That’s interesting. For my views on this I would point you towards my article on the academic ideologies that are dividing America. Academics need to create original theoretical content to publish and survive. They’re essentially under duress to produce ideas that are prioritized only by their newness and not their correctness.
That’s an attack on motives, which is an informal logical fallacy. I agree academics are under duress to produce unrigorous ideas, but it is not a valid argument to assert that is what happened here unless you can back that up with evidence. You have not done that.
Common sense shows us the world over, in animal and human social groups, males grappling for dominance. Academics can theorize and counter theorize and posit and retract ideas all they want, but common sense is common sense.
This is an appeal to authority in the form of citing a hypothetical consensus opinion (“common sense”) as fact, another logical fallacy. You can invoke common sense if you want (without acknowledging how scientific achievements like quantum mechanics and general relativity fly in the face of common sense, I might add), but it bears repeating that someone who was one of the researchers that created the alpha male hypothesis is the one cited in that Wikipedia link questioning the scientific veracity behind his previous claims.
I am less interested in unscientifically speculating that a very specific social force led a researcher to make a claim then later question his own claim, and then wielding said speculation arbitrarily to only invalidate the later claim and not the prior claim, than I am in just looking at the science in both his early work and later rebuttal of his own work and seeing if his criticisms of his own work have merit. To me, that is common sense. I think if you’re going to invoke science (which you did), then you have to make scientifically valid claims; common sense doesn’t cut it.