LOL - Darwin never said that. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Darwin said that the most adaptable has the evolutionary advantage. Eugenicist Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in trying to justify his horrible beliefs. Attempting to justify a dominance hierarchy culture just because it's what we've had for the past several thousand years doesn't exactly fly. Patriarchies spread because they were inherently destabilizing - not because they were a good idea. And, there are plenty of Western cultures that have pulled back from dominance hierarchy metrics and are thriving. Denmark is a prime example. So is Iceland. Some cultures have never had them, including pretty much all AmerInd cultures and most other indigenous cultures as well as the 6 matrilineal cultures still in existence.
Communism is another form of dominance hierarchy - nobody is advocating for that... Egalitarian cultures do view everyone as equal — not the same, but equally valuable and equally deserving of resources and care.
Egalitarianism is not about perfect equality. We say that foragers have an egalitarian society, not because men and women necessarily have equal rights and power (they don’t always in modern forager tribes — although sometimes they do), but because of the socio/political structure which does not favor a chief or other full-time or hereditary leader.
Amongst foragers, ad hoc leaders emerge for certain tasks, and decisions are made by the group for the good of the group. The absence of social classes, significant wealth disparity, ruling classes, and no hierarchy of traditional power that is maintained by intimidation — these are the things that make for an egalitarian culture — both for foragers and for most other indigenous societies as well.
And in the places in the modern world where we need hierarchies for efficiency, hierarchies of actualization will do the trick. We don’t require dominance-based hierarchies in order to function.
And I've already linked you a story that you clearly didn't read about how animals actually behave - rather how you assume they behave, but here it is again in case you get a sudden impulse to actually educate yourself on these topics.
Protecting yourself or your offspring from harm has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of aggression, domination, and control of women that is not only sanctioned but encouraged in patriarchies. Yes, it absolutely makes sense that we have been more violent since the rise of patriarchies 8-10k years ago because they are brutal, might makes right systems steeped in blood and human suffering. If you knew anything at all about this subject, you'd already know that.
In contrast with the peoples of Old Europe as well as those of Mesopotamia, who worshipped a life-giving goddess that brought abundance, law, art, and beauty both the Kurgans and the ancient Hebrews worshipped a god of war and mountains, one who had no balancing female consort like that of the goddess. These invaders glorified in the death and destruction that they brought in the name of their god (Jehovah or Yahweh for the Hebrews), and in the case of the Kurgans, they actually paid devotion to their swords.
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.
Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade (p. 86). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
The Smithsonian and UNESCO say you are dead wrong about your understanding of ancient cultures and the progress of human history. You've bought into a myth sold to you by patriarchy attempting to justify itself under the guise of celebrating "civilization." The problem is, the world was much more civil before the advent of patriarchal dominance hierarchies.
And good lord, man — did you not read the UNESCO paragraphs? Go back and read the middle paragraph again. Finding one or even a few bodies that died by violence does not indicate war, systemic violence, or even a culture of violence. It means one man got in a fight with his neighbor, or one man was executed, or one man fell and hit his head. It’s not proof of anything at all.
Give it a rest — you are grasping at straws and coming off as someone so deeply wedded to the myth they’ve bought into that they can’t even see straight.
