**As well as being an unethical practice, anthropologists have not concluded that patriarchy is the natural state of human life – in fact, it’s a rather recent phenomenon…** To hierarchically prioritise one group of people over another in a discriminatory way is unethical. There is no other way to put it. Even more than this, the supposed science surrounding justifications for patriarchy have been repeatedly debunked: - Jordan Peterson's claims of natural patriarchy based on 'competence' have been quashed by neuroscientist Gina Rippon and psychologist Cordelia Fine, citing [no scholarly evidence for such a claim](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/smashing-the-patriarchy-why-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-supremacy) - Patriarchy has been shown to have an [unnatural impact on the environment](https://dothegreenthing.com/issue/man-made-disaster-how-patriarchy-is-ruining-the-planet/), from toxic masculinity preventing green initiatives to the sexist implications of climate change - Patriarchy is based upon a series of [learned behaviours that are passed down and often go unnoticed or unchallenged](https://www.gutsandgrace.com/articles/the-patriarchy-within) - this means that things may seem 'natural' when instead they are very manmade - Women are often treated worse [for the simple fact of them being women, regardless of the value they add to different circles](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gender-inequality-man-woman-switch-names-week-martin-schneider-nicky-knacks-pay-gap-a7622201.html) - this demonstrates a deep, cultural misogyny that is based on a series of prejudiced assumptions about women, rather than fact Patriarchy is, frankly, illogical. I'm not about to say that the world would be a better place if women were in charge, but it certainly would be if they weren't stopped from taking the mantle so much. What a waste.

- Patriarchy is a system of society in which men hold power and women are largely excluded. When we think about it being 'natural', a lot depends on how we define our 'nature'. The most obvious route is to think of something being 'natural' in terms of being conducive to evolution & [Darwin's theory of natural selection] (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/natural-selection/#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20the%20process%20through%20which%20populations%20of%20living,to%20the%20environment%20than%20others.) — the process by which organisms continue to survive and evolve. However, because of natural selection's interaction with environmental factors, what 'naturally' comes about during periods of human existence is not necessarily ingrained within us. - The central characteristical difference between men and women which is often linked to patriarchy is [to do with sex and reproduction] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans). Males can mate with any fertile partner and then easily move onto another, while females need to be more selective and committed because they will grow & birth the offspring. A popular theory about why patriarchal societies were 'natural' as our ancestors became civilised [coincides with the rise of agriculture] (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/). The nature of family units within an agricultural society meant that women raised the children while the physically stronger males worked. The men then passed their property and resources down the male line, effectively excluding the women from power. - Physical manual labour is not the centre of our production systems anymore. And modern family units mean that it's become increasingly normal for both male and female parents to play equal or exchangeable household roles. So just because a patriarchal arrangement was 'natural' at some point in the history of evolution doesn't indicate its inherency in human nature, nor its relevance to society as we know it today.