Do you think men bring the more, same, or less to the table as they did in the past?

I'm not trying to do a CMV because I think those threads are stupid and inherently bring out the most unintelligent takes due to the pure contrarianism that most posters here have. I'm not going to say I'm bringing the definitive answer as to what things were like in the past vs now but I'll give some examples of what I've heard.

Context of my discussion is mostly in the middle class of the USA. It used to be that a woman had far fewer rights than she did now. It was challenging to open a bank account, a credit card, buy a home, do most anything financial, get a good job, etc. When you married a man, you were suddenly able to use a credit card, have influence in what home you were getting, and able to spend some money and whatnot. (happy wife, happy life, etc.) Obviously, lots of downsides to this arrangement but I am setting the stage for what positives marrying a man offered back then. There were always cons and still are. So, in many ways, marrying a man often would bring a great financial upgrade in life. Marrying a man would uplevel a woman's life in very tangible ways.

Now, women can more or less do all of these things on their own. They don't need a man in order to buy a home, get a job, etc. Similarly, the rights and whatnot of women are quite decent. They're not ideal (they're bad for everyone - we all have poor workers rights and no public healthcare) but there are very few areas of life where marrying a man would give you more rights, more financial freedoms, or whatnot than if you were single. It's debatable if even marrying a man is really the answer to those "problems" there rather than "being dual income", "splitting rent with someone", or something of that sort is actually the answer.

To me, it looks like men are bringing the same amount to the table as they did in the past but what women have is different. They have their own jobs, more freedoms, and whatnot that are very similar to what men have always had. I hear from a lot of women today that the "bar is low" and that men bring nothing to the table. What I am seeing though is that men bring the same as they ever did - maybe some bring even more to some extent. (Certainly many do - look at all these tech workers that didn't exist before that are now making $200k+/yr, etc.) But it seems like now you're bringing the same assets to someone who has a lot more on their own. To many women, maybe it seems like the men are bringing nothing because they're comparing what they have and what the men have. The men aren't bringing anything they don't already have now. Whereas in the past, I think the men were bringing things they didn't have.

It's all speculation. I'm just giving examples of things and thoughts here. Do you think men bring the same, more, or less to the table as they did in the past? What are they offering now that they didn't then?

To me, it does seem like you need to offer an "uplevel" to a woman's life for her to even entertain the thought of you. It's not clear to me what that uplevel is (I'm sure it varies for every woman) but - to me - it does seem objectively higher than it was in the past. If you just had a median income job in the past, that was probably a lot more attractive than a median income job now. A lot of women already have a median income job, they want someone who can uplevel their life. I'm speaking in generalizations, obviously. I'm sure there are women who are not as materially or otherwise concerned but 75%+ of women do care, as far as the social studies go.