The image of men as the primary hunters in our ancient past is a falsehood perpetrated by scholarly assumptions. Archeology doesn't support this theory. Though it does support the notion that men typically hunted larger game in packs, women were equally active in hunting smaller game which was much more plentiful.
And according to neuroscience studies, while men might be better at solving mechanical problems, we are really bad at solving contextual problems. Women are better at that. Has to do with the physical architecture of the brain. There are more connectors between the left and right hemispheres of the female brain that allow for greater leaps in intuition than men. Which helps greatly in interpersonal interactions, but less so when dealing with abstract concepts.
Without women, there would have never been a motivation to build a better mud hut in the first place. Tribes formed the first stationary communities to protect the well-being of the family after the last ice age. Women and the children they cared for was at the center of these communities. Without them, there was no need to form tribal centers or the first civilizations. Of course, without them, there would be no human heritage to begin with.
And yes, you can argue that men are needed in the continuation of humanity as well. But any cock can fertilize any number of wombs. Twelve women and twelve men has the same outcome as twelve women and two men. Two women and twelve men does not.
