Within the purview of primatology, the mate choice lies with females in a neutral environment, because women make almost all of the investment in the reproduction process. Competition is between males. Cultural practices stemming from neolithic farming transition which facilitated accumulation of resources, made that accumulation and access to it the main resource instead of babies. And males due to physical strength got to occupy the top of the pyramid of hierarchy as they were those who could gather and hold the resources which they could amass. This made mate choice in humans gravitate towards an organization more like chimps, as in harem organization. This primatological premise is corroborated by works in anthropology which show when such an accumulation doesn't exist, mate choice lies with females and whenever farming and accumulation start to appear there is a shift towards patrilocality and harem organization.
The reversal of this will get us back to a more primal position (as noted above by our friend Shearer in the works of Gimbutas and many others) where the choice lies with females. Females try to choose mates which will stay with them throughout pregnancy and lactation and possibly longer. Since the choice is with females, males have to compete among each other to get access.
Yes, so I am aware of this basic concept of primatology. But don't know anything about Gimbutas's works. (I know somebody who read her. Maybe I will ask him for a crash course.) For now, I assume it to be about the return of ancient 'neutral' environment and women having the mate choice, consequently, societies becoming more and more dominated by women again like primitive era.
Your argument, if I understood correctly, is along the similar line.
a. The immediate issue I would point out to, is the accumulation isn't going anywhere. It is just women also get to accumulate now. And as long as men accumulate (and frankly today we can and do accumulate a lot more than grains ) this will continue to be their main resource instead of babies. (because we aren't going back to pre farming societies where we need to make lots of babies to go outside with us for hunting or fighting predator/other tribes)
So, this new economic independence of women and increasing parity is not the return of the primitive age's 'neutral environment' where babies where the priority resource.
And I think this is the single most strongest counterpoint.
b. To build on that, today's Human civilizations power structure and its complexities has progressed way beyond of very simple mate choice priority that was
central to the power dynamics of primitive hunter gatherers. Now we have nation states, industrialization and soon we are going to Mars and on our way of becoming multiplanetary species. And these grand complex collective power structures and priorities are influenced and shaped by who has the most resources/wealth. Which is frankly Men. As there is a big disparity in the accumulation of resources/wealth between men and women and it will likely continue, even when true equality is achieved. See why-
c. Last but not the least, trying to compete equally with men for the accumulation of resources and economic independence while at the same time-
making almost all of the investment in the reproduction process.
Isn't really sustainable. If it were up to men they couldn't do it either. So, this creates a new paradox for women.
In the end, my understanding is we are not going to see a
reversal of the historical role of male domination in principle. Instead we are going to see a third evolution, a new/middle way gradually taking shape in front of us.
