It has nothing to do with "average" men or "high value value men," or Alphas or Betas. Culture is downstream from technology and economy. Take away medical advancements that have eliminated 99% of the life risks of pregnancy and giving birth, the pill, and take away our digital/industrialized economy, and suddenly women have it a lot worse, and have fewer options. Men have it worse, too, but they have the advantage of being more physically primed to do manual labor like farming or mining, etc.

Women are reacting to the new environmental conditions that have given them advantages, and helped them overcome physical "deficiencies" they had before. It's like someone who was paralyzed before who can walk again. This has enabled them to pursue careers and opportunities they couldn't 70+ years ago. Not because the patriarchy necessarily deined them. But because most jobs used to be a lot tougher and more men had to do them. Check out the meatpacking plants in Chicago as depicted in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, for instance. Or any of Charles Dicken's books about industrial England.

There's an argument to be made, I feel, that WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, filtered out the gene pool, and we lost a lot of good men who might have fathered better offspring than what we see in the Millennial and Zoomer generation.

I don't believe the stats that women are only going for high value 6 foot tall dudes, etc. Or that women are all banging Chads and Tyrone's, while ignorning the others. I think most women are just as lonely as men, but like many men, are pursuing careers and education. Women have the majority of student loans, and stay in school longer, if mainly for liberal arts degrees that don't necessarily translate to the best careers. Here in the West, career and money matter way more than anything else.

The other issue is that women just aren't into guys period, and now that they have the option to not marry, they're exercising it. If Tom Brady's not good enough, what hope is there for anyone?