In addition, I refer you back to the OP you commented on:
“FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status, and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority, or resources than others.*
Decision-making was decentralized and leadership ad hoc; there weren’t any chiefs. There were sporadic hot-blooded fights between individuals, of course, but there was no organized conflict between groups. Nor were there strong notions of private property and therefore any need for territorial defense. These social norms affected gender roles as well; women were important producers and relatively empowered, and marriages were typically monogamous.” (as distinct from harems or polygyny — socially monogamous does not necessarily equate to sexually monogamous, however)
The first sentence of the New Scientist quote is important because it speaks to a central aspect of patriarchy — social stratification.”
The author of the NS article doesn’t use the term patriarchy or even dominance hierarchy but that is what he is describing.
