Othering over resource allocation. I think that's the answer you're looking for.
In nonsocial species, individuals stake out and defend their own territories.
But social species have to share, which presents a problem. How do you decide who gets the best nesting spot, the choicest food, who eats first, etc. You can no longer compete for yhise things head on like non social species do, because that undermines the purpose of being a social species in the first place, which is generally either protection from predators or to increase success rate as a predator (your game are bigger than you are).
In the case of humans, we're omnivores, so both those things came into play.
When resources grew scarce, we would split an overlarge or cantankerous grouping and also seek out new territories. We were nomads and it worked fairly well to keep things more egalitarian.
Things changed with the rise of agriculture. When you can't solve those inherent problems to being a social species or rather, your mechanism for doing so is no longer an option, you need a new mechanism, otherwise those disputes will erode your social bonds and you'll drift, as a species, back towards solitary existence.
In humans, we see an incredible level of mental versatility. Humans have an ability to abstract, which makes them able to adapt themselves to practically any environment, far more than what we've seen in any other species.
It's this ability to abstract that offered a solution to the loss of nomadism.
We would own property and the best property and therefore crops would go to the most dominant.
Changing our diets so significantly hit women harder than men. We began menstruating more frequently which meant more childbirths which meant more of the physical after effects of childbirth on women and a decline in overall health. Childbirth is harder on human females than any other mammal species because of the change in hips that allowed us to walk upright. There was an evolutionary price to that ability and it was women who paid it and are still paying it.
Then came the plow and domesticstion of draft animals. Handling early plows requires upper body strength over lower body strength, which meant the work predominantly fell to men. Also, hard to handle a plow with a baby in a sling and another in your belly. So now you have a less equal distribution of who's providing the food. True and false, but that seemed to be the overriding perceptual narrative. It was still women who preserved the food to last through the whole year.
Time moves forward. The population grows. Now we have to decide how land property is passed down because if we don't those social bonds are in danger again.
Well.....if we can own land....why can't we own and control the labor of other people? That way we know who deserves all those choicest perks.
And thus the othering was born through hereditary title. In order to secure heredity, the sexual conduct of women had to be controlled. You do this by othering and by legal codes that made women the property of men. The code of Hammurabi is the oldest known example of women's status as property of both men and the 'state'.
Women have been demonized and othered in one way or another ever since. You maintain that faux dominance by bias beliefs, which are all abstract ideas to justify the hierarchal status. The bigger a population under a specific set of laws or code gets, the more bias to secure that ranking.
Rian Eisler write a book called The Chalice And The Blade that lays out a very good anthropological case. Well worth a read.
