There are going to be consequences. In many countries there is a coming demographic crunch (that is only being papered over by immigration, but using immigration to solve it is like a dog chasing its tail) that is going to cause an economic crunch.
Charles Murray has investigated this extensively and written and spoken about it under the title of Coming Apart. Basically, there's a whole segment of underclass women who are dependent upon welfare or working minimum wage jobs. That doesn't sound like winning. Frankly, that sounds like a pretty bad way to get by.
The corresponding men are basically doing one of two things. On the one hand, they're running game and basically making enough money to live their own lives, but contributing nothing financially to either women or society at large. On the other hand, witness the growth of men who have not only dropped out of the sexual game, but have dropped out of every other game also. They're subsisting on welfare or minimum wage jobs themselves and spending their free time playing computer games or becoming Bronies. What used to be the working class that had its problems, but mostly held it together, is now in complete free fall. Without the government, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. That's when the demographic crunch becomes an economic crunch.
In order for society to limp onwards, a smaller and smaller share of the population of middle class beta males needs to shoulder the burden of supporting social programmes via taxes, all at the same time as supporting their wives (be those ex-carousel riders or not) and children. Many who should be those men are also falling downwards as society becomes more M-shaped, or they're voluntarily opting out in omegatude, moving abroad, etc. There is simply a point where there's only a marginal return on men "manning up" or caring, and so those men make the rational response based upon the incentives. This becomes a vicious cycle and continues to further erode the tax base. At some point, it all collapses under its own weight.
If you add all of that to an ageing population plus the fact that the average Westerner -- man or woman, but especially woman -- doesn't have anywhere near enough money for retirement, then the whole thing is a massive mess that is going to hit within a generation or so. It's going to hit women a lot worse than men because they're going to have far less money or assets generally and/or real world skills. They also generally fare worse as expatriates (whether in terms of finding a partner or in earning money abroad). Finally, women are far more risk-averse than men in general, and so they're far more likely to be caught flat-footed by radical societal change, doubly so if they have kids.
Charles Murray has investigated this extensively and written and spoken about it under the title of Coming Apart. Basically, there's a whole segment of underclass women who are dependent upon welfare or working minimum wage jobs. That doesn't sound like winning. Frankly, that sounds like a pretty bad way to get by.
The corresponding men are basically doing one of two things. On the one hand, they're running game and basically making enough money to live their own lives, but contributing nothing financially to either women or society at large. On the other hand, witness the growth of men who have not only dropped out of the sexual game, but have dropped out of every other game also. They're subsisting on welfare or minimum wage jobs themselves and spending their free time playing computer games or becoming Bronies. What used to be the working class that had its problems, but mostly held it together, is now in complete free fall. Without the government, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. That's when the demographic crunch becomes an economic crunch.
In order for society to limp onwards, a smaller and smaller share of the population of middle class beta males needs to shoulder the burden of supporting social programmes via taxes, all at the same time as supporting their wives (be those ex-carousel riders or not) and children. Many who should be those men are also falling downwards as society becomes more M-shaped, or they're voluntarily opting out in omegatude, moving abroad, etc. There is simply a point where there's only a marginal return on men "manning up" or caring, and so those men make the rational response based upon the incentives. This becomes a vicious cycle and continues to further erode the tax base. At some point, it all collapses under its own weight.
If you add all of that to an ageing population plus the fact that the average Westerner -- man or woman, but especially woman -- doesn't have anywhere near enough money for retirement, then the whole thing is a massive mess that is going to hit within a generation or so. It's going to hit women a lot worse than men because they're going to have far less money or assets generally and/or real world skills. They also generally fare worse as expatriates (whether in terms of finding a partner or in earning money abroad). Finally, women are far more risk-averse than men in general, and so they're far more likely to be caught flat-footed by radical societal change, doubly so if they have kids.