>>14099159(cba to properly write but can be asked to explain it)
Society judges men on their ability to provide, which is their worth. Thus men are rank on their providing abilities. Women can have babies so naturally this gives them a higher worth (50 woman one man, 50 kids, 50 men one woman, one kid, former is better for a society). This leads to women being more able to be more picky with their men since they're skewed higher (thus more demand for their supply).
Pre-industrial lifestyles meant being physically stronger makes you objectively better at providing. This is no longer the case due to modern comforts (post-industry) making it easier to be productive/to provide. Therefore men and women are equally able to acquire resources (compared to realistically just being men).
Since women judge men on their ability to provide resources relative to them (the woman, since a millionaire is nothing to a billionaire), this now means that essentially half of men (assuming normal distribution) are worse than relative "zero". This means on top of women being more picky, the effective pool of men they want to be with has just halved (which makes sense given that graph, virginity doubled).
This doesn't even consider social media (amplifying women's worth due to likes and thirsty guys), or hookup culture (with the marry-then-fuck the ratio would be 1-1 give or take, now it becomes a case of the top 20% of men get 80% of women), so it's going to get worse since those two things also cause a feedback loop of men getting more desperate thus amplifying women's worth thus letting them be more picky thus making that 20% become 10% then 5%, thus making more thirst guys, etc.
Only going to get worse if it wasn't for women becoming more unbearable by the day (due to boosted ego and reduction in quality)
