I don't see how this follows. Why couldn't it be that a tamed flavor of patriarchal dominance hierarchy is the only way to robustly keep male violence in check?

This isn't something that I believe is true (rather: I just don't know), but I don't see any more reason to believe what you said than what I did. How do we know?

Obviously there are failure modes (e.g. losing the taming, overdoing the dominance, etc.), but these aren't terribly obvious except that we've had direct experience with them.

Because you have to take fully into account how people will react to different structures, and how people will react to the reactions, and how people will react to the reactions to the reactions etc. etc., any sort of idealistic explanation that goes "Oh, but the principle is peaceful respect, so that's what we'll get!" is dead on arrival as an explanation. Furthermore, our society is so immensely different than it was 15k years ago that any explanation that goes "Oh, but it worked when we were hunter-gatherers!" is also dead on arrival as a full explanation. And because feedback is highly nonlinear, any explanation that goes, "Hey, in this study of 148 college students, when we pushed in that direction things got better," is also dead on arrival because you can't extrapolate that far.

As inspiration to try, sure. But to do more than push gently in that direction and reassess, it doesn't cut it.