I'm not sure patriarchy is in its overshoot, I think Capitalism is in its overshoot. Patriarchy and Capitalism seem like excellent playmates, because the latter at its most extreme creates the ideal environment for psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists to thrive. I'm not sure that's entirely connected with patriarchy - as you've pointed out, in a more pastoral system there was less need to do that.

I suppose I don't see Feminism in quite the same way you do - in so much as it can't emerge without being a product of the system which created it. I don't see it as an external balancing force as perhaps you do - I see it as an internal correction. I see many young women struggling with the overcorrection of feminism - some (but not all) would trade their stressful jobs for pastoral childcare in a heartbeat... but patriarchy and capitalism going hand-in-hand across the 20th Century have made this nearly impossible. I see feminism as a course correction on the wrong half of the problem - socialism was the answer, reducing the financial pressures may have allowed people to explore whether their gender roles, traditional or otherwise were an important part of their family life. Feminism opted in on capitalism and in doing so, shot itself in the foot. Now we have Only Fans, Instagram and girls being paid a fortune to get sexually assaulted on millionaire yachts.

Whilst you're here, and you've got your expertise. What I've struggled for a long time to understand, and Elle and I have got into a few times is why the sexual dimorphism? If an entirely egalitarian system was the default setting across our existence why would there be an evolutionary pressure towards dimorphism? I mean, humans aren't gorillas or Anglerfish but they aren't hyenas or mockingbirds either. What were the pressures that led men to be stronger, faster, more facially hairy etc?