While I disagree with your definition, I would say that by your definition, is not patriarchy, but warlike. I mean, Spartans were like that because they didn’t produce enough food for themselves. Mongols were more or less the same. But what remains culturally is not Mongols tradition, but the roman ones, even if roman were the ones being raided. I mean, even many countries laws are based on roman laws…
By the way, you might want to read more about who work, because women worked at factories in xix c.
And plenty of pictures:
Children too, by the way. They just were paid less than men.
And if you look at agrarian economies, both women and children worked at the fields too. Plus artesany. There is this idea that women stayed at the home only doing house work, but no, they worked the fields, worked at factories, as servants, apprentices, etc. There are plenty of historical records on this. Plenty of archeological evidences too.
I guess some people are too fond of this idea of the stay at home women, but it wasn’t the norm except por noble/rich women. Evidence points that most successful societies were the ones who have spare resources after feeding population (Like rome back in the day). But industrial revolution relied on women and children as cheap labor.
The “beta men” explanation sounds flimsy. For example, what is the exact definition of “beta men”, how it applies across history? Are you sure that Mongol army were made of “beta males”? I mean, this is the definition of beta male:
a man tending to assume a passive or subservient role in social or professional situations.
“there’s nothing macho about him — he’s a total beta male”
You might want to document more about what roles women used to have from an economic perspective. The idea that “In most societies women do more or less the same thing: take care of the home.” is modern and only applied to a minority. Women worked the fields, created pottery, sewed clothes, crafted all kinds of goods to sell, helped husband in professions…
Pick any society and you would find that only rich women could afford to only take care of the home.
Even the bible:
Proverbs 31:12–16 “She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.”
So basically, not only women were expected to do the housework, they also were expected to work in productive work, crafting fabric, working the fields and basically managing the husband properties. And of course the servants would also work the fields or anything required. Women weren’t allowed their own property unless they were widows, but they did work. A lot.
So why some “academics” defend that women only tended the home in the face of all the evidence of their work? Take your pick, but it is quite easy to look for evidences of women working outside the home since it was the norm.
