Nope, absolutely and completely the opposite of that. Conscious thought is only about 2% of what we consider thinking. Most racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is taking place in unconscious bias or in structural elements of the society. Did a certain amount of setting up those structures happen intentionally - yes, of course - but a lot of that continues today sailing along on very little conscious intent. It’s still harmful and oppressive.
A commonly held view assumes that conscious thought is in charge of behavior(e.g., Wegner, 2002). However, several decades of psychology research have challenged this notion. The findings have shown that conscious thought has limited access to the mind’s inner workings, while revealing that the unconscious is capable of initiating and guiding behavior without help from conscious thought.
For literally 97% of human history we did not live this way, in part because human impulses toward selfishness were non-adaptive. Our strain of hominids survived when others didn't because we actively and intentionally suppressed the dominance hierarchies that are endemic to other primates. Some cultures continue to do this and some do not. The US is one of those cultures.
Christopher Boehm is an anthropologist and primatologist who is currently the Director of the Jane Goodall Research Center at the University of Southern California. He believes that suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution and many anthropologists agree with him. Enhanced cooperation lowered the risks of Paleolithic life for small, isolated bands of humans and was likely crucial to our survival and evolutionary success.
Clearly human social structures do not have anything to do with natural disasters and mental illness. What are you even on about because it sounds kind of unhinged and like someone who is emotionally grasping at straws. I said "social ills" - which means things like racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and other anti-social things like garden variety bullying.
It doesn't really matter what you think as a layperson because social scientists and systems scientists understand the dynamics of all of this quite well even if you don't. The really only sensible thing you've said here is that certain men dominated women, children and other men because they could. Yes, that is exactly right. But that wasn't because men are evil - it's because some men had access to horses, better weapons, more wealth, and lived in social structures that did not have the same values as egalitarian enclaves, etc. Why didn't they have the same values? Well, that's a much more complex question that doesn't have a definitive answer. Mutations happen in nature all of the time, and social structures evolve and change constantly. But what we do know is that type of domination-based hierarchy arose when it hadn't been there before and continued on for the past 5 or so thousand years to give us the social system that we have in the US (and some other parts of the world) today. Other social systems exist in other cultures -even as we speak. In some cultures, rape is a non-existent thing and I could give you dozens of other examples of how we have the social system that we allow for and tolerate. There are 6 matrilineal cultures today. Why do they exist in some place and not in others? Really good question with no simple answer.
I haven't made any judgements about patriarchy arising in the past. Far from it - except to note concrete things like how it brought about slavery, and the loss of autonomy for women (to name just a few), which very clearly are not socially neutral in any objective sense. If I'm not allowed to speak about the facts of history and how the legacy of that negatively affects both me and others in the society today then I don't know what to tell you expect too bad. I'm a social scientist, describing the structures that I know and understand best. That doesn't mean I'm infallible, but I do know a whole lot about this topic.
As it stands in the US, men perpetrate the vast majority of violence - against women, but also against men. That is a function of a culture where masculinity is linked with domination and control. Up until 50 or 60 years ago there were laws made exclusively by white men that kept women and Black people subordinate in very concrete and damaging ways. If you'd prefer to think of it as inherent evil on the part of men that magically sprung up 5k years ago, that's up to you, but those are essentially the two choices. It's either evil men or it's the advent of a new domination based hierarchy social structure. I spend my time exploring the latter. When these types of social problems and structures have only been around for 4% of history and don't exist universally, human nature sure doesn't explain them.
You don't have to agree, but that wouldn't be very logical or rational given the vast plethora of multi-disciplinary evidence. And I don't see a whole lot of upside to continuing to go round and round about this. You don't seem to have much interest in learning or asking questions that would help you to better understand the history, anthropology, archeology, primatology, art history, human development, or systems science aspects of any of this so it seems like kind of a waste of my time to continue to try to talk about it further.
Edit: This is a sample of how I typically describe the advent of patriarchy. If you find that judgmental rather than historical, I think that’s coming from within:
“The social dynamics only began to change as greater personal property that came with a larger reliance on agriculture began to be a factor. Combine this with a wave of natural disasters and incursions from more warlike Proto-Indo-European tribes, and a new more stratified type of social organization arises. This included not only a gendered power differential but a whole new class system where none had existed before. The following excerpt from an article in the World Economic Forum explains quite well how this came about:
“Labor roles became more gendered as well. Generally, men did the majority of the fieldwork while women were relegated to child-rearing and household work. Without contributing food (and by association, without control over it), women became second-class citizens. Women also had babies more frequently, on average once every two years rather than once every four in hunter-gatherer societies.
Because somebody had to have control over surplus food, it became necessary to divide society into roles that supported this hierarchy. The roles of an administrator, a servant, a priest, and a soldier were invented. The soldier was especially important because agriculture was so unsustainable compared to hunting and gathering. The fickleness of agriculture ironically encouraged more migration into neighboring lands in search of more resources and warfare with neighboring groups. Capturing slaves was also important since farming was hard work, and more people were working in these new roles.
This division of labor and social inequality had very real consequences. For instance, while the majority of people had disastrous health compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors, the skeletons of Mycenean royalty had better teeth and were three inches taller than their subjects. Chilean mummies from A.D. 1000 had a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease than commoners.”
