I don't think Mr.Lavine adequately connects the dots, if one may be allowed a metaphor. I'm not saying they can't be connected, just that the connection needs to be made explicit. HOW is female subservience essential to tribalism?

In the end, I think it's about genes. Mama's baby, papa's maybe. Men can't be sure whose chldren they are supporting unless women's opportunities for, well, intercourse, are circumscribed. The "inferiority" of women is just a rationalization for limiting their autonomy so that they can't get pregnant at school or work or while they say they are out shopping. This was especially true among inbred tribes where "una faccia, una razza" is more nearly literally true.

What is the alternative to tribalism? Should scarce resources to be shared, or should the number of sharers be reduced? Nature may prefer the latter, as it results in a more robust population of better fed better fighters. I agree that the tribalism is a bad idea here and now. Whether Mr. Lavine agrees that it was once the only game in town is less clear, but that strikes me as less important.

IMO, the West has pretty much abandoned the notion if female inferiority. Except in small pockets of medieval subculture, women marry whom they want of whatever sex they want. They own property and do business in their own names. Yet tribalism seems as robust as ever, which suggests that female superiority was a temporary technology for protecting the institution, not the essence of it. If we can't control our women, we can at least treat those whose genes are obviously not ours as competitors for rare resources.

But even that notion is becoming obsolete, because in the developed West, resources are not really all that scarce. Our genes will do fine no matter what group they mix with. In other words, female inequality became obsolete as a tool of tribalism and then tribalism became obsolete as a tool of genetic preservation. At least those are the dots I see. Mr. Lavine may see others, and I invite him to offer a comparable rebuttal.