@Durek_The_Bald

Counterpoint: the modern paradigm is great for those on top o' the game, those who have a natural drive to climb ladders and build empires and those primarily/only interested in easy access to casual sex.

It's pretty shit for the great majority of men who just want a decent life with a decent woman and something to show for their efforts.

Also, only one of these group does the lion's share of the practical, hands-on work of actually building and maintaining the civilization in which we all live - and it ain't the relatively small number of high-achieving men at the apex of the sociosexual hierarchy. Not because they're incapable of building but because there simply aren't enough of them to meet the demand.

For one, the sexual revolution happened because women wanted it. Feminism happened because women wanted it. When women said they wanted to be "free", what they really were talking about was being free of beta buxx. Because it's not in their nature to want that, never have been. That's why "one woman for every man, one man for every woman" always has demanded strict social control of female nature to work (and by "work" I mean on a societal level, not for the individual man's life experience).

And children always want to eat cookies and ice cream for every meal. It's not in their nature to want vegetables. That's why a good parent doesn't give them the choice.

The fact monogamy requires heavy restriction of both female hypergamy and alpha male promiscuity isn't an argument against it. Thinking either of those have any sort of value simply because they're natural behaviors is purely fallacious reasoning and you know it. Humans do all kinds of shit that isn't natural behavior for us because we've realized both through trial and error and the inherited wisdom of those who came before (but I repeat myself) such artificial behavior is a lot better for us long term than doing "what comes naturally."

None of which is to say you're wrong, of course, but which version of society is better very much depends on one's priorities and the perspective from which one is analyzing the problem. As Thomas Sowell famously said, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

Myself, I'd much prefer to be a retired legionnaire working my farm or a potter in first century Rome over being king of an insignificant spit of land for which I have have to scrape and claw every day for three and a half years before being conquered, killed in battle or assassinated by an overly ambitious brother or cousin in post-Roman Britain.