I wonder if it occurred to the authors that the birth of this "ideology" was at all connected to the fact that women conceive and bear children, that men fight to protect their women and children, who are frequently the target of raiders -- and that men, being bigger and stronger, are naturally adapted to excel at fighting.
The authors are modern academics, so these thoughts presumably did not occur to them.
An example from nature that I've found useful in some recent conversations is a pride of lions. Back when I was in school, I can recall it being pointed out regularly that, in a pride of lions, the male lion mostly lazes around basking in the sun. The females raise the cubs and do most of the hunting. This point used to be made with some glee by the ladies, including elementary school teachers. I suppose they were protofeminists before modern feminism had gone totally crazy, and they liked the image of useless males.
So what is the job of the male lion? He has two. The first is to get the females pregnant. The second is to defend the pride. Against other lions. The primary threat to lions, who are at the top of their local food chain, is other lions. A new alpha male who takes over a territory and a pride will routinely kill the cubs, especially the male cubs. (House cats are fully capable of doing this as well; as any cat person knows, introducing a new kitten to a house with adult cats, especially males, should be done with care.) The male lion is not optimized for hunting; the lionesses do most of that. He is optimized for combat. Against other lions.
Want a model of aboriginal human society? There it is.
When someone, anyone, especially in academia, begins with a conclusion and then proceeds thru their “logic” to find “facts”, they often miss the mark.