A thousand suns may rise and set, yet the answer to this may never come easy. Etherealy, the question is framing a context with it, and hence cannot be answered. Besides, the ingenuity of question is primiodal in nature and cannot be ignored, or less, be negated.
The question isn’t totally baseless. It prodigally connects with the civilization history and the role of culture in the evolution of mankind.
The answer contains no prize. It tames the pride; it isn’t prejudice. No man can answer it, no man can avoid it. The simplicity of question is too hard to be angst upon.
A Man had reasons to doubt other men, to protect, to procreate and to provide the household. Sadly, the household was never meant to be patriached. Old scriptures suggest that in the pre-ramayana era, upon age, the women left their maternal homes and roamed free in the jungle. They hopped into the hermit that young rishis created to attract a female. She got to decide to stay as long as her wish, and she flew away had there been no offsprings in the relation. The society was never meant to be patriarch in the satyayug.
Woman was ever providing and ever nourishing. Men were ever protecting and ever procreating. This primoidal role was devoid of patriach. Men and women functioned with equal importance of the role. The qualities can still be felt as a reminiscent in today’s age, through ideologies like Feminism and Utilitarianism.
However, this spares no excuse to our question. The question stays unanswered. The question continues to turn heads, to pause and listen, it continues to pose. Knowing a little history answers it none. However, such outset creates a value to take a recognition of the question in broader perspective, beyond patriach and self-indulge. Sadly, it cannot be explained and it continues to pose perpetually. Thanks to many sincere generations who dared to ask it, and to those who took notice of such.
May the question beget, procreate and prosper in the generations to come.