No, my definition is 100% in line with anthropological standards. In fact, that's entirely where it comes from - right out of the mouths of anthropologists. And as is typical for you, you can't support your assertions in any way whatsoever. I'd think a scientist would be able to do better than that. But no, it just someone how feels wrong to you, although you can't actual present anything that substantiates that. If you think my definition is off, show me from a reputable anthropological source where I am wrong. I suggest you start with the Wikipedia page for Hunter-Gatherers, under the subsection Social and Economic Structure (or really any any major book, article, or study that describes that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

And I haven't drawn any conclusions at all - that's you. I have simply stated the historical facts. If those make you uncomfortable in some way, then that's kind of on you - although I can't imagine why a recounting of thousands year old history should be upsetting to you. What exactly is your beef with this anyhow? I suspect it's that male control of women hasn't always existed since the dawn of time, but come on, are you really that fragile? Do you need to have an evolutionary right to control women to feel good about yourself?

Aside from the fact that the social sciences do not work exactly in the same way that the hard sciences do, there is no contradictory evidence to my hypothesis. It's irrefutable - which is why you haven't been able to present anything that contricts it - because there isn't anything.

Additionally, even the nature of gravity is not entirely agreed upon, so that's just another red herring thrown by you to distract from the fact that you got nothing at all that can substantively rebut the things that I've said.

Unless you can come up with some substance, I think we're done here.