This is talking about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies were idyllic. That’s hardly a rebuttal to whether or not they were patriarchal. There is significant research from many quadrants that pre-agriculture most societies were made up of about 50 individuals who had to share nearly everything in order to survive. They were hardly Gardens of Eden and I did not remotely assert that they were. That’s you putting words into my mouth. I’ve already cited you one article on this topic but here’s another one from a scholarly paper.
Today, most anthropologists would agree, regardless of their stance on issues such as the universality of male dominance, that an entirely different order of male dominance became associated with the rise of the large and populous agricultural states organized in terms of classes. The patriarchal systems that emerged brought women for the first time under the direct control of fathers and husbands with few cross-cutting sources of support. Women as wives under this system were not social adults, and women’s lives were defined in terms of being a wife. Women’s mothering and women’s sexuality came to be seen as requiring protection by fathers and husbands. Protecting unmarried women’s virginity appears to go along with the idea of the domestication of women and an emphasis on a radical dichtomy between the public and the private sphere. The private sphere is watched over and protected by men, and women are excluded from the public domain. These agrarian societies that give power over women and sons to fathers should properly be called “patriarchal.”