I don't think the point she is trying to make here is true. I actually agree with her conclusion that we need to change our understanding of gender in our society today.

But not because we evolve. She says that patriarchy/ "men ruling the world" made sense a thousand years ago because physical strength was the most important attribute for survival!?

Were they actually seen as superior? Even if they were, does that make sense?

It is my understanding that early social structures were egalitarian, or easily could have been, meaning men were not seen as superior. And that everything in this field is highly disputed. So correct me if I'm wrong. But also, I think we need to be aware that anthropologists researching this are often men interpreting their evidence with the bias of patriarchy in their mind.

Then, even if men were seen as superior, I highly doubt it was because of their physical strength. And even if that were true it makes absolutely zero sense to me. Women who bear and take care of the descendants would easily have a better reason for superiority (not that it should be a reason or that there should be superiority). Wasn't it recently discovered that women in these early structures were hunters alongside of men? So they weren't even reliant on physical superiority to achieve their survival.