It's the task of the male gender to remove unfavourable mutations from the gene pool

This is the hypothesis the authors of this study populate. They asked the question why genders even exist.

In principle, a lineage of a mutant asexual female that simply clones herself into daughters would grow at twice the rate of her sexual competitors. [...] What prevents this from being the predominant mode of reproduction throughout eukaryotes? One hypothesis regards the role of males in facilitating the purging of deleterious mutations from the population's genome because very strong selection in males, unlike selection in females, can occur in many species without reductions in population offspring numbers.

[...] This suggests that mutations with deleterious effects on population growth rate due to their effects on females can be selected against (i.e., purged) more efficiently via their male siblings. This process would offer a benefit to sexual reproduction that may partly compensate for its costs, and therefore yields insight to the prevalence of sex in nature.

Here is what they mean: Males can impregnate countless of females in a very short timespan. The reproductive bottleneck of a species are therefore the females. It would theoretically be much more efficient if there was only one man for every 10 females or even better, females just cloning themselfes. So why is it that in species such as ours there are as many males as there are females? Because males are supposed to get filtered out until only the most well-adapted are left to impregnate all the females.

Thankfully, in the modern world men are usually not filtered out anymore by dying. How much do you think these biological roots of ours still effect the dating market today? Do you think this also explains other societal phenomenons?