As I said before, hypergamy is a function of patriarchy - a social system that is only 6-9k years old, about 3% of human history. Our Paleolithic ancestors used caring for the whole tribe as a survival strategy. There were no "providers" as we know of that term in modern times because everyone took care of everyone else. In fact, gatherers, who were primarily (but not exclusively) women provided most of the daily sustenance because foraging is a much more reliable food source than hunting, which is hit and miss. With the rise of the agricultural revolution, everything changed. Now you've got not only sexual and social control of women, but an entire new stratified class system and hierarchy, which includes massive wealth and power disparities that hadn't existed before.
(With the rise of plowed agriculture) “Labor roles became more gendered as well. Generally, men did the majority of the fieldwork while women were relegated to child-rearing and household work. Without contributing food (and by association, without control over it), women became second-class citizens. Women also had babies more frequently, on average once every two years rather than once every four in hunter-gatherer societies."
So, yes, hypergamy has existed in the past and is not completely gone, but it's also not a pervasive factor like it was in 1939 (or even in 1980) because women have opportunities that they didn't have at that time to support themselves. Do we all have room to improve as a culture to move even further away from patriarchal dynamics - absolutely! You will get no argument from me on that, but as you said, if 40% of households have a female breadwinner, that shows significant movement away from hypergamy. I think when discussing this subject we all need to look at the various facets of the equation.
For example, expecting a man to pay for the first couple of dates is not necessarily reflective of hypergamy. If the man asked her out, a lot of people (men included) believe that the person extending the invitation should pay, at least in the beginning. It's about courtship more than it is about money. Besides, women are typically spending large sums of money before a first or second date getting their hair and nails done, maybe buying a new outfit, putting on make-up, etc. It's a more nuanced dynamic than just "she expects him to pay because she buys into hypergamy." Is there room for modern dating to improve? No doubt, but that isn't only about outdated patriarchal dynamics - there are other things in play as well.
If you want material to help you debunk that hypergamy is hardwired, I've got dozens of articles that I've written on pre-patriarchal societies and how they changed with the onset of patriarchy/agricultural revolution. Here are just a few:
