Nope, you are wrong on all counts here and sorry Mr. Mussolini, but tyranny is not necessary for order. This is my academic area of expertise and aside from the fact that I'm not advocating for the things you seem to think I am, patriarchy is a social system that is only about 5k years old. It's not only not necessary, it's antithetical to the way that humans lived and thrived for 97% of our history (and still do in some places). Civilization already existed before patriarchy came along. In fact, for a good long while there, it brought civiliation to a screeching halt.
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.
There are many egalitarian cultures throughout the world, including nearly all AmerInd societies, as well as a few that are affirmatively matrilineal - all sharing a belief in balance between men and women, as well as a sense of personal autonomy that combines with interconnection with others that does not create dependencies or seek to control others.
“Kinship, extended family, and clan bound people together within a system of mutual obligation and respect. Lineage was central to determining status and responsibilities, consent held communities together, and concepts of reciprocity extended to gender roles and divisions of authority.
Men were generally responsible for hunting, warfare, and interacting with outsiders, therefore they had more visible, public roles. Women, on the other hand, managed the internal operations of the community. They usually owned the family’s housing and household goods, engaged in agricultural food production and gathering of foodstuffs, and reared the children.
Because women’s activities were central to the community’s welfare, they also held important political, social, and economic power. In many North American societies, clan membership and material goods descended through women. For example, the Five (later Six) Nations of the Iroquois Confederation all practiced matrilineal descent. Clan matrons selected men to serve as their chiefs, and they deposed chiefs with whom they were dissatisfied. Women’s life-giving roles also played a part in their political and social authority. In Native American creation stories, it was often the woman who created life, through giving birth to children, or through the use of their own bodies to create the earth, from which plants and animals emerged.” https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23931
The purpose of patriarchal dominance hierarchies is for the most brutal and most ruthless to control and benefit off the backs of those they are able to dominate. It's for a small number of "elites" to trick men into accepting their supremacy by offering them control of women as a distraction from their own oppression- something that is eroding by the minute, but rather than turning their anger toward the system and the elites who benefit from it at their expense, too many men are blaming women (for not keeping an arrangement that they never fully accepted in the first place). The Soviet Union was a prime example of this - it was never an experiment in equality except in name. The Communist party elites always lived better and enjoyed greater status as well as control over the everyday populace.
And you know who has really low crime, and a really non-patriarchal society? Iceland (as just one example)
The cultures where rape is largely non-existent are the ones where women are seen as equals and where violence is not considered manly or laudable.
I don't have any more time to spend correcting your wild assertions about what I think, know, believe or understand — or the actual social dynamics and history of the world, which you seem to be rather mistaken about. I've already linked you several stories which you clearly haven't bothered to look at. Fine, no problem, but I'm not going to engage with you in any substantive way going forward unless you do because otherwise you're just making stuff up and I'm wasting my time both correcting it and educating you on the actual sociology.
