has never really attempted to verify their "everyone knows" beliefs tries to "school" me on my area of expertise.

Again hellooo... women participate in patriarchal dominance hieararchy dynamics as well, but that doesn't make them any less patriarchal - because patriarchy is a social system, it's not a synonym for men. Again, why don't you grasp that yet after knowing and reading me this long?

Honestly, if you can't readily and apparently see all the parallels between the Western Man Box and Afghanistan, then there really is no sense beating my head against this particular wall any further. But I'll leave you with this list from the Equimundo study anyhow... Other than the part about looking effortlessly good which I have no idea how that translates, the rest applies entirely to Afghanistan (and all other highly patriarchal cultures). Afghans do have a more community-oriented culture which stems some of the elements of loneliness that we have, but otherwise, it's really just a matter of degrees in patriarchal extremeness.

Be self-sufficient — Real men should be self-reliant, particularly with regard to their physical and emotional health.

Act tough — Real men should be willing to defend their reputation, by violence if necessary. They also should remain stoic when dealing with vulnerable emotions.

Physical attractiveness — Real men should dress well and look good, but without appearing that they are trying too hard to do so.

Rigid gender roles — Real men expect to be financial providers but not to do much in the way of child or home care.

Heterosexuality and homophobia — Real men should be both heterosexual and derogatory of homosexuality, even if they have gay friends that they accept.

Hypersexuality — Real men are interested in and ready for sex anytime and anywhere. They should always be on the prowl for their next “sexual conquest.”

Aggression and control — Real men use physical violence when necessary, and hold control over household decisions and women’s movements.

"Aggressively violent conceptions of masculinity" is in fact a very short form way of describing what patriarchy means as relates to what is expected of men. This was very literally one of the main points of my original story and every story that I write about the dominance hierarchy system. And it's also a central aspect of The Chalice and the Blade, which you were purportedly reading. Clearly, not every man acts in aggressively violent ways, but it is still a core value for men in our culture. Exhibit A is just about every action adventure movie ever made. The “hero” saves the day by being aggressively violent.

I'm done here... I can't devote any more time to this, particularly when it's predicated on so many false pretenses and refusal to grasp the core concepts.

Edit:

But it is not the bloodlines or cultural contacts that cannot be found that are of such interest. It is what seems most definitely to unite these peoples of so many different places and times: the structure of their social and ideological systems. The one thing they all had in common was a dominator model of social organization: a social system in which male dominance, male violence, and a generally hierarchic and authoritarian social structure was the norm. Another commonality was that, in contrast to the societies that laid the foundations for Western civilization, the way they characteristically acquired material wealth was not by developing technologies of production, but through ever more effective technologies of destruction.

Moreover, the rapid spread of bronze metallurgy over the European continent is linked with the evidence of now increasingly massive incursions of the extremely mobile, warlike, hierarchic, and male-dominated pastoralist peoples from the northern steppes whom Gimbutas calls the Kurgans.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade . HarperOne. Kindle Edition.