"Talk about outdated "science." It's been pretty widely accepted within cultural anthropology that cultures which are male dominant vs those that are more egalitarian are those where men's greater strength is more useful to where it is less useful. The classic distinction is that cultures that depend on intensive agriculture with plows are male dominant, cultures that do their agriculture with hoes are more egalitarian. It has nothing to do with "warrior cultures" or the other commonly accepted mythologies. Here's a discussion of a 2010 paper that puts a bit of statistical rigor behind the idea. . It's fairly long, and Razib Khan expects that his readers will have the background to understand what he's saying without a lot of hand-holding."
Thanks, good article and food for discussion tonight. Even discounting Eisler's warrior narrative and accepting the hoe/plough, female/male domination of agricultural work, the article nonetheless points to some similarities with Eisler's points. For example, plough cultures divide up work with women in the home and men in the field, since ploughs require greater physical strength. So far so good. However it appears greater value was placed on men's productive work in these patriarcal societies, with women's care-taking roles being valued far less even today.