Assume women are looking for mates (reasonable). Assume women will more favorably choose a mate the farther they are above some arbitrary standard (reasonable, though at the extreme end we see falloff--"I don't deserve him, he'd never date me, etc."--sames as we do in the other direction). Assume that these standards are the result of exposure to local norms (an example: as a friend returned from Kazakhstan explained to me, "A good Kazakh man is one who doesn't beat his wife after bedding down with a whore"). Assume that mass broadcast and the internet have redefined what local is (reasonable).
It follows then that standards are being influenced by members outside of the physical local community of women (for an example of similar issues, consider the body image research done with Barbies and other deconstructions of beauty).
That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable that these same standards can be raised above local market rates.
Ah, the 'nice guy' argument.
Well, no, not really--the observation is that, at a time where there was a large supply of men looking for traditional arrangements, they held out, and now with the advent of technology, that supply has decreased because of the substitute good of hookups enabled by Tinder et al.
There's no point in being mad, for example, that carriages are hard to come by if you didn't buy until cars were widespread.
I'm a bit bitter because it all seems like such a waste: some of us were disappointed before, some of them are being disappointed now, and the sum total of unhappiness in the system (taken through time) has increased unnecessarily. It's just unfortunate, and could've been avoided.
It disturbs me that you refer to women as 'they' as if they all collectively decided to ignore you.
Don't read too much into it...it's just a useful and short pronoun in English to refer to women, saving a few characters.