Historically, women like the most successful, most dominant men, and they are willing to share with other women if it means they get to be with the best. It’s not their first preference. Of course they’d love to have him all to themselves, but given the option of being one of the king’s harem or the wife of a shopkeeper, they’ll go with the king almost every time. That has meant polygamy, and all advanced civilizations* have abandoned that model because it destabilizes the nation.
Those consequences you mentioned are only relevant within a patriarchal and patrilineal context. Under those historical circumstances women didn't have much opportunities when it came to financial autonomy, property rights, political participation…etc. So it only made sense that their best bet was to rely on a man who can afford her needs as she can't rely on her father to do so for her whole life, knowing these conditions it's only expected that women will accept polygamy as they won't have any other option.
Women developping hypergamous tendencies was a byproduct of their social circumstances and gender roles they found themselves restricted into, as opposed to this behaviour being dictated by 'female instinct' which is the manosphere's main talking point. When women massively entered the work force, gained ownership rights, and access to political participation their mate selection criteria started to shift to being less and less materialistic
Logically speaking, most societies that allowed polygamies (including mine) didn't experience the emergence of violent, angry, murderous incels who take 'revenge' on society for 'letting them down'. That's because while polygamy was allowed, it didn't mean that rich men where going to end with a number of women important enough to generate a systemic problem and leave the majority of the male population with minimal opportunities for finding mates.
That's for a multitude of reasons. One of them being that in order to have a harem, the man in question needed to be from the higher classes of society. Usually a ruler whose most selected partners, including concubines, come from upper class families and/or are attractive enough to grap his attention. Nonetheless, it's not because the man could afford having a harem that any random woman will interest him, or that he would end up astronomically minimizing other men's chances to find mates. Unless of course he, as well as most rich men, had astronomically high numbers of partners.
Aside from rulers, wealthy men will often follow similar patterns while being polygamous; their partners will usually be from the same social class as them or be highly attractive, and on top of that these men would be contrained finanacially by the duty to equally provide their partners' requirements. This meant that most wealthy men will end up with a very restricted number of women. Add to this the small number of wealthy men in comparison to middle class and poor men, the female population being (for the most part of history) slightly higher in comparison to the male population, and how some cultures explicitly restrict the number of partners polygamous men are allowed to have (4 in the islamic religion). And you get the result that polygamy on it's own won't automatically result in a substantial 'shortage' of female partners and leave majority of men forced into celibacy.
If monogamy was adopted, it was because polygamy was an inherently problematic arrangement, but not problematic in the sense that it left sgnificant numbers of men without partners but more in the sense of resulting in highly toxic and conflicted households where the interests of its members are consistently at odds. I live in a society where polygamy was practiced (and it still is but in a much more small percentage) and I know for a fact that if polygamy can be called problematic it's for these reasons and not the reasons you stated.