I have previewed Family and Civilization book and read the actual preview pages on Google, and
did word index searches on 'polygamy'. The book does not support what you are saying, which is why you
do not give an actual page number on the topic. They do not even mention the alpha dominance theory.
But as I say below, I have no problem with the theory provided it is not pushed to extremes.
Re Genghis-even assuming it is true that 1 in 200 men on earth are "descendants" , this still is a paltry figure,
LESS THAN 1% of all men, and that still leaves 199 OTHER men (or 99.5%) of the rest on the field. In few places do less
than 1% of the men dominate breeding. IF this were so there would be few women left for the other 99.5% of all other men.
So to the contrary, so-called "alpha" men, dominate breeding for the MOST DESIRABLE FEMALES -however that is defined in
the local terms of each culture.
Your second reference shows the numbers of males and females reproducing rising and falling-
fluctuating over many thousands of years. At 8000 years it was one thing, but after 8000 years ago
the male numbers began to rise. In the recent era which would include the Mongol era circa the 1200s-1300s,
the numbers rise again as article says to 4 or 5 females to one man. The article also mentions explanations like
diseases/viruses as hindering male numbers. So sure, no one disputes that the rich and powerful get the first pick,
but they skim off a small number of the most desirable on top, and do not control mating for the entire field, which
has the MAJORITY of females.
what is the point of fighting over economics resources beyond the basics of nutritional survival 
why would the losers become anti-social The point of economic resources for men is in order to attract and keep women. Men who are denied access to resources or a an transparent way to accumulate them or access to a women/women become anti-social. YOu do not have to be fighting over women to get anti-socials, and people fight over resources all
the time to gain benefits beyond mere nutritional survival. They fight for power via controlling resources
so that you build up big herds of cattle, or control more crop land, or gain more slaves/serfs to labor
for you in mines, fields, armies and elsewhere. Women are only one part of the picture in wars over
resources, if at all. In what way for example was WW2 fought over women, as a credible explanation
of the war? Hitler needed more "Aryan" maidens, even as he killed millions of women in Poland, Russia
and elsewhere? He made no such argument as justification. Take women out of the picture and there is
still plenty of incentive to be anti-social, particularly if you are on the losing end of a war.
Can women be a factor in some local situations- sure. But as a one-dimensional, catch-all explanation
the notion does not hold up.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the notion that yes, the powerful or rich can get the
best women in a society. Sure. I just don't see them controlling the entire field for the majority,
so that no one gets any chances. In a tiny tribal band or cult - maybe. But in a larger, complex culture
with thousands of people -no. Once the elites skim the pool, the rest get it on.
Re the alpha thug: it is demonstrated ability to be antisocial which is the attraction. Prior to civilization, the male with the greatest capacity for violence had a survival advantage.......this even goes down to procreation itself - and why rape still exists amongst humans. In a state of nature, the thug becomes the alpha......all those kings and knights of old where the thugs and descendants of thugs. Women sense that instinctually - hence the popularity of jail birds, serial killers, "the hot felon", etc. You have a point here- in some cases a certain flashy anti-social style can attract women and out-compete
more conventional competitors. I would agree in part, with the so called "bad boy" attractor theory.
Only thing I would note is that as an explanation for ALL mating behavior it falls short, for the
flip side usually reigns- the "bad boy" is viewed as deviant, and a bad influence, and the top women
pressured by elites that control them, want nothing to do with jailbirds and felons. The "squares"
are the ones walking usually away with the babes, including the babes whose families have money.
This is the usual pattern.
And as for the violent, they can via rape etc force women but the rich and powerful of a society
usually crush them quickly to restore order. Which is why violent criminals do not have long
careers in most societies, despite some exceptions.
------------------------------------------------
But consider this about the bad boy attractor theory. Some people seem to think that being a
"bad boy" is enough. But I can't see the top women giving a felon or jailbird the time of day as compared
to a nice, more conventional competitor. It seems to me that the top-tier women want OUTWARD flashy
bad-boy STYLE, but underneath that they STILL want the usual hypergamy prerequisites- status,
money, etc. I mean, Beyonce no doubt liked Jay-Z's bad boy style, but it was his money and status
that sealed the deal. She would not give low-status, semi-literate bad boys the time of day.
Is this consideration realistic? Why is it that the "Sex and the City" glam gals even when
the go for non-rich men, pick men that have something going on for themselves, like contractors
or guys with a skilled trade, (guys who can make money in other words) and not broke street thugs,
felons etc, who truly may be "badda" than most other people?? Are they really getting top tier action
or is it mostly the low-enders?
"Alpha" men do not dominate ALL breeding. 
