I largely agree, though the analogy isn't perfect (no analogy is).

I disagree with them, but in the interest of sharpening our minds I'd like to give a shout-out to the critique u/nopus_dei gave when the article showed up on /r/Foodforthought a few weeks ago.

A subtlety of the article is that while the author does make a connection between economic poverty and romantic poverty, he does so in the context of mental health (the author is a psychiatrist after all). This is important because the author explicitly doesn't go on to make any kind of social justice claim about morality, romance, and society (Even though he dances around the idea that such men may be suffering some sort of mental health issue, he is definitely not arguing that a trip to the bunny ranch should be covered by your insurance). Rather, by framing it in the context of mental health, he is calling for compassion for the romantically impoverished.

There is a very simple reply to the question which is better than anything feminists are now doing. It is the answer I gave to my patient Dan: “Yeah, things are unfair. I can’t do anything about it, but I’m sorry for your pain. Here is a list of resources that might be able to help you.”

There is also a more complicated reply, which I am not qualified to compose, but I think the gist of it would be something like:

Personal virtue is not very well correlated with ease of finding a soulmate. It may be only slightly correlated, uncorrelated, or even anti-correlated in different situations. Even smart people who want various virtues in a soulmate usually use them as a rule-out criterion, rather than a rule-in criterion – that is, given someone whom they are already attracted to, they will eliminate him if he does not have those virtues. The rule-in criterion that makes you attractive to people is mysterious and mostly orthogonal to virtue. This is true both in men and women, but in different ways. Male attractiveness seems to depend on things like a kind of social skills which is not necessarily the same kind of social skills people who want to teach you social skills will teach, testosterone level, social status, and whatever you call the ability to just ask someone out, consequences be damned. These can be obtained in very many different ways that are partly within your control, but they are complicated and subtle and if you naively aim for cliched versions of the terms you will fail. There is a lot of good discussion about how to get these things. Here is a list of resources that might be able to help you.

Of course, then you’ve got to have your resource list. And – and this is the part of this post I think will be controversial (!), I think a lot of the appropriate material is concentrated in the manosphere, ie the people who do not hate your guts merely for acknowledging the existence of the issue.