It doesn’t matter whether or not you find it reasonable. That’s what anthropologists agree is the case, and “male dominance” was already defined in the quote. I didn’t say that patriarchy caused social upheaval. I said that it was disruptive, and led to migration due to the gross inequity that came with patriarchy (socioeconomic stratification due to dominance hierarchies).
“In other words, inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural — or physical — extinction of egalitarian societies.” New Scientist
Here’s a longer excerpt from an academic journal:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024683
“We hypothesize, therefore, that the spread of socioeconomic stratification may have been a result of cultural change via demic diffusion. In other words, socioeconomic stratification may have spread across the globe over the past several thousand years, not because it provided apparent advantages that led to its adoption by egalitarian cultures, but simply because it altered demographic outcomes in ways that produced an increase in frequency of stratified populations, through population expansion or the outward migration of populations in search of additional territory and resources.
Our simulation trials showed that stratified populations in constant environments exhibited more demographic instability, crises and extinctions than did egalitarian populations. Figure 1 shows typical population trajectories for egalitarian and stratified societies over 2000 years. Egalitarian populations are eventually able to stabilize, not because of density-dependent growth but because fertility, mortality, and resource productivity achieve a balance. This is an unexpected outcome in a complex system. Reaching this balance appears to depend on the stochastically determined magnitude of the rebound following a population crash.
In constant environments, inequalities in resource allocation appear to disrupt the feedback between population growth and resource depletion, preventing stratified groups from achieving an equilibrium size and driving them to migrate more despite their smaller populations. In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian groups. While rapid migration and protection against extinction in variable environments may be viewed as an adaptive advantage of stratification, it is more probably a result of individual selection, as certain individuals survive at the expense of resource deprivation and mortality for others.”
Native American cultures are overwhelmingly egalitarian. Women have a huge amount of autonomy and social cache compared to patriarchal cultures even in tribes where there is what appears to be male dominance.
https://www.grin.com/document/15030
“Apart from being egalitarian, most Native Societies also were matrilineal, meaning descent and property was passed down on the distaff side of the family and women had a very high social prestige. If a society was matrilineal, it mostly was also matrilocal, which means that after getting married, the husband moved into the wife’s house and became part of her family and tribal community.
This was practiced for example in the Navajo nation. The women owned the crops as well as the household, in which they lived with their spouse. They also had complete sexual freedom, which included the concept that moral character was simply determined by age and not in the least by gender (Shepardson: 159).
The matrilineal organization of a society often derived from practical deliberations, as in the case of the western Eskimos. In this inhospitable area, the husband was busily trying to come up with enough food to save his family from starvation. Therefore he spent a great deal of time away from home and would have had difficulties “controlling” his wife’s actions. It could be assumed that brothers would then have taken over his responsibility and directed his wife. As a matter of fact this did not happen, but men simply did not have a great deal of influence on the domestic life (Guemple: 21).”
