I am not sure that makes sense, historically people were marrying and having children much younger. I am talking about under 20 years of age. As such I don't think it would have much impact on mate selection as it was done when they were younger and had more "follicle vibrancy".

It usually sets in past your prime years though. Maybe it was an advantage on a societal level to make men less attractive in middle age compared to young men.

(I say this as a 42 year old who misses my hair)

Evolution only “cares” (it doesn’t care; you know what I mean) about attractiveness during the time the male is able to procreate. Which is, <= 30 years. After that, the human animal is dead of sickness, malnutrition or a fight. The human person lives way longer thanks to modern medicine and tech. Evolution might “cares” about the male sticking around defending/teaching the family/tribe until he dies. He doesn’t need to be attractive by that point.

I think it depends a lot on factors like head size/shape, proportionality to the rest of the body, etc. Some guys look amazing bald, but having been almost bald (very close cut) I find it quite awkward looking on myself.

Unless most procreation was done before it developed.

Short men are really unattractive to women, yet there are lots of them.

Many people do care about it though, just see the market size of hair implants and Rogaine.

Not necessarily true. It could be that MPB evolved because it allowed females to select for younger males.