That’s a big “suppose” and a leading question.
Personally, I believe the Sex at Dawn explanation for the origins of inequality. Before agriculture, people were nomadic hunter-gatherers and nobody had that many possessions, so everyone was pretty much equal. Men and women had tasks that were equal to everyone’s survival, hunting vs. gathering, and child rearing was shared by the group.
After the invention of agriculture, the economy shifted from egalitarian hunting/gathering to male-dominated farming work. Suddenly having the most/best land and livestock gave you a huge advantage. Men ended up in control of most of the resources. They needed to know that that their offspring was their own so they could be sure they passed all their stuff onto the right person. (Leaving all your land/ stockpiles/ livestock to someone else’s kid would just be a waste of hard work.) So society became organized into social classes, marriages, etc., and an essential part of that structure was keeping women from having kids with other people. With their limited access to resources, marriage was the only choice.
Also, women’s rights started to pick up steam at about the same time as the industrial revolution. Industrialization leveled the playing field again. In an agricultural society, physical strength makes a big difference in your survival, because if you aren’t strong enough to farm the land you’ll starve. With an industrial society, other traits are more valuable in the workforce, and that started to level the playing field for women. The reason we aren’t completely equal yet is that we’re talking 10,000 years of male-dominated agriculture vs. only like 150 years of industrialization. Change is slow.
That’s a pretty simplistic, half-assed explanation- they do a much better job in the book- but I strongly think any argument that inequality is hardwired into our species is bullshit.