After WW1 the average height of a french soldier dropped by an inch or two (don't remember the exact value). This was attributed to the slaughter of the fit men. It also became fashionable to marry old men and foreigners.
I know in Germany after both wars there was the same effect on marriages, but I don't know about the height.
Perhaps we can increase my "50" years to "200" years. For the vast majority of history, having less men was considered eugenic and a good thing.
It wasn't driven by having less men. It was driven by the upper class wanting more sex.
It also turned out to be disastrous for society, and most of the Islamic world has outlawed or severly restricted the practice as it leads to huge social problems.
The fact is that war has never been a large driver of casualties in these societies, outside of WW1 and WW2 which are the two exceptions and really don't prove your point. Wars were never fought to protect women, and most men died of disease and accidents, not war.
My main point of contention was that it wasn't a widespread practice and wasn't motivated by a lack of men.
If gender rolls were reversed wouldn’t be many examples where the death toll was high enough for this to occur.
In Britain in the 1921 census there were 1,209 single women aged 25 to 29 for every 1,000 men. In 1931 50% were still single, and 35% of them did not marry while still able to bear children.
After the war there were about 40% fewer single French men for every unmarried woman, compared to before.
Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the existence of a country. Post WW2 Germany and Russia would also be grim examples. It is of note that the 20th century was the first time that deaths from actual enemy action exceeded deaths from disease during war.
https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-now-t...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women