The giant issue with this argument is that the state of being married/single/having children/etc. is not a fixed state. If a woman who is married takes a hit to

The giant issue with this argument is that the state of being married/single/having children/etc. is not a fixed state. If a woman who is married takes a hit to her income (and thus all future income) when she has children and is later divorced, has her spouse pass away, or other life event that changes her status, the burden of that inequality is again placed on her. Child support is difficult to collect, social safety nets are not an answer to the quality of life gained by earning a certain amount. I don't have answers to these questions, but the long term economic burden of children will more often than not fall to a greater degree on the woman should there be any deviation from the social norm of a nuclear family.