Except that it's not. It's very demonstrably the complete and total opposite of that. As already pointed out, people who actually study human mating (rather than just deciding about it) all agree, it's staggeringly flexible, malleable, and lacking in any sort of uniformity -and the same goes for animals.
“Gone are the days when commentators could pointedly refer to, say, the patriarchal dynamics of the elephant seal household, in discussions about humans. The old assumption that sexual selection has created near-universal sex roles—males mostly like this, females mostly like that—has been replaced with growing recognition of the diversity of courtship and parental roles both across and within species."
— Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society by Cordelia Fine. https://a.co/5NIYvDt
Given that human populations are highly likely to vary in important measures that affect sex roles (such as adult sex ratios and population density), we might expect to see Bateman gradients differ between human populations. As in many non-human populations, a variety of alternative strategies are likely to characterize the mating (and/or marital) strategies of men and women, with each individual’s optimal strategy dictated as much by the behaviour of same sex as opposite sex individuals; we would accordingly expect multiple strategies within each sex.
-NIH: Bateman’s Principles and Human Sex Roles
“We argue that human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern.”
“The human mating system is extremely flexible,” Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal wrote in a recent review in Evolutionary Anthropology."
And, what you're describing as evolutionary has only been around for the past 6-9k years when patriarchy first arose and only manifests in patriarchal cultures - a drop in the bucket of human history.
Evolutionary psychology "observes" patterns in Western industrial democracies that have a history of patriarchy and then cherry picks from other cultures, all the while ignoring aspects of those same cultures that poke holes in their theories. It's not scientific in the least. It's a joke! It's late-stage capitalistic patriarchy trying to justify itself.
“To begin with, it is painfully evident from their writings that evolutionary psychologists know a lot about insects and birds but very little about humans. Daly and Wilson note that “within human evolutionary psychology, much of the best work is conducted by animal behaviourists who treat H. sapiens as ‘just another animal. Indeed, while evolutionary psychologists may have conducted field research on kangaroo rats, they rarely conduct field research in human societies.
While they may be experts on mating among gladiator frogs, they are extraordinarily ignorant of the extensive literature on the varieties of human gender, sexuality, kinship, and marriage. While they purport to know about the deep structure of all languages, they have rarely bothered to attain fluency in any non-western language. And, while they feel confident in attributing cultural properties to animals, they have rarely attempted to unravel the complexities of a single human culture. The question then becomes what, in this state of extreme ignorance, comes to count as knowledge about culture and cultural difference?”
— Neo-liberal Genetics: The Myths and Moral Tales of Evolutionary Psychology by Susan McKinnon
David Buss did a study of 37 cultures, 27 of which were either European or strongly influenced by European cultures. It was overwhelmingly based on urban, cash economies and even then, it didn't demonstrate that mate preferences and criteria are uniform by gender. Even Buss admitted this — that his study actually suggested that “species-typical mate preferences may be more potent than sex-linked preferences.”
“The considerable limitations of the study aside, its results are most remarkable in their failure to support the predicted gender-differentiated preference mechanisms. Of the eighteen possible characteristics that the survey investigates, the first four (mutual attraction, dependable character, emotional stability and maturity, and pleasing disposition) are ranked in the same order by both males and females, and the next four (good health, education and intelligence, sociability, and desire for home and children) include the same categories for both males and females although not necessarily in the same order. None of these criteria supports the proposition that mate preference is guided by gender-differentiated preference mechanisms of the sort outlined by evolutionary psychologists.
In fact, as Buss admits, these data suggest that people of both genders place a number of criteria far above those central to the evolutionary thesis, “suggesting that species-typical mate preferences may be more potent than sex-linked preferences.” Not only do the eight top-ranked criteria show no appreciable link to the evolutionary thesis of gender differentiated preferences, but two of the five predictions—those regarding female preferences of ambition and industriousness in men, and male preferences of chastity in women—showed high cultural variation.”
— Neo-liberal Genetics: The Myths and Moral Tales of Evolutionary Psychology by Susan McKinnon
