You clearly have understand nothing from the original article. XDDDD

Hint: if some men had bastards that didn't raise, then the "provider" part of the stereotype doesn't hold up. ;) According your scenario, men weren't providers, women were. I quote you:

"The men that actually are at the top of the status do actually have many children that are bastards"

and this:

"all women are trying to maximise the value of the men"

But according to your own theories, the men of "high value" are the ones who provide, not the ones "at the top of the status". If you can't see the contradiction, then you need to go back to logic classes.

Sure, we have heard that the "providers" are the "betas", but then again, that contradicts the description of what women supposedly look. If women look for rich men because they want providers but rich men would leave you with bastards, then it is clear that rich won't meant "good provider" so rich would stop meaning "high value".

Anyway, back in the past, marriages were arranged by father's, women's opinion wasn't taken into account. Fathers happened to value rich men and were willing to "sell" their daughters as mistresses or wives to rich men regardless of their commitment or willingness to support the bastards. Read history. Not even kings married out of love, it was all about politics and money.