It does to me; your quoted sentiment amounts to a concrete claim that can be argued for or against, and does not insinuate that the position of the speaker's opponents is due to something that everyone in the discussion would be bound to agree to be an indefensible moral failing.

A contextually appropriate mirrored version of the statement I responded to would be something along the lines of "or women could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a rich, hot, committed and deferential movie star". Would you consider that no worse than the "enforced monogamy" claim?

Women aren't saying they have a right to go out with a movie star. At worst, some of them are choosing, upon finding out they can't get the movie star, to remain single. Which would seem to be their right, no? Even if us non-movie-star males might prefer if they chose differently.