Your analysis is strong, but you jump from talking about gorillas, chimps and bonobos (who are our cousins, not our ancestors. Closely related, but it’s important to remember that their evolution still followed a very different path from us) to talking about early agricultural civilisations.
That’s quite a leap, and if you really wanted to bridge the gap between contemporary man and his primate ancestors, then you simply must talk about hunter-gatherer societies. Since that’s where our species spent most of its history, and it’s the environment we actually evolved to live in.
I’m no anthropologist, but from what I’ve read, men in that type of society rarely seem to have trouble getting laid. Even though “hunter gatherer society” encompasses every type of social arrangement you can think, including monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, patriarchy, matriarchy etc. Most are actually pretty individualistic too, so “lack of choice” is only a factor in so far as there are fewer mates to choose from.
Hence it doesn’t seem like humanity produces a lot of “evolutionary dead-ends” when we live in a state that aligns with our true nature. Rather, the emergence of modern technology and political ideologies have created a society that’s fundamentally at odds with our nature, and neither sex is adapting particularly well to it. Women might be less violent on average (always were) and have greater access to social support networks (always did), but make no mistake; a lot of them are just as lonely and unsatisfied as these incel guys, and they have just as little idea of what to do about it.
With all this in mind, I don’t really know how helpful it is to label certain people as “genetic dead-ends”, as if to imply a form of fatalism that absolves these individuals of responsibility while simultaneously embracing a weird form of Social Darwinism. People should instead be encouraged to ask WHY they aren’t adapting to the new world, because in most cases, there absolutely are things they could do about it.
