Are we the baddies?

The issue is the market. These things are possible because of the skewed market.

There are far more men than women on dating apps, women don't buy the boosts, etc.

So you are paying for exposure in that skewed market.

If it were a complete free-for-all then women would get thousands of messages a day and not use the apps at all.

Sperms outnumber eggs by millions to one.

Okay? Men don’t outnumber women millions to one.

A woman's reproductive value biologically is several orders of magnitude higher than a man's. Because she is the limiting factor.

You’re defining that in the simplest possible way, ie if the stars aligned a man could, in theory, impregnate thousands of women. In reality, the factors that limit a man’s potential mates are equally real. The population’s sex ratio is no less a biological reality than the structure of a reproductive system. So a woman’s reproductive value fluctuates depending on circumstances, but remains similar to a man’s under most circumstances in a modern country.

Genetical evidence shows that twice as many women as men successfully reproduced during the history of our species. And if it wasn't for a period of massive population increase combined with monogamy, that ratio would probably be maybe five to one or more.

The sex ratio of children is hard coded genetically at 50/50 for pretty much all mammals, since any deviance would be corrected back to 50/50 within a couple of generations.

In modern society, an average woman can have as many sexual partners as she chooses to, and very distinguished men can have that. Birth control means that there isn't any actual children resulting from these encounters, but our biological imperatives are still the same. A woman's reproductive value is infinitely higher than a man's in modern society, where the man's reproductive value is approaching zero.

When we say reproductive value, we’re applying a supply demand metaphor from economics to each sex, then comparing their values in a hypothetical underlying currency. Supply and demand fluctuate but, as you said, we are born in about a 50/50 ratio, so absent major upsets to the ratio post-birth like wars, we should expect there to be roughly one man for each woman. Then demand (for men) is the thing that must be low to reduce their value. But it would be a bit silly to say women just aren’t interested in men in general, so I have to assume your complaint is that women in aggregate don’t have equal demand for all men. We’re not talking about the reproductive value of men in general, nor about a biological process removed from society, but a social phenomenon wherein demand for men by women is distributed unevenly among them. An undesirable man might be said to have a low reproductive value and a desirable man a high one. In aggregate, it wouldn’t make sense to say men have a low reproductive value.