From the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic, and then from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, due to the technological changes and advancements in stone tool manufacturing, the performance of stone tools improved compared to before. This increased the efficiency of hunting and gathering, making it possible to capture and domesticate wild animals. As a result, animal husbandry emerged. Meanwhile, the gathered plant fruits had surplus, and under this premise, people could have free time to analyze the growth patterns of plants, leading to the emergence of agriculture. The appearance of agriculture and animal husbandry provided people with a stable source of food. Men shifted from unstable hunting activities to these two labor-intensive industries, especially agriculture. Due to physiological differences between men and women (mainly caused by long-term engagement in different physically demanding productive activities), and because the stone and bone tools used in agriculture at that time could not bridge the physical gap between genders, men gradually took the dominant position in stable agricultural production. The status of men and women in the production process was no longer equal. All these examples demonstrate that productive forces determine the correctness of production relations.
In fact, your understanding is incorrect, because during primitive society, the physical differences between men and women were not significant, essentially comparable. The reason why men later took a dominant position in agriculture was not because they were physically stronger. Humans in primitive society were naturally divided by gender and age, because women had menstruation, needed to become pregnant, and had to take care of children, so they could not leave the settlement for long periods or far away. Therefore, women undertook all household chores and gathered food near the settlement. Agriculture developed from gathering, so women were actually the inventors of farming. At that time, all household chores were managed by women, and agriculture was a very important economic sector. As a result, all social activities were led by women, and thus a matriarchal society flourished in the early days of the agricultural era.
As productivity developed, labor productivity increased, scale became smaller, and division of labor became more detailed and specialized. To adapt to the smaller scale of production activities, both production and living units also became smaller. Consequently, the family structure shifted from group marriage to individual households, and private ownership factors grew continuously. The full development of private ownership eventually established individual households. After this, women’s household labor lost its social nature and became private labor within the family, leading to a decline in their social status.
The disintegration of matriarchal society was because women’s household labor lost its social character.
I don’t have much time to type, so I can only say it briefly.
Comrade Fenghuo is right; I was just about to respond to you. Actually, your understanding that the change in gender status due to differences in physical strength between men and women is incorrect. According to this logic, it would lead to social Darwinism. Because physical differences are ultimately just biological differences, while social status is about the relationships between people in society, a reflection of social movements. In this regard, biological evolution cannot determine social movements. However, social Darwinism insists on interpreting social movements as biological ones, promoting a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality in human society, which is essentially a naked endorsement of bourgeois human nature theory. In fact, the idea that gender status can be explained by differences in physical strength is still widespread today, with claims like: men are physically stronger and can serve in the army, women are delicate, wear makeup, and support the family, etc., leading to so-called topics like ‘Chinese men protecting Chinese women.’ They always promote the idea that women’s physical strength cannot match men’s, citing differences in estrogen and testosterone, but in reality, this is nonsense—an attempt to explain social issues solely through physiological factors. Once, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, Bebel, mentioned in his book ‘Women and Socialism’ (note: this book has no translation during the socialist period, so read with caution) that in primitive society, the physical differences between men and women were negligible; in fact, the physical differences observed in modern society are the result of women being confined to the home and detached from social labor under private ownership for a long time. Therefore, these physiological differences are not the cause of social inequality but rather the result of such inequality.
According to current archaeological evidence, during the Yangshao culture period of primitive society, the dietary intake of men and women was the same, and their physical strength was also consistent. However, after the Eastern Zhou period of slave society, men’s meat intake became significantly greater than women’s, and women almost only ate grains and vegetarian foods, so their physical strength was far inferior to that of their female ancestors in primitive times. This indicates that it was the emergence of private ownership and gender inequality that led to differences in physical strength between men and women, rather than the other way around. Moreover, the physical differences between men and women have never been exaggerated, after all, they are both humans. How can such small differences be used to explain the vast disparity in social status between genders?
In fact, it is precisely because women are excluded from the basic social production sectors, and after mainly engaging in domestic labor, they lose opportunities for physical exercise, leading to increasing physical differences between women and men. This is actually a form of acquired heredity; from the beginning of entering a class society and a patriarchal society, the physical differences between women and men have been growing larger.
A question: after the first social division of labor, did the nomadic tribes separate from barbarian groups, and within them, was the breeding and distribution of livestock still carried out collectively?
Generally speaking, slave-owning states were established after the second great division of labor, and the third great division of labor thoroughly solidified slavery.
In general, before the second great division of labor, after the first great division of labor, society was still in the late primitive stage, and slavery had not yet been established.
At this time, people still lived according to small-scale primitive communal systems, but the factors of private ownership had already developed fully, and within the primitive commune, there were already a large number of individual households.
In this late primitive society, but before the true era of slavery, people often worked partly for the collective and partly for themselves, and private property gradually began to be stored within individual households.
In fact, the question you are raising here is about where and how labor is conducted and the issue of product distribution. The relations of production are divided into three aspects: first, the ownership of the means of production; second, the relationships among people in the production process; third, the distribution of products. The issues you mention are actually related to the second and third aspects, which are determined by the first. Imagine a person who does not own the means of production itself—how can he freely use the means of production to work? How can he distribute the products?
However, the process of privatization is also gradual and not achieved in a single step. Livestock, as private property, was first owned by tribal leaders, and only later gradually became private property of wealthy families. Before private ownership completely replaced the primitive commune’s public ownership, there were still communal livestock, which required labor to care for them, and accordingly, there would be compensation for the labor involved in caring for the communal livestock.
Here it is written, “The herd gradually became the private property of each family head.”
It was “gradually” that it changed.
Your question is quite tricky, showing that you think quite carefully. 
The large-scale slave peasant uprising in Egypt struck at the production relations of slavery, leading to some adjustments between productive forces and production relations. My personal understanding is that, initially, the slave owners controlled all means of production, did not engage in production themselves, but forced slaves and peasants to work and forcibly appropriated the labor成果 of the majority of laborers (slaves, artisans, farmers), leaving only the minimum living materials needed to sustain their labor force. Due to advances in productive forces, production efficiency increased; laborers, especially slaves, could obtain the same amount of products in less time. However, because the means of production were not in their hands, they were still used as tools by the slave owners. Their working hours did not decrease and might even increase due to the greed of the slave owners (and they would deeply feel this change). The oppression they suffered grew deeper, and their dissatisfaction accumulated until it became unbearable, leading to an uprising. The resistance and struggle against the slave owners forced them to relax their oppression of slaves and peasants, share some of the means of production, improve the treatment of slaves, reduce the working hours of other laborers, and leave them more of their own劳动成果 to prevent future rebellions and to take away the lives of these high-and-mighty oppressors.
Because the oppression was somewhat alleviated, the agricultural workers had more time to think about how to improve their tools, which objectively eliminated part of the阻碍生产力发展的奴隶制生产关系, thus easing the contradiction between productive forces and production relations.
If there are any errors, please point them out.
This is a mistaken idea that slave owners would make concessions to slaves; in fact, it is only after a slave uprising has struck the slave owner that the latter has to admit that the relations of production have been changed to some extent. Moreover, after suppressing the slave uprising, the slave owner always resorts to any means to try to reimpose the heavy shackles on the slaves.
Actually, that’s not the case; this is a policy of concessions. Slave-owning classes do not make concessions themselves; when faced with slave resistance, they only order harsher suppression and must counterattack the slave class. In fact, all the results of the struggle are achieved by the slaves themselves; the slave owners can only be forced to admit some of the established facts that are beyond their power, and then they counterattack the other part.
The Egyptian slave owners did not make concessions; it was just that the Egyptian slaves had already divided all the property of the Egyptian slave owners. Even if the Egyptian slave owners reclaimed it, they couldn’t take everything back, let alone return to the previous state, so they could only be forced to admit some improvements in the treatment of slaves.
I see
In other words, even if the shackles are put back on, it won’t be possible to wear them as tightly as before, because of the slaves’ struggle.
In fact, the principle that productive forces determine production relations in social history does not need to be understood so mechanically. It is not necessarily the case that one will feel anger and injustice only when they fail to share proportionally in the increased grain yield. Instead, this production relation itself causes the opposition between the slave-owning class and the slave class, which results in the exploitation of all labor products rather than production, and the possession of slaves themselves, creating a class conflict between those who rely solely on their own labor to survive and the slave-owning class that dominates them. Slaves can discover through practice that the wealth they produce through labor is arbitrarily seized by the slave owners; moreover, their very bodies are treated as property of the slave owners. Such contradictions in production relations deepen with the development of productive forces. Engels mentioned in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” that in such a society (i.e., class society), every social progress is inevitably accompanied by a regression; the happiness of one part is built on the suffering and misfortune of another. As the slave society’s productive forces develop, the production relations increasingly hinder the development of productive forces, and the class antagonism between the slave-owning class and the slave class becomes sharper. Slaves suffer heavier oppression from slave owners, and their rebellious sentiments grow stronger. The exploitation and oppression by the slave-owning class are the fundamental reasons for slave uprisings.
Furthermore, it is not the case that slave uprisings lead to a relaxation of class contradictions by the slave-owning class. The slave-owning class does not want to ease class contradictions; rather, it is more accurate to say that slave uprisings force the slave-owning class to temporarily refrain from using the same level and methods of exploitation as before. Lenin, in his article “On the Explanation of the Factory Fines Law,” roughly stated that factory owners will not make concessions voluntarily; only when workers rebel and revolt will the factory owners realize that workers are not to be trifled with and cannot be oppressed at will. Similarly, this applies between the slave-owning class and the slave class. The view that the slave-owning class would ease class contradictions and make concessions after suffering setbacks, as some comrades above have said, is a policy of concessions. The key point of this view is to attribute the progress of history not to the heroic resistance of the slave class, but directly to the slave-owning class utilizing its power to make certain concessions and issuing progressive concessions policies. As a result, the Marxist theory that the people create history and that revolution is the locomotive of historical progress has been replaced by a vulgar theory of opportunistic cooperation and class reconciliation.
For example, many slave revolts in Egypt directly destroyed palaces, redistributed land, and drove away slave owners, making it impossible for them to reclaim the properties they occupied. Some even threw the pharaoh mummies out of their tombs and tore them apart.
Indeed, only by discussing with others can I identify the errors in my own thoughts and continue to improve. The truth becomes clearer the more it is debated.