Is one gender better at uniting family than another?

My answer to this question is somewhat ambiguous. It depends upon for what purpose and for what duration of time. I think matriarchs are very good at keeping their families united. Especially, as it concerns immediate economic needs. However, this type of strong family is more likely to dissipate it's power after the matriarch is either deceased or her economic well being has been assured.

On the other hand my observation is that families united by patriarchal motives have differing tendencies. I believe that patriarchal motives tend more toward a long lasting legacy. I think that many patriarchs may seem to be creating rivalries and creating competitors among family members. Especially, in how they play favorites among siblings. However, this tendency is designed to strengthen individuals or select individuals that aid the patriarchs long lasting legacy. In other words the family is united around the need for strength and around an authoritarian model. This serves a different purpose. A purpose that is aligned with the evolved patriarchal instincts and motives to participate in the nurturing process.

The rise in single moms along with families with fewer children has diminished much of the patriarchal motives for marriage. Furthermore, male dynastic instincts become latent as women have gained influence. This is not a feminist conspiracy. Rather, it is the result of women's rising status as heads of households, along with the natural motives of the child bearing women. It is the nature that leads to nurture, which in turn leads to family types.

It is my opinion, when there is an opportunity to blend patriarchal and matriarchal motives the result is an extraordinary family type. What we often see as dysfunctional family is the result of a failure to blend the motives of each gender towards a unified family scheme.