Tribal societies are pretty egalitarian. Not necessarily in the case of gender roles (a lot were “separate but equal, except usually not”), more in the sense of “everyone is theoretically equal, though in practice social pecking order matters sometimes.” They typically had multiple leaders, each specialized in different areas - though while it was common for them to train their replacement, people listen to whoever they’re going to listen to, so popularity and success was necessary to keep their role. They had little to no power to force anyone to do anything, so they had to win over the majority and bank on peer pressure to get the minority to mostly cooperate.
Clan societies tended to be a bit more hierarchical, with leadership being more formal, sometimes to the point of semi-aristocracy, but they too are generally more egalitarian than monarchies, mostly for practical reasons. Generally because exceptions did/do exist. Even some early monarchies managed to have a society which was reasonably equal despite the existence of a priest-king who theoretically had absolute power - putting down rebellions was costly and tended to provoke more rebellions.
Most of the above had some resemblance to socialism and/or communism (and ancient Egypt is often described as the first communist nation), and there have long been people trying to recapture the essence of those in a more modern form. And admittedly, it is a challenge to scale it up to work with populations of millions, though the specific variant of socialism known as social democracy has had some success in doing so (though at present, no nation has embraced it fully). Strongly hierarchical governments and societies don’t take well to being replaced.
The above says nothing about such cultures being “feminine”, and in fact a lot of them have been highly patriarchal. It says more about what the OP considers to be masculine and feminine traits than anything else.