You must log in or register to comment.
There’s no “maybe” about it. It’s documented. Listen to the extremely American podcast
The Good Old Days they always refer to is the world where Adult White Christian Males get to rule the world, do whatever they want, say whatever they want, everyone is subservient to them and every other race, religion, identity, minority and female is below them.
Mild fascism was always “okay” in colonial-settler history. It was only when the Nazis went full fascist and started attacking other Europeans for either not buying into their world view or for having impure Slavic or Mediterranean blood did shit hit the fan.
For many of these regressionists, going back hinges on the ascension of neo Nazism.
It’s not as conspiratorial as that.
- Politician: We’ll make it like the good old days
- Voter remembering their childhood: I remember that, life was so simple.
- Politician: …so vote for me.
All the voters are voting for their own individual fantasies. The politician just wants the votes. This is just dirty populist games.
It really is pathetic when you think about it. Such a desire to have people beneath them…
Don’t they know that this is still true, as long as you’re part of the owner class?
I wish they were honest about their selfishness, at least it’s logically consistent. I’ll take that over their cult like thinking.
Suicides in women in the 1950s and 1960s were actually lower than what they were in the 1980’s, so this is a bullshit comparison tweet, where the 1970s happened to have the highest rate and the tweeter is putting a causation to the numbers that may not even have direct causation. I could just as easily claim that vehicle fuel economy improving during the 70’s caused a decrease in female suicides.
Female suicides hit its lowest at around 2000 before trending upwards again.
And then VTEC kicked in yo, and female suicides skyrocketed
Lol. Right? What was that, like 1997? VTEC makes women kill themselves.
While I can’t necessarily disagree with your correlation≠causation argument…
I could just as easily claim that vehicle fuel economy improving during the 70’s caused a decrease in female suicides.
Better gas mileage probably contributed a more than zero amount to that decrease.
You could very well be right, but it’s just impossible to control for such variables, so we can’t say one way or the other with a degree of certainty. Especially considering that a 20% swing in numbers consists of a mere 1 or 2 people per 100,000 difference.
Women weren’t allowed to open a bank account in the states until the 70’s
There is a good chance grandma didn’t leave grandpa because she literally couldn’t
And women who had “hysteria” were given lobotomies.
Theres a reason there is still a large cohort of older folks to follow the taboo on therapy: “I’m not crazy, I don’t need therapy”. Because in the good ole days they just locked and chained up or lobotomized anyone with divergence.
Women who had “hysteria” is also why vibrators were invented, because the 19th century treatment for hysteria was hysterical paroxysm through manual stimulation - aka giving her an orgasm by playing with her bits. The vibrator was originally a labor-saving device for doctors.
Yeah, stop spreading this misinformation. The Credit Act of 1974 made it illegal to discriminate in banking and credit but there was nothing preventing women from having bank accounts before 1974.
1862 California passed a law allowing women to open their own bank accounts without a male signature.
My grandmother and mother both had bank accounts in the 60s in their names, along with home mortgage and business accounts, with no other signatures other than their own.
there was nothing preventing women from having bank accounts before 1974.
Depending on which banks were available in her area, she may still have been unable to open a credit card despite it being legal to do so. Prior to 1974, it was legal for banks to require a man’s signature for a woman to open a credit card, and many banks chose to require this. According to this article from the Smithsonian Magazine, some banks also applied a 50% reduction to womens’ wages when calculating the credit card limit for an applicant.
I agree that the facts are very frequently misrepresented.
Prior to 1974, it was legal for banks to require a man’s signature for a woman to open a credit card, and many banks chose to require this.
The requirement for women to provide a male co-sign for lines of credit was one of the last vestiges of coverture (the notion of the household as the primary legal unit, with the husband/father as the one ultimately responsible for the household owning all the assets but also holding all the debts and in some cases responsible for crimes done by family members) to go. Because under coverture, the only women who owned their own assets and were responsible for their own debts were femme sole (single women who are not under their father’s household, typically orphans, widows or spinsters) which meant loaning money to a woman who was or might feasibly become married within the terms of the loan created a scenario where the debt had to be collected from someone who was not a party to the debt being created which made things more difficult for the lender. The whole point of requiring a male co-sign was that way they had someone they could more easily enforce collection against than the debtors potential future husband who wasn’t himself a party to the loan. Once we tossed coverture, it took a bit for policy at private institutions to catch up unless/until they actually needed to.
I agree that the facts are very frequently misrepresented.
There’s a dichotomy to it you see in descriptions of other things, where unless all women could do the thing nationwide without exception then women couldn’t do the thing but if any men could do the thing, then men could do the thing. For example, some women in the US could vote since the founding, because voting rights were determined at the state level and not all of them restricted it by sex. At the same time, most men couldn’t vote either in most states until the mid-19th century with the push for so-called Jacksonian Democracy (ironically, women actually lost the right to vote in New Jersey when voting rights were expanded - the previous wealth requirement was not restricted by sex).
No fault divorce is a no brainer.
Funny enough the people that don’t support it have no brain so I’m not so sure
Or maybe they’re just evil down to their core
Hold up. Rewind.
They used to assign fault during a divorce? What the hell?
Why was that ever a thing?
No fault divorce isn’t about assigning blame. They actually still do that in certain situations, such as adultery or abuse. No fault divorce means that the state will allow a divorce even if no one is to “blame.” Prior to that, you essentially needed a legal reason to get a divorce other than “I just want to be married to this person anymore.”
Ohhhh. Alright. I misunderstood.
Thank you for this.
Even if both people wanted a divorce they would have to do something like fake an affair. The husband could hire a hooker and the wife would hire a P.I. to “discover” the indiscretion.
The elite and religion (same thing) need more babies
Don’t forget the number women who poisoned abusive men, but law enforcement and medical examiners quietly pretended it was natural causes
Let’s bring that back
Fine but only if we can bring back the 90% top tax bracket too
Yes please
I hear men’s ability to balance on ladders improved drastically shortly after as well.
Thank you for this additional piece of background, dear FistingEnthusiast.
“For rats.”
source for the suicide stat: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950/
So the suicide rate for both genders actually significantly dropped right after 1970. Wonder what’s that about?
Living in a relationship that you don’t want to live in, and having no way out except death.
What’s to understand?
Surely its so simple.
The kind of people who want to end no fault divorce don’t actually care about female suicide.
Warn them that men’s life expectancy dramatically increased due to no fault divorce. Because a woman trapped in a bad marriage kills her husband.
If the husband is MAGA, then why the fuck not?
Because killing people is wrong? Wtf. Did you miss the Nazi gathering?
If it’s MAGA Nazis dying? I don’t think Nazis dying is wrong. Sorry if that offends you.
How convenient to have a label you can apply arbitrarily to justify dehumanizing people.
So I’m an older lady, and when I was young, I was told many interesting things by women who were quite old (at the time.)
My mother’s family is from Siciliy.
Anyway all I’m saying is this sort of thing happened a lot, and if necessary, it will happen again.
Coincidentally, I’m almost 40 and have never married… but I haven’t been single in many, many years. Those stories will stick with ya, and there’s no need for divorce where there’s no marriage.
Till death do us part.
Why are looking at me like that!?
Ohh they’re not ignoring it. They want to go back because of it.
Yes, it is their goal, which is why they have to be killed.
What people seem to have also forgotten is the amount of righteous murder that was going on. https://youtu.be/Gw7gNf_9njs
They won’t give a shit about female suicide.
Point out homicide of male partners dropped 70% and you may get their self-involved attention
Ignores? No, my friend. They’re completely aware and are fine with it.
More than fine. It’s the goal.
May I recommend The Way We Never Were for real insight into earlier American life and families.
Soon: “Nazis didn’t care about minorities🤯”
Why would the goal be to make women miserable? Like what’s the point?
To get back at them for what Eve did in the Bible. (I’m only partly kidding.)
