It's always lovely when someone who is a layperson declares that they are "skeptical" of my well documented subject matter expertise - which comes out of 15+ years of mainstream research and sociological fundamentals. I tell ya, it never gets old... 🙄 There's nothing wrong with asking questions or saying, "What about this?" but there's also a way to do that in the spirit of discussion that isn't condescending and dismissive.

That being said, as I noted in the first paragraph, agriculture (and by extension, the use of the plow) are big factors. Here's a story I wrote a while back about how plowed agriculture cements inequality. But, there was also 5k years of agriculture where we don't have the elements of patriarchy related to authoritarianism, dominance-based hierarchy, Might Makes Right violence, etc.

The Trope of The Farmer’s Daughter

And as I also noted (and documented), patriarchy spread because the violence and instability it brought drove migration to other parts of the world. In addition,

"Recent genetics studies have demonstrated that populations bearing specific Y-DNA haplogroups and a distinct genetic signature expanded into Europe and South Asia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the 3rd and 2nd millenia BC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

Nothing about world history is simple or cut and dried, but these invasions by warlike nomads and the way they changed the fundamental social structures of humanity are not exactly in dispute. We've known this stuff since the 1950s at a minimum, but it's not a part of mainstream history in part because patriarchy loves to justify and aggrandize itself. It loves to tell stories of how male leadership, male innovation, and social Darwinism have given us the world we have today (and the slavery, sexism, colonialism, etc., are just unfortunate but perhaps inevitable (or natural) byproducts). It's why so many men identify with patriarchy as "their team" when for the vast majority of them, it's not their team at all.