In support of the rage of man

[Amarok]

I hate to break it to you, but dominance hierarchies have been around since before trees. They're not social constructs from the floor up. Social constructs can amplify and reinforce negative feedback loops that are on top of the framework. I believe this is why the term "misogynistic male patriarch" was invented, it's a misnomer though. Only in the minutest minority are the guys out there seeking to subjugate women to secretaries because they fear a challenging opponent. Most are just doing what they feel it takes to get ahead and whatever cost they feel is appropriate. It wouldn't matter if you were a male or a female, but those types tend to pick easier fights. Men are driven to have the best stuff, and some of that stuff man wants is a high quality mate. It may differ from individual, time period and society what the definitions of "stuff" are but one particular drive is the opposite sex. It is definitely objectifying, but could changing women's selection criteria vary the formula enough to shake things up?

And everything in this paragraph is bullshit