Step 2 is important. It's striking how meek men who would never win a fight no matter what are the ones who so emphatically claim that violence is never the answer, and think humans can evolve beyond it. While men who might actually win a fight have to make a conscious effort from keeping themselves from using force. It's also striking how the second category of men are 1. way more happier than other men and 2. are almost universally seen as more attractive by women. Women seem to like men who can fight in spite of this putting themselves in harms way.
On a more basic evolutionary level. Humans are tribal. The way hunter/gatherers work is that women from the own tribe are protected while women from other tribes are fair game. Humans can use all manner of cognitive tricks to expand the tribe. This is how nationalism works or religion. But it can also easily be reversed. We can put people who should be close to us in "the other" simply by thinking they are. We've still got the same brains. We still function like this. But civilisation has come up with a bunch of cognitive tricks to fool us into behaving more... well.. civilised. But very little is needed to reverse the effect.
There's also the male attractiveness level to consider. As made clear in books like "Dataclysm". About 80% of all men are sexually uninteresting for all women. Women might settle for one of the less attractive ones, because they can't do any better. But they don't want to. Men are much more just about gunning for what they can get and grateful for it. They rarely dream about getting women that they'll never get anyway. Our genders are different this way.
The bottom 80% of men get very little action from women. Very little. The top 20% get almost all of it.
This seems to be just basic human nature.
It's not hard to imagine that in a world where some men aren't getting any sexual attention at all from women then rape is the best option, evolutionarily. Which is why so many social rules and regulations are about just this, regulating human sexuality to create less friction in society.
For example, socially encouraged monogamy. Humans clearly aren't monogamous. We don't stop finding others sexually attractive when we fall in love. But in a world of free love we'll get a few men with harems of all the women. Not great, for anyone. So now we have a society where everybody pretends to be monogamous and high status men are unfaithful with unfaithful women who have settled for a less attractive but safe man. There's many examples of how we've designed society to reduce social friction.
I'm sorry, but your comments throughout this thread have sounded emotional and a bit confused as to what exactly you're objecting to.
I'm sorry for being a bit unclear then. I have tried my best though. I'm objecting to portraying nature as a nice place. I think it's a hippie fantasy, and believing in it is dangerous. We don't create a better world by ignoring the darkness. If we do the darkness festers unchecked and we're at an absolute loss when men behave in the way nature intended them to.