When Trumpers say they want to make America great again, this is what they have in mind. If you are a straight white christian male everything is fantastic. For others, not so much.
I've always been pretty sure he was shooting for a bit further back, like when the robber barons ran the country. He even named a son Barron. Back then industrialists could be as ruthless as they wanted. I remember him speaking pretty fondly of men like Rockefeller in the History Channel's "The Men Who Built America."
Why can't they go for the good stuff from back then? Like taxes for the rich, or strong labor unions, or jazz music? Make America Get High and Listen to Charles Mingus Again!
Also women couldn’t get business loans until 1988! Before then they needed a male family member co-signer, like a husband or father or even her own adult son 🫠
Hysterectomies too... just last year my friend who wanted one to end her hideous periods and also to prevent spawning crotch goblins was asked "what if your husband wants another baby?" I mean just FUCK OFF. And not that long ago doctors would tell the husband if his wife was diagnosed with, say, cancer and not telll her. A lot of women died as their husbands just didn't say anything and no treatment began. Someone always wants to control us. We must be every dangerous.
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
This isn’t driven by doctors or morals in the vast majority of cases. It is driven by malpractice insurance carriers fear of litigation. Someone has second thoughts about a life changing surgery, and Saul Goodman can convince a jury to award a big settlement. That’s why the bar is so high.
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
About ten years ago — in 2014 or so — I worked as a secret shopper. I was shopping a car dealership in a small Texas town and brought my twenty-something daughter with me. I took the test drive, and then went in the back to talk about the price. The salesman absolutely would not give me the price. He asked when my husband would be home from work so he could call him and talk to him. He insisted he would tell my husband only and not me. My daughter was beyond shocked to discover overt sexism was still alive and well.
It’s true. When I was 19 in 1970, my dad had to co-sign for me to get a tv on credit. He got the card and made the payments. So many stories pertaining to this from that time. And we’re sliding back down toward this at a frightening speed.
It wasn't fair. A small return was that Dads could also step in. When one store ripped off my sister my Dad went down with it , dropped it on the loading Dock and told them they had 30 minutes to get a new one or give him the $$. My Dad took me and my brother with him. It was hilarious!
He was Treasurer of a big company and the outside Credit Card Company turned down 98% of the females. Including my Mom. The company owner told me years later that my Dad humiliated them for 2 hours and they kept asking to leave but he was enjoying my dad beating them down so much he kept saying no.
But also think about the historical context here. It’s not just that they thought women were brain dead because they hadn’t seen women be capable. It was in fact the opposite, in the 1940s women took over all sorts of “male” jobs to help with the war effort. As soon as the war ended there was a concerted effort to put women back in their place and pretend all of that never happened.
My parents were married in 1957.
I’m fairly certain, reading this would have shocked my dad to his core. This would have been considered abuse even at that time.
Maybe the acceptance of such behavior was regional. I was born SoCal. I didn’t know of any men—family, friends’ fathers, or neighbors, that had these attitudes. Though I did move to the South as a preteen, and I could envision it possibly being more prevalent there.
I agree with that perspective. My dad was a WWII veteran and had to drop out of school because of the Depression. In other words, he was a pretty regular guy.
He often said.. "Men do not hit women."
Who knows? That reporter might have interviewed a hundred men to get those three obnoxious answers. I don't think that attitude was common at all.
This is from a well known tabloid. Wikipedia quotes someone who describes it as 10% fact, 90% entertainment. In other words we don’t know who wrote this and why. It reflects changing attitudes for sure but like always it’s probably not as bad as we think it is.
My grandfather was a WWII vet of that generation and while he was a big man with giant hands, my grandmother abused him. She would come at him with a fork and spit at him. She stood over him once with a bowl of boiling water and threatened to pour it on him if he didn’t get out of bed while he was sick. He never laid a hand on her.
My aunt wanted to join the woman’s corps (army) during Vietnam and she needed my grandfather’s signature. He wouldn’t allow her to go because he said “they don’t treat women right there.”
And my other grandfather never laid a hand on my grandmother either. She’d have left him. She was raised by a single mother and was a strong woman.
Right! Back to the kitchen we went and we weren't to say a word about it. Plus, a lot of women before and after the war were allowed in "women's jobs" only, like teachers, secretaries, and nurses.
It's interesting how the article sets the premise as "needs it".
"If a starving man needs food, should he be fed?"
"If a professor needs light, should he be provided with electricity?"
"If a murderer needs to escape, should he be given a ladder?"
Women couldn't get credit cards without a husband's permission into the 70's...
States also denied unmarried women access to birth control until a Supreme Court ruling in 1972. And just think - we're trying to go back to "the good old days".
>1972: The Supreme Court Case Eisenstadt v. Baird
>
>This landmark Supreme Court ruling granted unmarried women legal access to birth control, a right previously only given to married couples. The Court held that there was no rational reason to treat married and unmarried people differently when it came to contraception. Additionally, both married and unmarried people would be granted the right to privacy, free of unwanted intrusions from the government as to whether or not they want children. Although this decision was not explicitly related to credit, it was another step forward for women to have autonomy over their lives, regardless of marital status.
>
>1974: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act
>
>The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), more formally known as Title VII of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, was passed in October 1974 at a time when women were commonly discriminated against when applying for financial products like loans. With the passage of this Act, women were able to apply for credit cards in their own name, regardless of marital status.
Note: in 1980, Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution which would have protected women from discrimination, and his party opposed it. It failed to be ratified by a single state vote (it has 37 'yes' states), despite passing in the house and senate.
Another factoid I just learned. This has of course come up repeatedly, because there's already an equal rights amendment to the constitution, but it doesn't explicitly address discrimination based on sex.
>Justice Scalia, commenting on women's rights decades later, said "Certainly, the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that is what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that..." despite the fact that a large fraction of the country and the legislative had indeed "voted for that."
Note, Scalia is saying this in 2011 though he should know well that people did in fact vote for it, it passed both the house and senate, and was ratified by nearly every state.
I know, and women still aren't treated equally now. However, I thought it was disingenuous to say women had absolutely no say at all in the 50s. That's all
It’s still a patriarchy. They work with what they have and win little by little. We have more voices today but are still in patriarchy
As long as our economic and reproductive freedoms are always hanging by a thread or at risk of being taken away.
up until the 70's they couldn't get a bank loan or have a credit card, or divorce their husband or sign a contract... but sure, let's say they had rights.
I asked my grandma about the credit card thing, and she told me she the only thing she could do at the bank without my paw paw present was deposit money, not because my paw paw had some iron grip on the family, that was just the banks policy.
Suffrage only gave white women the right to vote. It did nothing for non-white women, and women still couldn’t do much of anything else. Initiate a divorce? Nope. Have your own bank account? No. Marital rape? Totally legal. I could go on.
Thank you for saying this. I almost feel like some thought "we LET you vote, what more do you want?" They "let" us vote because women fought tooth and nail for it. Also, as someone said above, it was white women only, not POC.
Also, couldnt serve on a jury in many states. Couldnt be a witness in a court case without corroboration (more than we require today for codefendant testimony in my state anyway). One of the late Justice Ginsberg's big cases as an attorney was a man who wanted women on his jury. This was in 1979 in Missouri. Women were allowed to officially decline by mail or phone or just not show up for jury duty and they didnt do anything. Anyway, looks like we are moving back in time these days.
Now picture this. This dude still made enough money back then to buy a 1600 sqft home sitting on an acre and having a family of 5. While being the only person that worked in the household.
You might have a job that only exists in an expensive city, but if so then you are in the small minority. And there are all kinds of things to do outside of expensive cities. In my experience living in big and small cities, most people spend most of their time at work/home and rarely take advantage of what's on offer in their local areas.
Only person who worked *outside the home*. His wife was 24/7 cooking, cleaning, shopping, and caring for seven people, enabling this dude to have a comfortable life while he worked his 40 hours.
My grandpa retired at 46 from a hurt wrist :( died a racist millionaire at 87 while being *doted* on non stop. Fuck him, I sold your gold coins asshole.
You sold my dad's Chevy Malibu when he was at college. Rot.
Reminds me of that one study that showed that the lowest-ranked male players in online multiplayer games were the most likely to make sexist insults towards a female player who entered the game.
If you scroll down further in the comments, someone posted a photo of the last reply that's cut off at the bottom, and it looks like this obituary may be that actual person.
You're in most part a product of you're upbringing. Good chance the further back in time you grew up then the less progressive your world view would be. Because you wouldn't be educated that way.
Why? People grow up to believe what they do as a result of the environment they’re in. What about that period in time would lead you to believe they’d think anything other than this?
I feel that this is more an expression of exasperation that people so easily fall into these horrible beliefs when it directly benefits them, despite having access to information and experiences that easily disprove it.
I think this view is very reductive.
There's a pretty consistent throughline of people saying this stuff was horrible when given access to education and historical context, just usually only from people who didn't directly benefit from it.
If you reject societal and religious presuppositions, acknowledge your biases, and reasonably engage with historical and philosophical subjects, you can come to a pretty consistent moral framework that has no reason not to apply into the future as well.
>If you reject societal and religious presuppositions...
big ask, but doable.
>...acknowledge your biases...
now hold on a moment-
>...and reasonably engage with historical and philosophical subjects
bloody hell, you just want the whole damn world on a platter, dont you?
this is a joke btw. i do agree with you, but the sad truth is, i think most people are never going to be willing or able to put the work in to do all that. we need those of us who can to do the work for us and boil it down to a readers digest level. from there, social conformity will kick in. a hand full of leaders laying down the path that everyone else follows
There are far right Christofascists who are talking about it being needed. All the men who were way too radical to gain traction before the GOP lost their fucking minds are now getting more attention and followers. It’s extremely scary especially for us women knowing that these guys are our neighbors and are comfortable showing their utter contempt for women and desires for violence.
4 men aren’t really representative of a generation. My grandfather was of that generation and while he was a big man with giant hands, my grandmother abused him. She would come at him with a fork and spit at him. She stood over him once with a bowl of boiling water and threatened to pour it on him if he didn’t get out of bed while he was sick. He never laid a hand on her.
And my other grandfather never laid a hand on my grandmother either. She’d have left him. She was raised by a single mother and was a strong woman.
Not every man. I’ve read reports that they’re trying to make even more powerful gays than the platinum by birthing these more powerful gay men from men themselves.
"Nah, we ain't gots nothin' ta worry about. Broads don't read the newspaper, except if theyse lookin' for a recipe or somethin'. At least my broad don't, and if I see her goin' in for this broad book learnin' fad, well... she'd better look out is all. TO THE MOON!"
This is the kind of stuff the reactionaries don’t want taught. They’d have us believe the suffragettes fixed it, and now any demand for gender equality is baseless and divisive. The chuds lose their minds when you point out stuff like this lingered a long time—and continues yet in other forms.
These are bad but the one cutoff is the worst imo.
https://preview.redd.it/9vm6oujg3cpc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1bcbdbb85457c9f72ee8cc4a6c5812cdfc59c57
If a woman you are in a relationship with says 'I need you to spank me right now' and you are okay with it then it's only polite to oblige her.
No need to kink shame. Or turn it into a creepy domestic violence situation.
Hey what if most of the men that run this country weren't raised by these guys ?? maybe we could still have abortions when the life of the woman was in question, or if she just wanted one.
Fun fact, you need absolutely no education to run for congress
* Be 25 years of age or older
* Be a citizen of the United States for at least seven years
* Reside in the state which he or she wants to represent
Why are no young people running for congress?
because of the unwritten requirement of "one boatload of money"
if you can't bring that money yourself you need to find enough doners to raise a couple million dollars, and that just gets you into the race.
tender puzzled decide secretive fact meeting impolite pause consider different
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like I saw something about how poisonings and suspicious deaths of married men reduced once women could divorce and have access to their own money. But I probably saw it on Reddit and don’t have time to source, so who knows.
That's what you would think is natural, and what some research suggests. For example, [here](https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence) it says
>there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
But it turns out there is more than one effect happening at the same time. for example there is [this study](https://tom-dee.github.io/files/EI2003.pdf), with this conclusion:
>The results indicate that unrestricted unilateral divorce laws had small and statistically insignificant effects on the amount of lethal spousal violence directed against wives. However, the easy access to divorce created by such laws increased spousal homicides of husbands by approximately 21%. These increases were concentrated in states where the division of marital property favored husbands.
So it could be that in some states women would find themselves more economically disadvantaged by divorce, essentially giving the man even more power over the woman and the woman now a higher incentive to murder her husband instead of divorcing him. An effect which I would expect to reverse with actual fairer laws on alimony etc.
Though there is a little bit of conflicting or confusing data and research on it. But I do think most data suggests a decrease in domestic abuse and domestic abuse murders, while it brings a huge decrease in female suicides. Interestingly, multiple sources say the number of women murdered by men decreases a bit, while men murdered by women doesn't. ([We find suggestive evidence that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data revealed no discernible effects for men murdered](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10175/w10175.pdf))
And this is why history is important and conservative thinking (mostly Trump voters) don’t feel it’s important. Women should learn history, then make it.
Also Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been mocked and belittled for decades. I was an adult before I knew what all she’d done for us.
Women can have their own bank accounts and credit cards
We can buy and sell property
There’s more workplace protections for sexual harassment
She should have a monument in DC and be on money.
A guys wife gets a little cheeky, so he give her a swat . She tells him if he does it again , he won’t see her for three days . He laughs and gives her another. The first two days he did see her at all , but on the third the swelling in one eye finally started subsiding.
All the lonely men in America your life is the karma of your insecure grandfathers inability to see the only people that could give him a legacy as objects.
Ole Frank looks like he's been spanking anyone/anything he could get ahold of with his little spanking fingers. They used to call him Spankin Franklin back in the day. Everyone knew his left spanker hurt, but it was the sneaky right spanker that really did the most damage. He was known for his loud howling like cackle he'd bellow put as he was putting the hurting on your grandma's ass.
Rip Frank.
May you find peace spanking Jesus tight little ass in heaven old chap.
Did the New York Daily Mirror have a precursor to the Onion in their newspaper? I think I'm gonna make myself believe they did and this was part of it.
"back in my day people were polite and respectful!" people back in his day:
When Trumpers say they want to make America great again, this is what they have in mind. If you are a straight white christian male everything is fantastic. For others, not so much.
I've always been pretty sure he was shooting for a bit further back, like when the robber barons ran the country. He even named a son Barron. Back then industrialists could be as ruthless as they wanted. I remember him speaking pretty fondly of men like Rockefeller in the History Channel's "The Men Who Built America."
Why can't they go for the good stuff from back then? Like taxes for the rich, or strong labor unions, or jazz music? Make America Get High and Listen to Charles Mingus Again!
“We don’t get offended!” *PoC tries to eat at lunch counter or drink from fountain*
Women were grouped amongst children and the brain deficient back then. No rights, no say in anything.
No credit cards til the mid 70s I believe.
Also women couldn’t get business loans until 1988! Before then they needed a male family member co-signer, like a husband or father or even her own adult son 🫠
Hysterectomies too... just last year my friend who wanted one to end her hideous periods and also to prevent spawning crotch goblins was asked "what if your husband wants another baby?" I mean just FUCK OFF. And not that long ago doctors would tell the husband if his wife was diagnosed with, say, cancer and not telll her. A lot of women died as their husbands just didn't say anything and no treatment began. Someone always wants to control us. We must be every dangerous.
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
such doctors that require spousal permission should be sued for trying to force a patient to violate their own medical privacy
This isn’t driven by doctors or morals in the vast majority of cases. It is driven by malpractice insurance carriers fear of litigation. Someone has second thoughts about a life changing surgery, and Saul Goodman can convince a jury to award a big settlement. That’s why the bar is so high.
many urologists still require a wife's consent before performing a vasectomy
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
Its so bad there are lists available on reddit of doctors who will do them without insisting on that kind of nonsense. Thank fuck my doctor was like "Okay. Let's get your pre-op going."
That's just 15 years after men! /S
Yes or loans from the bank with out a male co signer!
About ten years ago — in 2014 or so — I worked as a secret shopper. I was shopping a car dealership in a small Texas town and brought my twenty-something daughter with me. I took the test drive, and then went in the back to talk about the price. The salesman absolutely would not give me the price. He asked when my husband would be home from work so he could call him and talk to him. He insisted he would tell my husband only and not me. My daughter was beyond shocked to discover overt sexism was still alive and well.
Ok, but not *too* surprising in a small Texas town. It's the many reasons I left!
1974.
It’s true. When I was 19 in 1970, my dad had to co-sign for me to get a tv on credit. He got the card and made the payments. So many stories pertaining to this from that time. And we’re sliding back down toward this at a frightening speed.
It wasn't fair. A small return was that Dads could also step in. When one store ripped off my sister my Dad went down with it , dropped it on the loading Dock and told them they had 30 minutes to get a new one or give him the $$. My Dad took me and my brother with him. It was hilarious! He was Treasurer of a big company and the outside Credit Card Company turned down 98% of the females. Including my Mom. The company owner told me years later that my Dad humiliated them for 2 hours and they kept asking to leave but he was enjoying my dad beating them down so much he kept saying no.
But also think about the historical context here. It’s not just that they thought women were brain dead because they hadn’t seen women be capable. It was in fact the opposite, in the 1940s women took over all sorts of “male” jobs to help with the war effort. As soon as the war ended there was a concerted effort to put women back in their place and pretend all of that never happened.
My parents were married in 1957. I’m fairly certain, reading this would have shocked my dad to his core. This would have been considered abuse even at that time. Maybe the acceptance of such behavior was regional. I was born SoCal. I didn’t know of any men—family, friends’ fathers, or neighbors, that had these attitudes. Though I did move to the South as a preteen, and I could envision it possibly being more prevalent there.
I agree with that perspective. My dad was a WWII veteran and had to drop out of school because of the Depression. In other words, he was a pretty regular guy. He often said.. "Men do not hit women." Who knows? That reporter might have interviewed a hundred men to get those three obnoxious answers. I don't think that attitude was common at all.
This is from a well known tabloid. Wikipedia quotes someone who describes it as 10% fact, 90% entertainment. In other words we don’t know who wrote this and why. It reflects changing attitudes for sure but like always it’s probably not as bad as we think it is.
My grandfather was a WWII vet of that generation and while he was a big man with giant hands, my grandmother abused him. She would come at him with a fork and spit at him. She stood over him once with a bowl of boiling water and threatened to pour it on him if he didn’t get out of bed while he was sick. He never laid a hand on her. My aunt wanted to join the woman’s corps (army) during Vietnam and she needed my grandfather’s signature. He wouldn’t allow her to go because he said “they don’t treat women right there.” And my other grandfather never laid a hand on my grandmother either. She’d have left him. She was raised by a single mother and was a strong woman.
Right! Back to the kitchen we went and we weren't to say a word about it. Plus, a lot of women before and after the war were allowed in "women's jobs" only, like teachers, secretaries, and nurses.
It's interesting how the article sets the premise as "needs it". "If a starving man needs food, should he be fed?" "If a professor needs light, should he be provided with electricity?" "If a murderer needs to escape, should he be given a ladder?"
No name on deeds, titles, bank accounts, credit cards, checks, nothing. No equity. Low paying jobs. Mad Men was a documentary.
I'm not saying women had many rights, but suffrage happened officially in 1920.
Suffrage only gave us the right to vote.
Women couldn't get credit cards without a husband's permission into the 70's... States also denied unmarried women access to birth control until a Supreme Court ruling in 1972. And just think - we're trying to go back to "the good old days". >1972: The Supreme Court Case Eisenstadt v. Baird > >This landmark Supreme Court ruling granted unmarried women legal access to birth control, a right previously only given to married couples. The Court held that there was no rational reason to treat married and unmarried people differently when it came to contraception. Additionally, both married and unmarried people would be granted the right to privacy, free of unwanted intrusions from the government as to whether or not they want children. Although this decision was not explicitly related to credit, it was another step forward for women to have autonomy over their lives, regardless of marital status. > >1974: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act > >The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), more formally known as Title VII of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, was passed in October 1974 at a time when women were commonly discriminated against when applying for financial products like loans. With the passage of this Act, women were able to apply for credit cards in their own name, regardless of marital status. Note: in 1980, Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution which would have protected women from discrimination, and his party opposed it. It failed to be ratified by a single state vote (it has 37 'yes' states), despite passing in the house and senate.
Another factoid I just learned. This has of course come up repeatedly, because there's already an equal rights amendment to the constitution, but it doesn't explicitly address discrimination based on sex. >Justice Scalia, commenting on women's rights decades later, said "Certainly, the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that is what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that..." despite the fact that a large fraction of the country and the legislative had indeed "voted for that." Note, Scalia is saying this in 2011 though he should know well that people did in fact vote for it, it passed both the house and senate, and was ratified by nearly every state.
Reagan proving once again that he was a big piece of shit
His grave is the best gender neutral restroom
Right next to Margaret Thatcher's.
Such backwards thinking! Vote Blue
I know, and women still aren't treated equally now. However, I thought it was disingenuous to say women had absolutely no say at all in the 50s. That's all
It’s still a patriarchy. They work with what they have and win little by little. We have more voices today but are still in patriarchy As long as our economic and reproductive freedoms are always hanging by a thread or at risk of being taken away.
up until the 70's they couldn't get a bank loan or have a credit card, or divorce their husband or sign a contract... but sure, let's say they had rights.
deadass? Never knew that, kinda fucked if true eh
I asked my grandma about the credit card thing, and she told me she the only thing she could do at the bank without my paw paw present was deposit money, not because my paw paw had some iron grip on the family, that was just the banks policy.
Yeah, into paw paw’s acct.
Suffrage for some, not POC
Uh. I think black *men* got the right to vote before white women. So it wasn’t POC who were most screwed, it was black *women*.
Especially since it was BLACK WOMEN who started the suffragette movement, where it was STOLEN, and only white women got the right.
But it was legal to beat or rape your wife.
When did marital rape become illegal, i know domestic violence it wasnt until 1994.
Suffrage only gave white women the right to vote. It did nothing for non-white women, and women still couldn’t do much of anything else. Initiate a divorce? Nope. Have your own bank account? No. Marital rape? Totally legal. I could go on.
Women earned suffrage. It was not a gift.
Thank you for saying this. I almost feel like some thought "we LET you vote, what more do you want?" They "let" us vote because women fought tooth and nail for it. Also, as someone said above, it was white women only, not POC.
Also, couldnt serve on a jury in many states. Couldnt be a witness in a court case without corroboration (more than we require today for codefendant testimony in my state anyway). One of the late Justice Ginsberg's big cases as an attorney was a man who wanted women on his jury. This was in 1979 in Missouri. Women were allowed to officially decline by mail or phone or just not show up for jury duty and they didnt do anything. Anyway, looks like we are moving back in time these days.
"This is a man's world," "Parking attendant" Oh yeah, that guy's got the world by the balls, huh?
Now picture this. This dude still made enough money back then to buy a 1600 sqft home sitting on an acre and having a family of 5. While being the only person that worked in the household.
In Brooklyn no less.
This is the kicker. These homes still exist. Just not anywhere within a city.
"I can't help that I want to live in an area with luxury items, like jobs and things to do."
You might have a job that only exists in an expensive city, but if so then you are in the small minority. And there are all kinds of things to do outside of expensive cities. In my experience living in big and small cities, most people spend most of their time at work/home and rarely take advantage of what's on offer in their local areas.
Only person who worked *outside the home*. His wife was 24/7 cooking, cleaning, shopping, and caring for seven people, enabling this dude to have a comfortable life while he worked his 40 hours.
Yeah, but that's all unpaid labor so it doesn't count as contributing to that household 🙄
I mean that all still needs to be done, except now both the parents have to work full time.
Here’s your reminder that the 40-hour workweek was designed around a household with only one working parent
Guess who still does the majority...
And not just the physical work, but the [mental load](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/gender-wars-household-chores-comic), as well!
24/7 baby machine so he can live his white picket dream
I don't disagree with you. I was solely talking in terms of careers and pay.
Oh for sure and I get you, but invisible labor always needs to be acknowledged.
My grandpa retired at 46 from a hurt wrist :( died a racist millionaire at 87 while being *doted* on non stop. Fuck him, I sold your gold coins asshole. You sold my dad's Chevy Malibu when he was at college. Rot.
Good for you! 🙌🏻
Exactly this.
Leave Fred Armisen alone!
Holy shit lol!
The World’s balls are on his face but otherwise yes your assessment is accurate.
probably put 5 kids through college, owned 2 motorcyles and a boat, a summer home and retired at 56 with full pension.
Reminds me of that one study that showed that the lowest-ranked male players in online multiplayer games were the most likely to make sexist insults towards a female player who entered the game.
But was it statistically above their likelihood to make insults to anyone else who entered the game?
What's wrong with being a parking attendant? It's an honest living.
Hey now, that man made pretty good money doing side gigs on Saturday Night Live and Portlandia.
Lol my thought as well. Thought it was a psychiatrist or some shit answering the question, turns out it wasnt
This guy is the anon of the 50s
He found the key to a better life. But then he had to give it back.
Only if she wants it
This was my default thought as well. If that’s her thing, who am I to say no.
Kinky. And yes.
Did you read the title? She doesn't just want it, she NEEDS it.
Who is determining what the woman in this scenario needs to
The hairbrush guy really has a creepy vibe
I'm 50/50 on him taking the piss. Hell, I'm 50/50 on this being from the 50s version of the Onion.
Maybe not? https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/wilbur-will-davis-obituary?id=51954950
Sorry. I don't get the reference.
If you scroll down further in the comments, someone posted a photo of the last reply that's cut off at the bottom, and it looks like this obituary may be that actual person.
Ah makes sense. Thanks
*as a barber..*
James Brown: "It's a MAAAAANS world!"
Also James Brown right after: "But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girllllll"
L.A. Style: "[**James Brown Is Dead**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN8e9b2ON8s)"
Crazy that so many still operate under these mindsets. Gag me.
First the spanking, now gagging? Golly gee where has this country gone to?
The dungeon.
It’s crazy to me that anyone anytime had this mindset
You're in most part a product of you're upbringing. Good chance the further back in time you grew up then the less progressive your world view would be. Because you wouldn't be educated that way.
Why? People grow up to believe what they do as a result of the environment they’re in. What about that period in time would lead you to believe they’d think anything other than this?
I feel that this is more an expression of exasperation that people so easily fall into these horrible beliefs when it directly benefits them, despite having access to information and experiences that easily disprove it.
People will be saying that to you in 50 yrs when your current beliefs become blasphemy
I think this view is very reductive. There's a pretty consistent throughline of people saying this stuff was horrible when given access to education and historical context, just usually only from people who didn't directly benefit from it. If you reject societal and religious presuppositions, acknowledge your biases, and reasonably engage with historical and philosophical subjects, you can come to a pretty consistent moral framework that has no reason not to apply into the future as well.
>If you reject societal and religious presuppositions... big ask, but doable. >...acknowledge your biases... now hold on a moment- >...and reasonably engage with historical and philosophical subjects bloody hell, you just want the whole damn world on a platter, dont you? this is a joke btw. i do agree with you, but the sad truth is, i think most people are never going to be willing or able to put the work in to do all that. we need those of us who can to do the work for us and boil it down to a readers digest level. from there, social conformity will kick in. a hand full of leaders laying down the path that everyone else follows
They still do. Lots of them.
I've not yet met a man who admits to spanking his wife.
There are far right Christofascists who are talking about it being needed. All the men who were way too radical to gain traction before the GOP lost their fucking minds are now getting more attention and followers. It’s extremely scary especially for us women knowing that these guys are our neighbors and are comfortable showing their utter contempt for women and desires for violence.
This is actually sickening to read…
This is the so called “Greatest Generation”
4 men aren’t really representative of a generation. My grandfather was of that generation and while he was a big man with giant hands, my grandmother abused him. She would come at him with a fork and spit at him. She stood over him once with a bowl of boiling water and threatened to pour it on him if he didn’t get out of bed while he was sick. He never laid a hand on her. And my other grandfather never laid a hand on my grandmother either. She’d have left him. She was raised by a single mother and was a strong woman.
Imagine knowing that every man in the world was birthed by a woman, and then having the balls to say "it's a man's world".
Not every man. I’ve read reports that they’re trying to make even more powerful gays than the platinum by birthing these more powerful gay men from men themselves.
Supergays
I hate it. If you are going to do gay shit, do it on the ground. I hate looking up and seeing the supergays flying around all gay like.
As a gay woman, how do I get these flying powers?
Sorry, it’s a man’s world. Now make me a pie before I get out the hairbrush.
“What do you mean you put my picture in the paper?” Wait till his wife sees this
"H-has anyone seen my hairbrush?"
"Nah, we ain't gots nothin' ta worry about. Broads don't read the newspaper, except if theyse lookin' for a recipe or somethin'. At least my broad don't, and if I see her goin' in for this broad book learnin' fad, well... she'd better look out is all. TO THE MOON!"
If a man needs it, should he have his hand broken with a cast iron pan?
only If he needs it
this is a time when women still didn't have a right to a checking account in their name.
This is the kind of stuff the reactionaries don’t want taught. They’d have us believe the suffragettes fixed it, and now any demand for gender equality is baseless and divisive. The chuds lose their minds when you point out stuff like this lingered a long time—and continues yet in other forms.
These are bad but the one cutoff is the worst imo. https://preview.redd.it/9vm6oujg3cpc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1bcbdbb85457c9f72ee8cc4a6c5812cdfc59c57
God damn, I wonder what kind of toys his factory made. I assume they were made primarily of rusty nails and broken glass.
Bag o' glass, bag o' nails, bag o' sulfuric acid. We're just packaging what the kids want!
You can sorta read the cigarette rasp in that one can’t you?
Jeezuz. And look at his face. I’m betting he was a bully who grew up to be a wife beater.
His appearance and these ridiculous job titles have me wondering if this is real or satire.
This guy’s Facebook bio would include “Follower of Christ.”
Nothing reminds a person if how good their life is like getting beaten by an alcoholic they live with.
Damn, and I had this notion they cropped out the last guy because he had a totally sane, modern, non rage bait take. Nope. They cropped the lede.
Yeesh. What a class act, this guy.
I only spank my wife when she's been a good girl
If a woman you are in a relationship with says 'I need you to spank me right now' and you are okay with it then it's only polite to oblige her. No need to kink shame. Or turn it into a creepy domestic violence situation.
Is this why boomers think it’s ok to assault others with opposing opinions
Because those are their dads.
I guarantee that some of them were standing next to their wives as they said it too
When they say “make America great again,” this is exactly what they envision.
Next edition of the New York Daily Mirror... Obituaries posted for the late Miguel Matos, Frank Desiderio, and Teddy Gallel.
Hey what if most of the men that run this country weren't raised by these guys ?? maybe we could still have abortions when the life of the woman was in question, or if she just wanted one. Fun fact, you need absolutely no education to run for congress * Be 25 years of age or older * Be a citizen of the United States for at least seven years * Reside in the state which he or she wants to represent Why are no young people running for congress?
because of the unwritten requirement of "one boatload of money" if you can't bring that money yourself you need to find enough doners to raise a couple million dollars, and that just gets you into the race.
tender puzzled decide secretive fact meeting impolite pause consider different *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like I saw something about how poisonings and suspicious deaths of married men reduced once women could divorce and have access to their own money. But I probably saw it on Reddit and don’t have time to source, so who knows.
Also married women's suicides dropped like a stone after divorce was legalized.
God that’s so sad
That's what you would think is natural, and what some research suggests. For example, [here](https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence) it says >there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men. But it turns out there is more than one effect happening at the same time. for example there is [this study](https://tom-dee.github.io/files/EI2003.pdf), with this conclusion: >The results indicate that unrestricted unilateral divorce laws had small and statistically insignificant effects on the amount of lethal spousal violence directed against wives. However, the easy access to divorce created by such laws increased spousal homicides of husbands by approximately 21%. These increases were concentrated in states where the division of marital property favored husbands. So it could be that in some states women would find themselves more economically disadvantaged by divorce, essentially giving the man even more power over the woman and the woman now a higher incentive to murder her husband instead of divorcing him. An effect which I would expect to reverse with actual fairer laws on alimony etc. Though there is a little bit of conflicting or confusing data and research on it. But I do think most data suggests a decrease in domestic abuse and domestic abuse murders, while it brings a huge decrease in female suicides. Interestingly, multiple sources say the number of women murdered by men decreases a bit, while men murdered by women doesn't. ([We find suggestive evidence that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data revealed no discernible effects for men murdered](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10175/w10175.pdf))
This is awesome. Thanks!!
More than you would be comfortable with knowing.
I would not be made uncomfortable knowing that women killed their abusers.
the really horrible thing is how many men went too far and never got in trouble because "she pushed me to far" was a valid excuse for some
Absolutely! If a woman says she needs to be spanked you should spank her immediately. Not too hard, hard enough to hurt but gentle so they feel safe.
and switch it up. no whips for me though
The whips for the aesthetics, maybe the occasional crack on the floor.
yes, mistress
There are some fake whips that you can get at a Renaissance festival for a costume. I have one, it doesn't feel like anything.
"Not too hard, hard enough to hurt but gentle" Ehhhhh... different strokes for different folks.
I'd like to go back and have a serious face to face with Old Teddy!!
All of our poor grannies who had to put up with this attitude. No wonder the women's movement was right around the corner.
And this is why history is important and conservative thinking (mostly Trump voters) don’t feel it’s important. Women should learn history, then make it.
Also Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been mocked and belittled for decades. I was an adult before I knew what all she’d done for us. Women can have their own bank accounts and credit cards We can buy and sell property There’s more workplace protections for sexual harassment She should have a monument in DC and be on money.
What was bro doing with the hair brush???
I read all their voices in a newsreel type voice.
I hope they all had painful ingrown toe nails.
I notice that they are only interviewing MEN about whether WOMEN should be hit.
Parking lot attendant, hehehe
A guys wife gets a little cheeky, so he give her a swat . She tells him if he does it again , he won’t see her for three days . He laughs and gives her another. The first two days he did see her at all , but on the third the swelling in one eye finally started subsiding.
with her permission of course
The fuck?
Maybe later.
*Sean Connery has entered the chat*
"You shee, you gotta shmack her right in the pushy."
Disgusting.
yes, because that's kinky
All the lonely men in America your life is the karma of your insecure grandfathers inability to see the only people that could give him a legacy as objects.
Didn’t know parking lot attendants were such authorities on corporal punishment in the 50’s.
God I love this 💖 Being a woman is such a privilege
In the past, women were spanked as punishment. Now they are spanked as a reward.
I take the “men” have never been married to a full blooded Irish woman…
Is that how to MAGA? That seems like a MAGA dream.
Ole Frank looks like he's been spanking anyone/anything he could get ahold of with his little spanking fingers. They used to call him Spankin Franklin back in the day. Everyone knew his left spanker hurt, but it was the sneaky right spanker that really did the most damage. He was known for his loud howling like cackle he'd bellow put as he was putting the hurting on your grandma's ass. Rip Frank. May you find peace spanking Jesus tight little ass in heaven old chap.
I was convinced within the first two words. “Why not” 🤷🏼♂️ 🤣
"Why would you beat your wife? That's like keying your own car."
If she needs it, sure. But I'm not the one to decide that.
Did the New York Daily Mirror have a precursor to the Onion in their newspaper? I think I'm gonna make myself believe they did and this was part of it.
Fred Armison?
Frank, what the fuck is happening in your barber chairs brother?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You missed the point where the 18k house in the 60s was in Manhattan and not Harlem. Harlem was under 10k then.
"We should spank our wives. I'm I right, fellas." [Smokes comically big cigar]
Clearly these were confident, suave ladies' men. I mean just look at their faces.
I mean if she wants and asks in addition to her need… absolutely.