What's the matter? Too much science and reality getting in the way of your ideology (a thing that is based in beliefs and emotions, not logic or reason).
This is demonstrably the truth of how things were for humans until the very recent past. It's confirmed by a wide variety of disciplines, from primatology, to anthropology, to art history, and many others - many of which I've cited to you. Your beliefs that come out of old, discredited models, don't alter that in any way.
Women didn't need a provider until 6-9 thousand years ago because until then they were also primary providers of sustenance for the group/tribe, just as they are in current hunter-gatherer bands. When you aren’t allowed to provide for yourself and you now only get one man to do that (as with patriarchy), you darned well better get the best one you can. Before that, it was a very different thing. The primary way that women sought "fit desirable mates" is not through externals since those can be deceiving. The strongest, most handsome man might be genetically incompatible or be infertile. That's why women would mate with several men and it's the job of the cervix to sort genetic material for compatibility and desirability and why humans (and chimps and bonobos) mate with many partners to determine the one who offers the best genetic match. Then the entire group helps to raise and provide for the children, just as they still do in many cultures around the world.
In the case of many non-human primates, such as chimps and orangutans, the mother provides all care and sustenance for the offspring, and gorillas provide the vast majority of it until the young can provide for themselves. You can't make broad sweeping generalizations about all primates even, much less all animals. Of course, mate selection is an important evolutionary function, but it doesn't take place how you think it does in humans (or bonobos or chimps).
The only reasonable thing you've said is that evolution is a slow process. Since it's only been 6-9 years that any sort of monogamy or "provider" dynamic existed, men still have penises with a coronal ridge to displace the semen of other men, and women still take three times as long on average as men to orgasm (prompting them to seek out a second or third mating partner). Our biology hasn't caught up with our current culture, in part perhaps, because it isn't universal. In many cultures around the world, it still performs its intended functions as it always has, for hundreds of thousands of years.
Since you don't seem to be capable of understanding any of this and your comments are not meaningful or contributing to any actual dialogue, I'm going to have this be my last response. I've got better things to do.