1164
1950s family (slrpnk.net)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 100 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] shawn1122@lemm.ee 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

I wish they were honest about their selfishness, at least it’s logically consistent. I’ll take that over their cult like thinking.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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?

[-] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 58 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] sjmarf@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

If the husband is MAGA, then why the fuck not?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RVGamer06@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago
[-] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

Till death do us part.

Why are looking at me like that!?

[-] k0e3@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 months ago

Ignores? No, my friend. They're completely aware and are fine with it.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

More than fine. It's the goal.

[-] 30p87@feddit.org 22 points 3 months ago

Soon: "Nazis didn't care about minorities🤯"

[-] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago
[-] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

So the suicide rate for both genders actually significantly dropped right after 1970. Wonder what's that about?

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 16 points 3 months ago

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

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Yes, it is their goal, which is why they have to be killed.

[-] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

What people seem to have also forgotten is the amount of righteous murder that was going on. https://youtu.be/Gw7gNf_9njs

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 months ago

No fault divorce is a no brainer.

[-] PlutoVolcano@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

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

[-] credo@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Oh shoot, the GOP left some data laying around. Don’t worry. They will begin deleting such facts immediately.

[-] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

“Maybe”?

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Of course it is. Now a days they catch so much shit for trying to rape their wives that they just want it to go back to a time where it was okay to be a POS.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hold up. Rewind.

They used to assign fault during a divorce? What the hell?

Why was that ever a thing?

[-] psivchaz@reddthat.com 9 points 3 months ago

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."

[-] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Gilead theme music intensifies

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

Ohh they're not ignoring it. They want to go back because of it.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

"Look how low divorce rates were. Great success!"

[-] Pnut@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Ron Howard: "It was."

[-] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago
[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

For some that is almost explicitly the goal. They advocate against no-fault divorce which will, by is very nature, keep more women in dangerous marriages and increase physical and sexual abuse of women. In the 1950s, women were rarely seen as hirable and that kept them financially dependent on men. Today we don't just let women work, it's a necessity for basically everyone. But while we have made sure women (and men) can still independently with programs like SNAP and medicaid, those same people advocating against no-fault divorce also want to weaken or eliminate those programs. The end result of that will mean that basic survival will require, at minimum, two-earner homes. This will further tie women to abusive husbands even if they could justify an at-fault divorce, because they may be choosing between physical/sexual abuse and being able to feed, cloth and house themselves (and their children). This will also naturally increase suicide rates among women. So... those goals are indirectly GOP platform policies.

[-] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

IIRC women couldn’t get a credit card into the 70’s. Crazy.

Edit: couldn’t

[-] shawn1122@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Women could not build individual credit until the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). They needed a male cosigner to have a credit card prior to this.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 expanded credit card access for minorities. Systemic credit reporting inaccuracies disproportionately impacted them prior to this with Black/Hispanic neighborhoods having 2-3x more credit disputes than white areas.

There's a reason some of the anti-inclusive members of our society want to go back to a time of lower competitiveness. Unfair advantages allowed the few to have an easier life at the expense of the many.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago
[-] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today 2 points 3 months ago

I did, you’re right…let’s edit. Thanks

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

May I recommend The Way We Never Were for real insight into earlier American life and families.

[-] LorIps@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

The GOP is for gender equality by raising female suicide rates to match male ones.

Equal Opportunity Misery

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Why would the goal be to make women miserable? Like what's the point?

[-] frostysauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

To get back at them for what Eve did in the Bible. (I'm only partly kidding.)

[-] TomMasz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Of course that is exactly their goal. It's not like they're trying to hide it.

[-] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

What was the photo?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1164 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

7989 readers
1777 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS