It’s not a question of ‘blame’. It’s a simple problem of the intersection betwee

It’s not a question of ‘blame’.

It’s a simple problem of the intersection between population (reproductive) demand, present levels of taxation and redistribution, and men and women’s incentives.

The 12K years of agrarian incentives just don’t exist any longer. Why wouldn’t we return to pre-agrarian norm of a household of three generations of a woman, her sons and daughters, and roving men for sex and reproduction?

Why wouldn’t men, or at least a large percentage of them, do as in pre-feminist-activism return to producing large numbers of men’s organizations, clubs, dorms, businesses, and men and women return to living almost entirely separate lives again?

Why wouldn’t the historical norm of marriage as a means of securing property and inheritance among people with those assets, and serial monogamy or polyamory for the rest. The Irish only stopped serial monogamy in the 1800’s and the Ashkenazi serial monogamy and polyamory in the 1500s. There are still places in Africa where men live in one ‘village’ and women in another.

My point is, that we aren’t anywhere near working through the experiment we’re conducting, and it’s increasingly clear that women are following a consumption curve (maximization) and men are presently seeking a new social economic model. And while your generation and mine don’t matter so much. And while it varies from region to region. We are seeing total reproductive collapse among educated urban women.

I know you’re trying to make moral arguments, but I work in the spectrum of economics(cooperation) and law(conflict) and it’s not a moral question to me. I don’t care. But the consequences of our actions are what they are.

You won’t like this but while men are unconscious of the burden of children upon women, women are equally unconscious of and even blind to the burden of the commons on men.