The totally predictable, inevitable consequence of [ blank ]: women don't need men, cuz gruberment will provide

I think everyone agrees that raising healthy, well-adjusted children is hard work--and that with vanishingly few exceptions it requires the full-time attention of one parent, with help from the other.  (Again, there are exceptions, but only a tiny percentage of all families.)

Because women bear children, historically women have been the ones mainly responsible for most child-raising.  As a result, rational women who wanted children--which historically has been most women--had a reflexive, survival-positive tendency to choose the best possible father for children--one who would be a good provider and protector.

When government became powerful enough to run everything, feminists quickly realized that they'd be better off voting for governments that would give them more "free stuff," freeing them from having to depend on a husband.  And every poll shows women vote Democrat by large majorities.

Now:  Completely aside from that, it was as predictable as the sunrise that as societies became "enlightened," women would demand the right to vote.  Totally predictable.

It was also *totally predictable* that "enlightened" male politicians would do what you would expect: show their virtue by voting to give women the vote.

Now let's explore something you've probably heard of, but haven't paid much attention to, called "the law of unintended consequences:"  Because with politicians giving women the vote, and realizing women voted for governments that gave them the most things, the scene was set for what many assume was one hell of an unintended consequence:
  >> The traditional survival-positive, socially-positive feminine dynamic of choosing a good provider and protector to father their children just...vanished, replaced by government.

With that change, good, honest, strong, reliable men were slowly replaced by the government as the provider and protector, so that under "enlightened" liberal governments today, women no longer have any need for a man.  Same for getting married.

Which triggered unintended consequence #2:

Every study shows that even though a small percentage of single women manage to raise successful kids, two-parent households have an astronomically higher success rate--something feminists and the Mainstream Media either ignore or scream is not true.  

As noted above, marriage--which once benefitted both sexes--is no longer necessary...unless, of course, one wants to have a much higher chance of raising well-adjusted, successful children.

What liberalism and liberal-ruled governments have done is make it possible for both men and women to be irresponsible.  As soon as Daddy Government took on the role of provider, men became unnecessary.

Once virtue-signaling male pols gave women the right to vote--in the name of equality--the die was cast.  At that point Democrats began electing women at roughly four times the rate Republicans did, and those women invariably voted (as did their male Democrat partners) for bigger governments promising more free stuff.

None of the male pols who voted for the 19th Amendment realized the totally predictable, unavoidable consequences of letting women vote, because no one imagined that doing so would eventually allow government to replace men as provider and protector.

That in turn would result in millions of kids being raised by a combination of mom and a public-school system that was not only barred from teaching morals or decency, but in fact actively taught kids that the U.S. was eeevil and "systemically raaaacist."

It was inevitable that passing the 19th amendment would slowly but inexorably reduce the role of men from (in most cases) a strong moral compass to simply one of two possible providers and protectors.  And from a woman's standpoint, letting the government provide was far more attractive because one didn't have to negotiate about things.

Daddy Government enabled women to dump a husband without worrying much about the future--and they did, in droves.  

Of course making divorce easier was certainly a blessing for the small percentage of women married to abusive or lazy husbands--or to alcoholics or drug-users.  Absolutely.  Women shouldn't be forced to stay in a bad marriage.   We just can't pretend that relief didn't also come with a huge social cost.  

Of course liberals weren't about to stop with a system that replaced men with government:  Young Americans don't know that years ago every state had laws that required anyone who wanted a divorce to state a cause that the state considered legally valid.  "I don't like the bastard," or "I'm bored" didn't cut it.  And the reasoning was sound: everyone knew--even way back then--that divorce was hard on kids.

But feminists and liberal pols wanted more, so now almost every state has changed its divorce laws so that the parties don't need to state a reason.

Finally there's one more effect of passing the 19th amendment:  Because women tended to vote liberal/ socialist--and young women by an overwhelming majority--giving women the right to vote hugely increases the voting influence of both unmarried women, and young women.

And what do young, inexperienced, naive people vote for?

Powerful, socialist government.

In hindsight, all the consequences above were totally predictable.  Some people even predicted those results, and carefully explained *why* those results were inevitable.  But as you'd guess, liberals who ran the Media even then sneered at such critics:  "You're a religious nut!  Misogynist!  Tinfoil-hat conspiracist!  Violent domestic extremist!"

Well, maybe not that last one, which had to wait for our current regime.