On what do you base this assertion? America was envisioned and created as a patriarchal (male dominated, socially stratified) country right from the beginning because that was the model they had to work with coming from England and all of Western culture at that point. Besides the fact that I've never once characterized patriarchy as evil (or H/G life as ideal) there is ample evidence that as patriarchy arose in different areas over several thousand years (why I keep saying 6-9k years ago) it spread because it was disruptive.
“In other words, inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural — or physical — extinction of egalitarian societies.” New Scientist
Here's a longer and more in-depth explanation:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024683“
"We hypothesize, therefore, that the spread of socioeconomic stratification may have been a result of cultural change via demic diffusion. In other words, socioeconomic stratification may have spread across the globe over the past several thousand years, not because it provided apparent advantages that led to its adoption by egalitarian cultures, but simply because it altered demographic outcomes in ways that produced an increase in frequency of stratified populations, through population expansion or the outward migration of populations in search of additional territory and resources.
Our simulation trials showed that stratified populations in constant environments exhibited more demographic instability, crises and extinctions than did egalitarian populations. Figure 1 shows typical population trajectories for egalitarian and stratified societies over 2000 years. Egalitarian populations are eventually able to stabilize, not because of density-dependent growth but because fertility, mortality, and resource productivity achieve a balance. This is an unexpected outcome in a complex system. Reaching this balance appears to depend on the stochastically determined magnitude of the rebound following a population crash.
In constant environments, inequalities in resource allocation appear to disrupt the feedback between population growth and resource depletion, preventing stratified groups from achieving an equilibrium size and driving them to migrate more despite their smaller populations. In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian groups. While rapid migration and protection against extinction in variable environments may be viewed as an adaptive advantage of stratification, it is more probably a result of individual selection, as certain individuals survive at the expense of resource deprivation and mortality for others.”
And all this being said, I made it quite clear that I was not advocating for the adoption of a Neo-leaderless egalitarian society. Your final sentence is one with which I heartily agree.
