Most human mythologies contain stories of "first men" and eponymous founders of nations; these were often ridiculed in recent times as invented stories whose purpose was to engender social cohesion through a story of shared descent. But, now it seems that these stories were at least in part true, and such ultra-prolific patriarchs do indeed stand at the beginning of many later lines of descent.
This historical fact about males and fitness inequity has recently been verified by a rather stunning genomic study, which found that humans exhibit far less diversity in Y chromosomes than in X chromosomes. This finding suggests that some ancestral males disproportionately won the struggle to reproduce while others lost out entirely. By analyzing our genome, researchers were able to calculate that for a period after the introduction of agriculture, one man reproduced for every seventeen (!) women.
Surely this dominance of the gene pool by a few males must apply to animal life in general. I think we should observe the workings of nature without judgment, and specifically not judge ourselves to be inferior because of our social status. We are not our bodies anyway IMO. Being the top dog, with 17 women, would have its drawbacks.
If it’s raining the best thing to do is let it rain.