“The population having a smaller growth rate may mean it isn’t as noticable, but proportionally it is equally as applicable.”
I am not agreeing/arguing with any of your other points, but mathematically, this bothered me. Assuming the “crisis” is attributable to growth rate alone, proportionality among communities would only hold if growth rates are the same. Population size does not affect proportionality, but growth rate does.
As a simplified example, if Community A has a 2%/year growth rate and an average marriage gap of 3 years, the pool of single women would be about 6.1% larger than the pool of single men (1.02^3 – 1). From the other perspective, that makes the population of single men about 5.8% smaller than the population of single men (1 – 1/(6.1%)), meaning that every 100 single women in Community A have about 94 single men to match with.
If Community B has 8%/year growth rate and an average marriage gap of 3 years, the population of single women would be about 26% larger than the population of single men, so the population of men would be about 20.6% of the population of women. Every 100 single women in Community B would have only 79 men to match with them.
Again, I do not have enough evidence to say anything about the either the actual cause of the “crisis” or actual growth rates within any one community (I can’t imagine many communities in the world grow by 8%/year), but the size of the growth rate within a community very much affects the relative impact on each individual single woman, as demonstrated above.