A very interesting question s_lone, one I've thought and read about a lot without coming to any definitive conclusions. So have a lot of evolutionary biologists, and they know a lot more about it than I do, so I'm not sure I'm entitled to offer any opinions. But you know me, of course I have some.
Consider just the bald facts of human reproduction: a pregnant woman has a significant investment in energy and material in the child she's carrying, far more than the father does. His biologically required role, at least superficially, is limited to a little squirt at the beginning, her role knocks her out of the evolutionary sweepstakes for several years until she carries the child to term, nurses it, and gets it to a relatively independent state, and in the meantime the father can be spreading his genes to dozens of other women. It's also trivially true that a man can sire far more offspring than any single woman could produce in a lifetime, so if it's true that the measure of evolutionary success is how many copies of your genetic material you can pass on to the next generation, it would seem that the optimum reproductive strategies for men and women would be very different. Men: screw everybody in sight; women: screw one very successful and dominant man and somehow bind him to you. There seems to be some truth in that. Male infidelity in marriage has historically been viewed much less judgmentally than female infidelity, and women do seem to be drawn more to visibly successful men. Henry Kissinger never had trouble dating beautiful and glamorous women, despite being singularly ugly, I presume because he was successful and powerful.
But if it were that simple, the ratio of males to females would very different than it is. There'd be something like one male to several dozen females if that's all evolution was operating on, but the sex ratios are pretty close to 1:1, so there must be something else going on. Somehow the long term survival of children must depend on the males hanging around for a while to protect and support them and their mothers. That makes sense, newborn humans are pretty helpless and their mothers will be pretty busy doing the things like nursing that only females can do, and a father certainly has some interest in ensuring that the genetic material he spreads around survives long enough to reproduce as well. That would also explain why, in most mammalian species at least, the males are generally physically bigger and stronger than the females.
A complex and subtle question with many layers, s_lone, kudos to you for asking it, and I'll be very interested to read other people's thoughts on it.