“What the article assiduously avoids admitting is that fully HALF of all women are themselves “mediocre” - or worse!”
If you look at pictures of women of the 1950s and 1960s in crowd pictures—and then look at them today—the difference is shocking.
A “5” in that time period is an “8” or “9” today.
That means the competition for the more attractive women is very difficult for young men.
It is hard to blame the men for refusing to “settle”.
P.S. Young women were more pleasant to be around in those days—on top of the physical attractiveness issue.
We otherwise seem to agree on the broader issue, but here you appear to have "dropped the ball."
The uglification of women (most of it self-inflicted) does NOT mean that men now have to compete more for the remaining attractive women. That is not how male psychology and sexuality works.
Rather, the vast majority of men will happily accept women who fulfill at least partly their list of wants.
Men are willing to compromise (that is among our chief distinguishing features vis-à-vis our female counterparts). On the whole, men are more inclined to compromise on looks, weight, virginity, etc. than to shift into overdrive and make herculean efforts (push for career advancement; spend a significant portion of their spare time in the gym, trying to maximize their physique; gain pick-up skills; etc.) to outcompete their brethren in order to seize that last, good-looking woman. They will instead "settle."
(By that I don't mean that they will suddenly accept grossly obese, tattooed "baby-mamas" with a bad attitude. Rather, you might instead see a tall, handsome, and productive man settling for a slightly overweight or big-nosed girl with a lisp or already in her late 20s. On the other hand, aggressive, bitchy, embittered women with double-digit notch-counts are still to be regarded as "radioactive.")Regards,