You keep purporting that being a gay man means you understand the historical, social, and cultural implications of patriarchy better than I do, but that doesn't actually make any sense. Especially since you continue to apply "everyone knows" forms of pop-evolutionary psychology that aren't supported by science. This is one of my areas of expertise, and the fact that you think that my "intellectualism" is a liability is just kind of joke.

Patriarchy is a social construct with particular elements to it - one that only came into widespread use about 6-9 thousand years ago. The things you imagine about human culture, in part by extrapolating from other animals (which have no direct bearing, not even from other primates) are entirely erroneous. The history of human kind up until very, very recently was one of enforced egalitarianism, where by design, no one had power or control over anyone else. There were no leaders and women had the same status as men, in part because gatherers provided the bulk of the daily food for the tribe because hunting was only sporadically successful. This only begins to shift with plowed agriculture, along with other social and culture shifts a few thousand years ago.

The gendered power differentials, social stratification and wealth disparity that you seem to think are timeless are only a few thousand years old. Even in cultures, such as many Native American tribes, where there is a chief and men appear to have most of the power, what we actually find when we look beneath our modern patriarchal preconceptions is a very balanced culture where property and lineage mostly go through the female line, men sit on tribal councils only with the support and consent of the women, etc. Chiefs have little power that has not been voluntarily granted to them, and they often have no power to sanction or punish those who do not abide by their wishes. This is entirely different from the might makes right aspects that arose just a few thousand years ago.

You are pulling stuff out of the cultural myth and imagining it as truth, but it doesn't hold any water. Here's a quote from a piece in New Scientist entitled "Inequality: Why egalitarian societies died out" which further supports my assertions.

"FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority or resources than others.

Decision-making was decentralized and leadership ad hoc; there weren’t any chiefs. There were sporadic hot-blooded fights between individuals, of course, but there was no organized conflict between groups. Nor were there strong notions of private property and therefore any need for territorial defense.”

Çatalhöyük — Ancient Land Of Peace And Egalitarianism

“Çatalhöyük was a large proto-agricultural settlement in what is now Turkey, existing from approximately 7100 BCE to 5700 BCE. At its height, the population numbered around 10,000, but all evidence is that the inhabitants lived a very peaceful and egalitarian existence. We know this is the case because Çatalhöyük is one of the most thoroughly excavated archeological sites in the world.”

The Trope of The Farmer’s Daughter

“Meat was a very small portion of the diet of Paleolithic peoples. As such, female gatherers were central to the survival and well-being of the tribe. They weren’t sitting at home, tending the fire and the children, waiting for their one mate to provide for them. That’s a very recent and geographically specific dynamic.

Sociologist Rae Blumberg has pointed out that it is only for less than 3% of human history and in this one type of agrarian society, that women have become fundamentally dependent on men. Plowed agriculture turned on its head the prior dynamic of women as competent, self-sufficient primary producers who make their own decisions relatively autonomously.”