Do you think if governments weren't enforcing matriarchy, and there was true equality, everyone would settle for looksmatch?
Have you read my thread in my sig?
For example in it was like it was in the Medieval times:
“Sexuality for the medieval woman began before marriage as a young virgin.
It was not necessary for her to be beautiful to be married off because marriage was traditionally based on politics, material wealth, and social status. It would have been intensely disapproved of for a man and woman to marry based on physical attraction or love. When a family made a match for the daughter, choosing a mate based on sexual attraction was never considered. It was very rare to find references to love and beauty in the negotiations for marriage between two families.”
It's your parents striking a deal with the foids parents, it's a gamble, she could be ugly or she could be good looking, vice versa. So no looksmatching there, as foids would have a choice.
If it's anarchy, then the strong (high rankings members of crime families/gangs, ex-military leaders who now have private militias and people who're at the top of 'enforcement' would get their pick of the crop. It wouldn't matter if you're ugly, the only requirement would be to power so you can provide power, security and safety (as there are no longer gov/police to do it).
If we removed welfare and women's right to vote then they would settle for their "looksmatch" as long as he can provide for her, but that will never happen, unless we get to a collapse and the anarchy part first, in which case most incels would have a lot tougher time than they have now tbh (unless right now you belong to a band of strong men and are on the upper echelons there).