The negative attention on males is most definitely a factor although I don't think it's the only one. Creating policies that support male mental health and to curb male suicide would be a step in the right direction.

I've always wondered if a reasonable cap on child support/alimony would help - such as the median US income. This could possibly make wealthy men more likely to have more children and also potentially help keep families together.

A cap on alimony would very likely help especially since it's driving some of the men to suicide when they are forced to pay 90%+ of their income in alimony. I doubt it's helping the problem when some see that and think twice about engaging in a relationship.

It would. As it was mentioned earlier on HN, a woman can get 100k in tax-free alimony payments from a guy making 250k. She can even get his house.

Keeping families together by reducing income to women, effectively trapping them, sounds like the bad old days.

Current policies are that men and women should be treated equally, and the women have the same rights over their bodily autonomy and sexual relationships that men do. I want to read your comment as implying something other than a view that women having such equality and autonomy is a problem. Can you elaborate on what current policies, specifically, you feel are in error and what "future is male" is supposed to mean in relation to improving population numbers?

Men and women are not always treated equally under the law, it depends greatly where you live. Some examples would be rape laws excluding male victims, compulsory military service, and infant male circumcision.

Fair enough, although I believe the goal is equality, laws can be unjustly applied in either direction. However, I don't see how "focusing on males" or "future is male" solves that problem, as opposed to preferring one inequality over another.

I agree, the goal is definitely equality and I hope that one day it's archived but unfortunately I don't think it'll happen too soon when there isn't much focus on legal and non-legal issues that affect men.

Clearly yes, but people don't want to accept the implications. Current policy has very obvious and direct benefit, while the harm that makes us miserable is very indirect and diffuse. The struggle to afford rent in San Francisco or Manhattan is many steps removed from the policy changes.

You want to encourage population growth by removing child support?

It's possible he might believe that child support and it's function is being perverted which is fuelling a decline in the number of men willing to engage in relationships with women.