I'd argue that there's not anywhere close that number of correlation between biological sex and the occupation of the archetypal male role.
Can you elaborate on why you'd argue that? Like I said, in the face of biological realities I feel that's not a tennable position to take. You have to give me a non-biological explanation for the prevalence of Disposable Agent and Valuable Object social constructs, why this construct has persisted throughout time across all cultures, including cultures that have had no contact with each other, and explain how our biology coincidentally makes this the path of least resistance along which any human society could arrange itself, while still holding that it's overwhelmingly a social construct and not simply a matter of biological expediency.
I'm open to the idea.
But like I said, I feel that's difficult to argue.
I'm not sure I agree that there was an ultimate prevalence of DA and VO in all cultures, but if we take for granted that it was common in the ancient world, I don't think we can say for certain that it gives us an enlightened view of biology. I think it's possible to understand it as one of many possible methods that our species arranged itself in the face of a material world with harsh conditions. I'm just not sure our views here are incompatible. ---