Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

I cannot imagine living in a windowless room, feels like a dungeon or torture room.

Common Law States

Most states, except those listed as community property states below, use the "common law" system of property ownership. In these states, it's usually easy to tell which spouse owns what. If only your name is on the deed, registration document, or other title paper, it's yours. If you and your spouse both have your name on the title, you each own a half interest in the property unless the title document says otherwise. If an item doesn't have a title document, generally you own it if you paid for it or received it as a gift.

Community Property States

If you live in a community property state, the rules are more complicated. But in general:

spouses own equally almost all property either one acquires during the marriage, regardless of whose name the property is in

half of each spouse's income is owned by the other spouse during the marriage, and

debts incurred during marriage are generally debts of the couple.

In community property states, the following is separate property:

gifts given to one spouse

property either spouse owned before the marriage and kept separate during the marriage, and

inheritances.

The community property states are: Alaska (by agreement), Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. (In Alaska, spouses can sign an agreement making specific assets community property.)

That's... not true at all.

The IRS tax forms even have an entire category for people who are married but maintain separate finances. It's called "married filing separate".

Now in some states there are laws that property acquired after marriage is shared, you can still maintain separate finances, and then it is up to a judge to figure it out in the case of divorce.

Also, you keep what you entered the marriage with. If you maintain separate finances, it's a lot easier to disentangle if you get divorced.

I have a friend who is on his second marriage, and his wife is also on her second. They maintain separate finances because they were both burned on a divorce, and they are very aware of what is common property and what is not. They could split up pretty much any time without a lawyer because they keep such good books.

I initially felt on-the-fence about this but upon further thought I absolutely disagree with the idea.

Society works and thrives when we've a common goal (all working to make things slightly better for everyone one bit at a time) and honest reciprocal agreements as one.

I am happy to partake in a society where the majority are trying their best for themselves and others, to support them when they fall down and want to get back up, or to step out of the workforce to procreate or retrain, to provide healthcare for all, access to housing, education etc.

I don't mind paying a little more if everyone who's willing to try their best to lean in to society and contribute gets the support and opportunity to do so, even if there's a disproportionate difference in outcome i.e. if all you're capable of doing is flipping burgers, parking cars, collecting trash, etc. then that's fine, just do your best at it.

I absolutely will not support those who just want to opt-out, unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them at the end of their days. I would also absolutely not support extending the right to vote to such people.

You get out what you put in. It's ok to try and fail, or fall ill, or struggle with a mental illness. It's good for a society to be there to help you pick yourself back up, to become well, and try again. It's the intent that counts. If you (the rhetorical you) merely want to sit on the sidelines because "life's too tough" then I'm sorry but you won't be doing it on my dime, or trying to sway the direction of my society with voter rights.