>>2416
There was not a single socialist state that would allow you to sit on welfare, because of how quick everything breaks down. You'd just be a part of a collective host to a multitude of parasites, paying up more than putting in.
What do you think will happen after a while to rich social-democratic countries that nurtured huge special interest groups, in fact turned women into a huge special interest group (to their singular approval)? When economy will degrade for whatever reason and there's not enough opulence to keep everyone on life support, who do you think will be forced to keep providing for all those in voting blocks/clients of the state, securing their meal ticket? The last passing generation that still believed there was a point in working and paying taxes? They'll convert to the elderly and demand an access to a tit as well.
Either they wont be able to force anyone in which case there is no money to go around and you're back to capitalism but now also living in a poor-infested shithole (hello almost every redistributory regime in Asia ever) or it'll be men who don't sit under any umbrella of minority, bureaucracy etc.
Collectively men will never even see half the money they pay for welfare coming back to them. Ever. There will always be that idiotic white knight knee jerk to "womens' plight" and keeping children economically hostage that will make women the main recipients. In fact welfare and government concessions to large unions means only one thing in the long run: that someone will have to work for it to 68 or longer while others retire at 45.