Background
Females are our evolutionary counterparts. They have existed with us since the beginning of our species, and arguably since the early beginnings of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. Without digressing into why or how sexual reproduction came into being, the fundamental problem we are facing is actually not new but very, very old. Since the rise of complex multicellular life, females and males have had two very different biological imperatives. Both want to reproduce, and both need each other to reproduce. But one must bear the brunt of egg and child production, which of course fell on our female counterparts, at least in our taxonomic class Mammalia. In essence, they have different evolutionary purposes, which means they have different evolutionary goals then we do. While ours (males) is, broadly, to produce as many offspring as possible, theirs is to ensure the offspring is the best organism possible. This means they must choose which males reproduce and which ones don't. This is of course a gross generalization of the concepts of both evolution and sexual selection, but it works for our purposes. We can begin to see females as an evolutionary filter of some sorts, keeping genetically disadvantageous traits from reproducing, and males as more of the experimental side of the evolutionary game, trying new traits and strategies to see which ones survive. Understanding this, we can move to the next area of discussion, a brief history of sexual relations in our species and monogamy and why it came into being.
Many anthropologists study extant hunter gatherer groups, in an attempt to understand early human sexual behavior. In many of the hunter gatherer groups alive today, their is far less division of labor between the sexes like more technologically advanced groups. Females have far more control of social dynamics in these tribes as a result, and may be viewed as more "equitable" than modern societies. Feminists of course would say this arrangement is more equitable and should be used a model to follow. However, as a result of this "equality", male sexual success isn't nearly as assured as it is in societies that are more advanced because their worth is based off of things other than their ability to provide, since females share labor tasks. As a result, fewer males reproduce, and female sexual selection is more influential. My personal belief is that these hunter gatherer groups weren't able to compete with more patriarchal groups that came to dominate the world several thousand years ago precisely because females did not place emphasis on mate selection via economic means. A male's economic worth, which was amplified when the agricultural revolution began several thousand years ago, was the greatest determiner of sexual success in our societies in the past. Agriculture, along with many other technologies, were developed precisely because females were dependent on male resources, and males were forced to think of new ways to acquire resources if they wanted to reproduce. So here we see the origin of betabuxxing, or obtaining sex and reproduction through exchange of goods. This idea slowly lead to monogamy, as males didn't want to risk using their increasingly difficult and sophisticated labor to raise another man's children, and more advanced societies took shape. Males are afraid of getting cucked. It is the worst possible thing that can happen to us. The first cities and towns were based off of agriculture and iron tool making, both of which likely wouldn't have occurred if males were to sexually compete on non economic methods alone. Monogamy is and was the basis of all advanced societies. This was the arrangement for many centuries until the arrival of a new technological concept, industry.
Much like how the agricultural revolution shaped society before it, the industrial revolution and the closely related scientific revolution that preceded it by 100-150 years or so, began to impact our evolutionary development. We began to rely less and less on male labor as machines began to assist us in basic tasks. Things like firearms, which weren't new but could now be easily produced, began to even the playing field between smaller, more technologically advanced groups and those who didn't possess said tech. Said firearms would allow small groups of Europeans to colonize virtually the entire world, just to give an example of the evolutionary advantage technology bestows upon those who develop and wield it. On other fronts, machines were starting to automate production of important complex items. Things that would take blacksmiths several months to compete in 1200 could be done in hours in a factory in 1800. This speed up in human behavior would soon spread to other areas, and we began to replace the horse as our primary method of transit in the early 1900s. Where as the agricultural revolution took several thousand years, the industrial revolution took 350 or so from start to finish. This was faster than human social structures, which were built around agriculture nearly 5000 years ago, could cope and react to. This lead to many of the dysfunctions we see today, including the current dysfunction between the sexes. But it gets far worse.
The digital revolution, which occurred in the 70s, is the latest iteration of the industrial revolution, and brought with it instant communication. With instant communication was soon followed by instant gratification and instant stimulation. Social media can be likened to a massive decentralized consciousness, and its participants increasingly being forced to behave in accordance with its views. Humans are still sexually stuck in 20,000 BC. Our sexual behaviors are largely left over from that era. This is especially true of females, who didn't face the mass culling of males we saw during the agricultural revolution. Their wants and needs in a partner hasn't really changed all that much. Where as men gradually began to prefer loyalty and fidelity in the post agricultural era (less chance of getting cucked), females simply wanted the best genes possible. As long as she and her offspring are fed and sheltered, she doesn't really care. She'll gladly be part of a large harem of one powerful male if it means she is taken care of, or she'll gladly use her own labor for the job. Enter the welfare state, which is essentially a collection of taxpayers paying into a pot for others to take money from. Most taxpayers historically have been males, and most men in society today are net taxpayers, which means they give more than they take from that pot. The biggest takers of the money in that pot are women, particularly single mothers and their children. Women are net tax takers, and they are responsible both politically and socially for the massive welfare state we see today. In addition, females have taken advantage of the various technologies released over the past 80 years to slowly liberate themselves from needing male derived capital to survive. This increase of females in the labor pool hits males twice; once via the immediate effect of not needing to marry for financial reasons, and two by halving the value of his labor, thus making him even less able to provide for a family on his own. Two income families are now standard fare in the US, with the majority of child socialization occurring in the (publicly funded) school system and via social and traditional media.
A combination of the welfare state and female employment has effectively removed the beta provider role as a pathway for males to have offspring via marriage. Females as a result began to choose the fathers of their children based on different criteria, most importantly looks. This is a massive change from the prevailing sexual order that began 5000+ years ago, and has lead to the phenomena known as incels, who are essentially surplus males that aren't needed in the new evolutionary and sexual paradigm. We have regressed back to pre-agricultural sexual relations and behavior.
