If a man must pay for a child at great personal cost to himself, and a woman and

If a man must pay for a child at great personal cost to himself, and a woman and the child have a right to the standard of living prior to divorce, and he cannot export this expense to the state, then why does a woman have the right to export the cost of her single motherhood to the state?

A man cannot chose whether or not he is to father a child. Women are no longer economic victims, but have both saturated their distribution in the economy, and forced men out of the economy such that more women are both voters and workers than are men. So we cannot say that women are disadvantaged. Just the opposite. It is true that men dominate the upper margins, but men dominate nowhere else in society.

This is an inequality of justice. A double standard. Given the dissolution of the family, and our emphasis on individualism, it is only jus that men export their children’s cost to the state just as women export their children’s cost to the state. No?

I don’t really see any moral case for child or spousal support. There isnt any evidence that it’s necessary. It is disproportionally more punitive to men, who have shorter working careers, and endure disproportionate economic risk.

I mean, if we have universal socialized health coverage, why not universal socialized child coverage. Why not a minimum guaranteed income?

In that world, men can contribute to a household or not, but they carry their productivity with them. So any woman whose nest he shares, gains from his productivity, but loses at his departure. His income is a luxury. A perk. A benefit, not a necessity.

The point of my argument is that property rights in a world where the individual, not the family, is the rule, and where all costs are highly socialized, will be one in which it will be increasingly difficult for us to treat evolutionary norms and morals dependent upon previous economic political and social means of production and reproduction, as criteria for predicting human behavior.

I wouldn’t mind a world where women could not become vampires on males, and where all rights were in fact, equal.

I also realize that this is the only way to restore male-female relations. But I suspect it is too late. And that the more likely development will be a caste system like we see in the northeast, with white/jewish/asian elites and mixed and brown everyone else – with token representatives of those groups permitted into the upper castes as a means of preserving the illusion of meritocracy.