KenB–I think you’re right about a degree of (understandable, but still incorrect) overstatement here.
We don’t want to yield to the same kind of emotional stuff that feminism did–where some very bad experiences (in that case combined with Marxism, alas–talk about two bad foundations) lead to a dysfunctional and self-fulfillingly negative ideology.
Men need to remember: while it’s absolutely true (IMHO) that a relevantly good woman is much harder to find nowadays (i.e., not a good boss, or a good athlete, or a good lawyer, or a good scientist, etc., but specifically a good _wife_), it’s also honestly true from their perspective that a good man is similarly hard to find.
It used to be that men (and women) were _expected_ (descriptively and prescriptively) to be marriageable (which was a very good thing, unless you just never wanted to get married, in which case it was … annoying). Society and culture pushed people to be married and marriageable, with children and hence the future being the big winners. But nowadays, both men and men are inculcated with dysfunctional characteristics: women tend to be more feministic (and hence more selfish, hostile, unfaithful, and condescending with respect to men), but, in major part also due to feminism, men tend to be less capable of marriage: ideologically, men have been taught that traditional marriage, chivalry, and male leadership (patriarchy) are forms of oppression and bigotry, hence not goods to be encouraged and civilized, but evils to be discouraged and ostracized. Such indoctrination has worked surprisingly well, statistically speaking, at least.
Also, it’s hard to imagine the the Internet ubiquity of pornography and the sexually revolutionary hook-up culture (the latter routinely being endorsed academically) isn’t synergistically taking a toll, both catering to and creating men with much higher IQs than (relationship) EQs, and making women, and particularly a committed relationship with a woman, increasingly optional for a physically (if not spiritually) gratifying form of sexual expression.
Ditto for Hollywood, which visually indoctrinates men that all women worth having are physically intoxicating, indoctrinates women to a lesser extent that any man worth having is rich, handsome, and very clever with words, and further indoctrinates them that this approach to mate selection works well in the end–both ideology (the sexual revolution, kin to but not the same as feminism) and superficial marketing (nobody wants a movie or TV show like real life–they want it to be much more interesting NOW, and superficial appeal counts hugely to that end) causing this.
(I really don’t think men’s brains were designed to resist this level of appeal–beautiful Hollywood starlets in most TV shows, 18-year-old fantasy nudes available from every browser–and certainly not without society’s help, which used to be there, but no longer, outside of a church or other morally conservative context–which contexts are, of course, objects of cartoonish mockery in Hollywood and the academy.)
But this just means that marriage takes much more effort, first to (1)aggressively BE the right kind of person, then to (2) aggressively FIND and WIN the right kind of person, and then to (3) aggressively MAKE IT LAST against all the ideological, internal (we’re wired for infidelity in the state of nature, I’m afraid), and social (including some market forces, I’d suggest, even as a free market conservative) working against you.
It certainly can be done–go abroad if that’s better, so long as you keep (1) first–but it’s not automatic anymore (if it ever was).
Dr. Helen, you make a great point too, one that I hadn’t considered enough, about chivalrous, conservative male (count me in!) contributions to this problem: feminists have been extremely adroit at manipulating chivalry to (a) prevent criticism of feminism (who hasn’t noticed that every criticism or feminism is conflated by feminists and compliant media into an attack on women, from which chivalrous men revolt), and (b) to turn a chivalrous man’s eagerness to take personal responsibility in the protection of women into a naive willingness to believe the worst–often individually justified, but statistically dubious–about other men. There are, after all, plenty of cads in the world; thanks to feminism and the sexual revolution, no doubt many more than in the past. But men (and women) should be very skeptical of feminist claims which are typically gross distortions (dubious quasi-marxist and deconstructionist ideology _plus_ group think _plus_ intellectual affirmative action in the academy).
One more independent issue making things very difficult: men and women have been indoctrinated into thinking, intellectually, that age doesn’t matter. Well, of course, it does, and a woman who follows feminist advice to make sure her career comes first and then decides to get married in her 30s and 40s should realize that she’s facing much longer odds of getting married (or having children), other things being equal, since men are physically more attracted to fertile youth than to possibly/probably/certainly infertile middle age, and sexual appeal is, naturally speaking, all about having kids–or perhaps its due to a patriarchal agenda to devalue women of age and promote chattel slavery of an entire gender. 
(The real and tragic irony comes when a foxy single-and-loving, sexually very progressive babe in her 20s decides to settle down in her 30s or 40s and discovers that she’s not nearly as sexually compelling as feminists told her she would be once the shackles of patriarchy were crushed by force. Indeed, she’s now defeated in her hopes by the new generation of what she happily was 10 or 20 years earlier. 
)
