It's a patriarchal dominance hierarchy, which speaks to the domination and subjugation/ownership of women as well as the ways that paternity is important for the first time in human history. That male domination of women came about at the same time as other types of social stratification which were enforced by “might makes right”, which is why it is rightly called a patriarchal dominance hierarchy. The fact that this social system also harms men does not detract from the other aspects of why this is appropriately called patriarchy from a sociological perspective. Men harm men, and they harm women - overwhelmingly male aggression is a problem. That doesn't disproved patriarchy, rather it confirms the domination-based aspect of it as a central element.
I am not a feminist, but I am a student of sociology. The fact that you don't like the facts does not detract from their veracity. I've written maybe 40 stories about the social system of patriarchal dominance-based hierarchies in the past 3 years, and it's unlikely that I'm going to stop doing that because it offends the sensibilities of some men. Patriarchy is the source of all of our social ills, including not just sexism, but also racism, homophobia, and any other form of bullying or discrimination, and that's the truth because it is a system of domination based in coercion, intimidation, and violence. Police brutality is a function of patriarchy, as is school yard bullying, and as I've already said, women participate in this system as well. This social system cannot and will not fix itself because it is deeply rooted in institutionalized ways in the culture, which is why we need to keep talking about it. Individuals cannot impact this in any significant way by exercising better agency.
"In a patriarchal dominance hierarchy, rankings and status are often artificial, based on immutable traits like gender, race, and sexuality, or in life situations that confer inherent disadvantages right from the start, such as being born into poverty. It’s also maintained through a kind of might makes right ethos that justifies and even approves of ruthlessness in order to rise in the pecking order."
Both human (and animal/mammal) nature is to avoid deadly conflict if possible, and we have a long history, even in domination-based cultures to find ways of not killing each other, although I'm not really sure what that has to do with whether or not we live in countries that have patriarchal dominance hierarchies. But in case you are interested, here's a link to a story about that as well.
"Particularly for very social species, such as primates, the pro-social aspects of non-lethal behavior are also a factor as well as the cost-benefit analysis of probably victory for engaging in it. To say that humans are inherently warlike or inherently peaceful is to oversimplify. However, there is significant evidence that even cultures who are considered to be quite violent still have mechanisms for avoiding lethal interactions."
