You are wrong. Prior to patriarchy (6-9 thousand years ago), humans lived in egalitarian societies with no hierarchy. The main survival strategy was for everyone to take care of everyone else. I linked you quotes about that from a noted primatologist and anthropologist as well as a science magazine already.
As I said before, both you and the man I was commenting to are both entirely off base. Here's some *short* refresher quotes:
"Christopher Boehm is an anthropologist and primatologist who is currently the Director of the Jane Goodall Research Center at the University of Southern California. He believes that suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution. Enhanced cooperation lowered the risks of Paleolithic life for small, isolated bands of humans and was likely crucial to our survival and evolutionary success."
You are overly bought into the idea of "survival of the fittest" when the truth is that cooperative and egalitarian behaviors were what allowed our species to survive and to thrive, up until the onset of patriarchy. Patriarchal dominance hierarchies were such a disruptive social dynamic that they ironically spread far and wide because they wreaked havoc wherever they were established. Patriarchy is the first time that there were different social classes or wealth disparity - it's not just a power differential between men and women.
“In a demographic simulation that Omkar Deshpande, Marcus Feldman and I conducted at Stanford University, California, we found that, rather than imparting advantages to the group, unequal access to resources is inherently destabilising and greatly raises the chance of group extinction in stable environments.
In other words, inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural — or physical — extinction of egalitarian societies.”
Your premise is entirely off base, because until fairly recently, there were no wealthy men, and in fact, women were frequently the main providers of food to the tribe. Everyone took care of everyone else. I've already quoted to you about this because I understand that it's probably different than what you were taught, but instead of taking that in and seeing if there was something new to be learned, you have simply persisted in doubling down on your incorrect hypothesis which comes out of your beliefs about the world but has no relationship to actual history, anthropology, sociology, etc.
I do have to thank you though. Because of this, I’m writing a new story about mate selection pre-patriarchy. Of course, obvious deformity or other genetic markers might have someone not be seen as a good mating partner, but as I’ve already said, being tall, strong, handsome, etc., is no real indication of fertility or genetic compatibility (and there was no wealth disparity). That’s why women mated with several men at a time and let their bodies sort it out, just as many of our primate cousins do. We aren’t gorillas, and trying to pretend that we are is just a dominance hierarchy self-perpetuating fantasy.