As a socialist of sorts I think that only men should get welfare. Men aren't the ones who pump out the children and since women do, it will deincentivize women from having kids out of wedlock and I see only good things coming out of it. That way it will help men be financially stable and able to provide for their women and since women won't get it unless they're in a relationship it will tie them to the man and make it impossible for them to leave and if they do leave, nature will take care of the rest and she'll starve and the kids would too (in the current system). In an ideal system, the kids would stay with the father and there would be only 1 casualty. If the system wants to reduce loss of life, they would have to ultimately side with the father out of concerns for the children. Men are less of a tax burden, too, in comparison to women because of the additional mouths that have to be fed with said tax dollars, this would ultimately kill two birds with one stone as people would foot the bill for a lesser amount of people and men could actually pay their bills and rent on time, and women would be forced to marry in droves because those protections aren't afforded to them.

  One must understand that people or mankind, hereforth, is not equal in one instance, for we are many individuals with different strengths and weaknesses and fit into our own "special" sockets or holes or rooms that nature sees fit, its another thing to assume that all people should not be without basic welfare and the right to food, water, shelter and other necessities. So, going back to the "pyramid of consent" and merging it with the welfare given by the state, first to men, and then to the others as seen fit. However, due to the current conditions of society, women shall not and cannot receive welfare considering that it promotes single-motherhood, and the amount of children produced out of wedlock would increase tenfold which means more mouths to feed and a larger tax burden on working men, who by nature of their own biology, do not birth children but simply provide the seed for doing so. Considering the state has no interest in doing so with where welfare is allocated, we must try to approach all men as charity cases, considering most men do not have the ultimate say so in who decides to take care of the children, let alone who decides who is in a relationship, and I believe a reversal of these values over time would have long term benefits.

    However, do not mistake this tirade for trying to "force equality". There are only individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses and any attempt, aside from financially, to make men and women equal, first of all, has already been attempted, and second, has had disastrous consequences considering women are never satisfied with being equal, they just want to be superior, and going back to the Greek playwrights, we can see any woman in power will wreck a nation, equally should only be sought at the lowest, most basic economic level, not in terms of ability, strength, mindfulness, intelligence, virtue, or something like say, bodily functions. No. only in terms of basic living quality is what ought to be sought in an effectively governed society, ordained by God, ruled by men, for EVERYONE. the main reason financial stability is important and why only men deserve basic welfare is to set the imbalance of society straight in terms of civil morale, maybe then we can think about applying it universally, but until then, it seems women only get worse the more they receive the working class tax dollars. We're not the ones who pop out kids so it can only be a straight win for the gender war, which was a war that needn't be waged since the biggest advocates for gender equality were often "tribe members" who just wanted to see men and women fight with one another. Society was better off when we, as men, were their betters. The application of welfare to men would ensure all men get a basic living wage and would de-incentivize women from having children out of wedlock and ensure early and efficient marriage, it has been proven that less sexual partners a woman has, the more she will be able to pair bond with her spouse, and would prevent women from living off men's tax dollars so she can pop out kid after kid, thats what welfare enables in women, for men, since we aren't the ones who birth children, that basic income can be invested in things like proper housing, food and transportation and possibly "money to make money".

    One question remains on whether this should be doled out as services or a dividend, though it should probably depend on a case by case basis, whether the man is employed already or jobless, whether he owns his own property or rents, my georgist sympathies believe eventually all taxes be reduced to a single tax on land, god willing. If we can figure and balance between taxation and welfare we can establish a better society, however society as stated at the beginning of this essay also must learn to let go of the idea that "all people are created equal" and let people express their inequality in society freely while trying to balance out the problem of single mothers being a tax burden on the working class. I'm no anarcho-capitalist, in fact maybe there should be some intervention early on, not to go off the deep end but I used to think what went on in the bedroom was no business of the state, at this rate, I was probably wrong. though that's another topic for another time. Peace.