I think what feminism broke is ability for both sides to contribute something to make a relationship work, not just transactionally but in terms of the romance itself. Nowadays, men have to be both seductive and chivalrous, while women also became more immune to both things. It used to be that women were seductive and men were chivalrous.

What is seduction? Make the other party interested in you emotionally.

What is chivalry? A combination of strength and politeness.

How does this actually look in practice? The man is polite, strong, and aloof. The woman blushes, demonstrates emotional interest, and acts something out from instinct that is inherently seductive to the man. The man, seeing this interest, plans something so that they can spend more time together, after which time maybe they grow more together, or maybe they don't.

I think modern mating practices are breaking down in part because it asks the man to be seductive, and then it asks the woman to follow the seduction. This often doesn't work both because men are worse seducers and women are worse followers of said seduction. Women want to be in control of the emotional content/level of the interaction, and the man trying to seduce her is actually stripping that from her.

There are many other factors that contribute to problems overall, but I wanted to follow this principle all the way through. One closely related factor is that the hypergamous nature of women and the zero sum nature of college and career success between men and women has resulted in far less men who are attractive to women at the exact same time that we are putting more pressure on men to be attractive to women and also taking pressure away from women to work on being attractive (not just visually, but behaviorally) to men.

I think this mismatch explains a decent portion of the increased rates of singledom.