Christianity is supposedly an “improvement” over Judaism. And Islam is supposedly an improvement of Christianity. In what sense? Why was Christ put to death and his followers did not object? Because Christ refused to declare himself king. Instead, he had promoted fellowship with men and women equally.
Under the leadership of Peter and Paul, Catholicism evolved to affirm the primacy of men, but perhaps not enough to satisfy Middle Eastern men. The Bible had to be improved to exclude women more obviously. Perhaps it is just my misimpression, but the EuroAmerican story of the Moslem invasion always had them coming out of Africa and intercepted by the Christians in Spain where they encountered another patrilineal culture.
Paternity has always been legally or socially determined because, until the modern era, there was no physical proof, as is enjoyed by maternity. In British law, even “parent” was reserved for the male progenitor.
In any event, perhaps as a result of the spread of Christianity, European populations favored the supremacy of the male and the domination of females, whether in the name of religion (submission to a deity) or regional locus of power (nation). So, the National Socialists, with the support of the Catholic Church focused primarily on “Kirche, Kinder und Küche” to insure male dominion and sought to eradicate Jews, homosexuals and all other champions of women’s rights.
Nationalism, patriotism and paternalism are all variants of the real objective, male hegemony. For what purpose? Well, if women and children work to sustain the population, then men are free to contest with each other to demonstrate dominance.
Why is that important? It isn’t, except to those males whom incompetence or intimidation has rendered them incapable of sustaining themselves other than by a show of force. Most manage to hide their true condition, but a few idiots, like Trump and Fuentes cannot help exposing themselves to an incredulous public. Since all men are born of women, disfemism makes no sense. Which is probably why it usually shows up disguised as racism or anti-semitism or ethnic disparagement. “White supremacy” is actually more honest, but the affiliation of some brown and black people is confusing. That is why I prefer “male hegemony” as an objective for which female support is not ruled out.
Consider that males wanting to be superior does not affect me as long as they do not interfere with my rights and my space.
What I think we are witnessing now is a shrinking of the hegemonic population and the increasingly agitated response of what is left. It is interesting that the Islamic revolution in Iran served to impose new restrictions on women. The Christian West did not sufficiently object, probably because we are not sufficiently alert to the anti-female biases. Native American cultures are all matrilineal.
Perhaps we can consider the U.S. whose largest ethnic population is German (19%) as the last bastion of male hegemony. Is the designation of all U.S. born children as chattel a tell? Is ownership an indispensable component of male hegemony. Is the desire to “own the libs” an expression of true intent?