>>526308>>526313There was lag because it took a while for the superstructure to adapt to the base and for a proper settled society to take shape. Also it's not about who's stronger or whatever - if that was relevant then male dominance could have and likely would have emerged at any time. Property is the reason for patriarchy, and it comes down to the fact that making babies to inherit your property is a lot more dangerous for women than men. If it's the women who own things and pass them down, then it's going to be a lot more common for there to be crises of inheritance. Something like 1/3 women before modern medicine died in child birth.
If a woman with property dies without kids, there's going to be argument over who inherits. If political power is involved, it's likely to get bloody. For a ruler, producing an heir is also expected which means any female rulers are going to be rolling the dice on whether they have their rule cut short by pregnancy and childbirth complications, possibly before they even have one heir. This means that matrilineal inheritance is just less stable in general, so a strictly patriarchal system has an advantage here. This is probably why you pretty much only see patriarchal rulers in "civilizations" proper - it's just not sustainable to be risking crisis that much. The element of controlling women's sexuality makes sense as a way to ensure the heirs are legitimate (something you don't have to worry about with matrilineal inheritance). The steep social imposition associated with that control implies some kind of tradeoff, like a society where you never have to worry about a political crisis because the ruler died in childbirth.
Interestingly, some of the more recent research on the topic points to agriculture itself being linked to pregnancy and childbirth complications. It's possible then that the cause and effect went something like agriculture -> maternal mortality -> patriarchy. There are some larger and more organized cultures that do follow a matrilinear inheritance method, but they are mainly seen in the Americas and may be subject to different conditions regarding agriculture and nutrition, having significantly different (and often more nutritious) staple foods. There's also speculation that because of its relatively negative health consequences, agriculture may have been forced on people, with the early adopters "civilizing" hunter gatherers into enslaved agricultural workers producing a surplus. So while the quality of life might have decline for almost everyone, the calorie output means that agricultural, patriarchal, slave societies could simply overwhelm their neighbors with sheer numbers and resources.