Here's what it looks like to me in script form, I'm a playwright so that's how I do thing:
PENG: Hey, I wanted to explore some ideas about how patriarchy emerged, so here's an article with some thoughts about ship safety and a passing reference to some interesting stuff I read about a city in Turkey, with a link to one facet of how I think it's more complicated than perhaps people think it is. Other information is available and people should go read widely, because it's interesting.
ELLE: You're a fucking idiot, I'm going to call you a fucking idiot because you don't know all the things I know. I have researched this since the dawn of time and you are stepping on my turf. Your thoughts are idiotic and Patriarchy was a result of hordes of violent people coming out of the Steppe.
PENG: I think it might be a bit more complicated than that though becuase...
ELLE: You Penguin are an example of MEN who are fucking stupid. How dare you not know the entire back catalogue of my work or be an expert. If you don't know EVERYTHING then you should shut the fuck up, because I am the expert and questioning me is wasting my time.
PENG: I question people in authority all the time, particularly when I think they're cherry picking their evidence to suit their hypothesis. On that note, here's the meta-analysis of all the evidence I read on which I base my general theory 'this is more complicated than it seems'
AND in answer to your question:
Wealth disparity is one part of patriarchy, but I think it's a big part. I think it's worth exploring what happens psychologically when resources are threatened and a society is plunged into chaos. At this point it is technically an 'every person for themselves' but that doesn't work for a society. As I said in my article about the sinking ships, I think it's worth exploring whether the emergence of Patriarchy was in part a protective arms race within given cultures rather than simply an existential threat from outside. If wealth accumulation creates internal chaos (as seems to be happening in the meta-analysis) then the need for a violent outside force isn't as required to make sense of where we are now.
I enjoy the discussions, I enjoyed the research, it's far newer to me than it is to you - but what I have generally observed is that you frame these discussions as beneath you. No right to question. All dissent must be stamped out, often in the loudest way possible. I think there's room for competing theories on Çatalhöyük but any good faith discussion was completely wiped out due a toxic combination of gender bias (even though I'm a Penguin) and academic defensiveness (even though I never claimed to be an academic).
And I cite 'why I continue to bother to even try to talk to you' - if that doesn't scream ivory tower, I don't know what does.
