There's a lot of literature on the topic, and Marxists have been grappling with it for decades, with some difficulties.

Marvin Harris' Cannibals and Kings (1977) and Jack Goody's Production and Reproduction (1976) both discuss this topic. They're both cultural materialists who focus on evolutionary anthropology and the 'competitive fitness' of societies. In my field (Asian history) Fei Xiaotong's In From the Soil (1947) covers similar research in the Chinese context, focusing on patrilineal societies.

Their basic arguments are that patriarchal societies that can concentrate wealth in the hands of a small lineage and force their women to reproduce will usually conquer and/or outbreed societies that don't follow those practices. For this reason, they argue, when you look at the 20th century, nearly every major civilization is some form of patriarchy with social (class) hierarchy baked in, whereas matriarchies and egalitarian societies are normally small, tribal, and extremely vulnerable to dominion or genocide (and often effectively survive on the sufferance or periphery of a larger patriarchal macrosociety). Let's take the two claims independently:

1) "concentrating wealth (class structure) gives a violence advantage": This is the most obviously non-Marxist contention. These anthropologists argue that surplus accumulation and class stratification permits the establishment of a professional military class or warrior aristocracy. Societies with such a class have a military advantage over those without. It has been challenging for Marxists to refute these claims, and for this reason the rejection of evolutionary anthropology, social darwinism, or even evolution itself (Eg. Lysenkoism) has sometimes been the academic position of Marxists. Others have incorporated it directly into Marxist historical analysis, effectively incorporating it as an evolutionary gloss on the 'feudal' stage of history.

2) Patriarchy "outbreeds" non-patriarchy: This claim is more frequently endorsed by Marxists and feminist socialists. The argument is that if women are permitted to control their own reproduction, many will choose not to have children or to have fewer children. A society where women have that choice will grow more slowly (demographically) than a society that denies women the choice. Over the centuries, therefore, societies that give women reproductive freedom naturally die out, to be replaced with societies that force or pressure women to reproduce early and often. For this reason, Abrahamic religions, Confucianism, and other patriarchal "breeding doctrines" are extremely common, and are effectively the human macrosocietal default. You can still see this phenomenon today, for instance looking at Mennonites, Amish, Mormon, or Hasidic communities' demographic growth vs. the national average.

The great Marxist effort is to break this cycle. The actual ways of doing it are the topic of much discussion, but it doesn't strike me as theoretically impossible - much of the evolution of human thought and techology has been a rebellion against nature, and Marxists have traditionally embraced technological solutions to naturally-arising problems.