Wow. This really takes the cake for being both all over the place and cramming the maximum number of strawman arguments in the least space possible.
You begin with asking why should it go to anyone at all. Interesting point, zero relevance to the topic at hand. Whatever reason there is for inheritance going to one’s descendants applies to men and women. Societal responsibilities to the less needy etc have nothing to do with it, the less needy could be men or women. There can be more than one dimensions of unfairness, attempting to point out others does not address the first.
There was a brief detour through individualism and free-societies which I cant see the relevance of so will ignore that.
You then say you dont make as much as a doctor that doesnt mean you’re less of a person. Im afraid you’re only half correct there. Wages do indicate how much society values a person, which is why interest groups pursue higher wages for one group of people or another. It isnt just about getting more money, its indicative of social valuation.
Similarly it is certainly legitimate to question the rationale behind why women get half the inheritance of men. Just as you do in your strawman argument about how other legal systems allow adhoc distribution of wealth allowing some to get nothing and the state to take lots.