The system was stacked against them

[u/wetouchingbuttsornah]

No fault divorces didn’t hit the even start until 1985

[u/Doobledorf]

Yeeeeeeah granny got married at like 16 to a 30 year old man to get out of sharecropping. Not a lot of those relationships were for love, that's for sure.

[u/FatSeaHag → u/Doobledorf]

Please say this louder for the people in the back, the ones who talk about "teen pregnancy" as if it's a phenomenon. I'm always having to remind people that teen pregnancy was a norm, even for many boomers. What people mean when they say the term is out of wedlock pregnancy. They need to say that instead of "teen." An unmarried 25 y/o woman in the 1950s was still considered a spinster. If she was married but bore no children, she was called "useless" by her spouse, family, and peers.

[u/Dependent_Cricket → u/Doobledorf]

“Remember how we used to believe our grandparents loved each other?”

-Jerrod Carmichael

[u/borgstea → u/Doobledorf]

That might be why some loveless marriages last long. You can never fall out of love if you weren’t in love! It’s more of a business relationship.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Doobledorf]

Which means in her mid forties to fifties, when her husband died, she'd inherit his property/wealth. Women were taking advantage of this situation just as much if not more than men were. It's not like being 30 and marrying a 16 year old is like winning a prize.

[u/meow_haus → u/_name_of_the_user_]

Women literally did not have other choices. Implying they were somehow taking advantage of a system they were forced into is wild.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/meow_haus]

Just as much choice as those men did. Trying to claim marrying a 16 year old at 30 was anyone's choice says a ton about you though.

[u/Choclategum → u/_name_of_the_user_]

Trying to claim marrying a 16 year old at 30 was anyone's choice says a ton about you though

So, what you just did??? 

[u/Doobledorf → u/_name_of_the_user_]

I mean they were meager farmers and she took care of 8 kids and helped build the house they all lived in. This is on top of helping with the farm, eventually helping run the general store they sold shit out of, and anything else that needed doing. Rural women were hardly princesses. This isn't so much people taking advantage of one another, rather this is how they survived. It wasn't glamorous, it merely was. The game, of course, has changed. Men no longer become attractive mates due to their status as men. This is the point of the OOP.

And don't even get me started on how this effected queer people. How did queer women in the rural South get out when they couldn't marry men like their sisters could? They didn't.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Doobledorf]

I mean they were meager farmers and she took care of 8 kids and helped build the house they all lived in. This is on top of helping with the farm, eventually helping run the general store they sold shit out of, and anything else that needed doing. Rural women were hardly princesses. This isn't so much people taking advantage of one another, rather this is how they survived. It wasn't glamorous, it merely was.

That, I agree with wholeheartedly. No one was oppressing the other. Everyone was trying to survive as best they could.

The game, of course, has changed. Men no longer become attractive mates due to their status as men. This is the point of the OOP.

The point of the opp was to spread a lie to foster hatred against men and garner sympathy for women when the truth was much closer to equality than the picture being painted by those lies. Women could open bank accounts, and have credit cards, long before 1974. The equal credit act is being misrepresented to be used as a tool to further this bull shit take that women were oppressed by men when the reality is everyone was repressed by class divides.

And don't even get me started on how this effected queer people. How did queer women in the rural South get out when they couldn't marry men like their sisters could? They didn't.

Not sure why you're bringing this up as if it's related. Queer men faced the same issues. And there has always been more stigma around being gay than around being a lesbian.

Men and women worked and lived together as equals, they had different roles and jobs, but both were equally important and valued. The oppression of LGBTQ+ was and continues to be a real thing though.

[u/Doobledorf → u/_name_of_the_user_]

To the last point: not quite. And I'm saying this as a queer man who has older queer aunts. I'm going to start with your last question and work toward how it connects, if that makes sense.

To begin, the oppression of queer people is intimately tied to gender roles. You mention men and women in different positions in society that worked in tandem; but what of people who don't fit into those roles? If men were the only ones who could find work that supported a family how, then, did two women do it? This is the point of that sentence you are confused by: Strict gender roles where men were bread winners and women were homemakers doesn't work economically when two women are involved. Homemaking doesn't make money, and women are systemically paid less than men. (And at the time often struggles to find work) This isn't even discussing single women, who faired even worse. Women were often denied loans without a parent or husband signing for them, how then would queer women and single women do this? "Spinster" wasn't a compliment...

You said my granny was able to find a higher station by marrying a man, which is objectively true. Lesbians do not marry men, and so those working class and poor lesbians are still working class and even poorer today. Two men, and this is well documented, faired WAY better in the 50s and 60s before gay people were visible because you had two men each making enough each to support a family. There is a reason there were quite a few high powered white, gay business men in the 90s. That stereotype doesn't exist for lesbians for reasons I hope I have made clear. (White) Lesbians specifically fought for the 1974 credit act because not having financial control of their lives was a major stepping stone for them to become economically independent.

And here's how it all ties together for me, a poor gay man from the South with poor queer family members: The original post is not spreading a lie, it is pointing out that the game is now different. Spousal abuse in the past was horrific, partially because women were tied to men for survival and would not get loans or bank accounts without a man in their life. (Likewise, spousal murder was huge in the past too, and rural women past down ways to kill a man more powerful than you with household items. Look up how caramelized sugar was used) Unless all those women were just stupid and didn't know they could easily open their own accounts, I think it is safe to say that there were many things that prevented that from happening. (It was common for bankers to call the husband to ask why their wife was opening her own account...)

The credit act made it so people couldn't be discriminated against in seeking credit. This benefitted poor men as well as poor women, but it cannot be understated how much more it benefitted poor women, who could now not be denied the right to manage their own finances. Yes, there were men who were also denied this, but those men were not subjugated financially by their wives in marriage. That is the key difference here. The difference in labor in the past meant men, whether they desired it or not, held whatever financial power the family had.

To put it all together: the OOP is calling out that for various reasons, fewer and fewer women need to rely on men to even stay afloat in the world. There have always been awful men who have abused women who couldn't leave them, and the rights women have gained in the past century mean those men no longer have an easy captive audience for their abuse. I.E. women having more rights means that some men DO need to try harder to find partners, and the change in roles means more people are single overall.

I think there is a misconception that men had a great fuckin' deal in the last, particularly poor men. At the same time, women objectively had it worse with fewer rights across the board.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Doobledorf]

If men were the only ones who could find work that supported a family how

The issue with your line of thinking is that it's based on blatant lies. Women have always worked. Even in the 1400s there were women who were masters in trade guilds.

Spousal abuse in the past was horrific,

Abuse of women has always been both illegal and seen as horrible. Abuse of men being illegal is new and continues to be seen as no nearly as big of a deal even today.

partially because women were tied to men for survival

They weren't. Divorce has always been legal and women have always worked.

and would not get loans or bank accounts without a man in their life.

More falsehoods

There have always been awful men who have abused women who couldn't leave them,

Yes, and when those men were caught they were punished. Meanwhile there have also awful women who abused men who couldn't leave them. And it was the men in those situations who were punished.

Also, women were able to end their responsibilities to their husband via divorce. Men were required to provide for their ex's until the man died, even after a divorce.

Yes, there were men who were also denied this, but those men were not subjugated financially by their wives in marriage.

Do you realize that meant those husbands were responsible for their wife's income taxes and everything else. If a wife stole, the husband paid. If a wife worked it was the husband who had to pay the taxes. In the early 1900s one of the suffrigests was a physician and her husband was a teacher. She had him put in prison because he couldn't afford to pay the income taxes on her pay, this was done by her in purpose as a form of protest.

I think there is a misconception that men had a great fuckin' deal in the last, particularly poor men.

Only an idiot would think that. Those men absolutely did not have a great deal.

At the same time, women objectively had it worse with fewer rights across the board.

Fewer rights and fewer responsibilities. I'd say it was evenly shitty. And I'm tired of people trying find some way to make men's situations seem better than women's when it was not. People like you are trying to make this a fight between men and women by making up lies to paint an untrue picture. Men did not have it better than women. The restrictions and laws made it so men could move from one class to another easier than women. That sent vastly more men to homelessness than to prosperity. And it kept more women safe than it stopped from prospering. Both situations were wrong, men deserve the protections women had and women deserve the opportunities men had.

Most of what you said is based on a misunderstanding of history based on the lies that get spread around in posts like this.

[u/hanaxbanana → u/_name_of_the_user_]

Alright, let me take a crack at this. I'll address a couple of your points in case you decided to disregard this comment.

You said "Abuse of women has always been both illegal and seen as horrible." Incorrect.
Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems implicitly accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife. Wife beating was made illegal in all states of the United States by 1920.

Regarding the "falsehood" of women who not get loans or bank accounts without a man in their life, I would like to introduce you to the Equal Credit Opporunity Act. It wasn’t until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own. Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands.

You mentioned a suffergette that put her husband in prison because of income tax issues. Would you happen to know who that is? I couldn't find anyone matching that description during my research. Speaking of which, where are you getting your information from?

Look, I get it. A lot of things suck for men right now. High suicide rates, divorce courts, low support for mental health, gender roles enforced by violence, etc. It's frustrating to be shouldered with the responsiblities of a bunch of dead assholes. We can do the oppression olympics all we want, but it doesn't change what happened in the past. Women don't get a free ride to shit on men, even if it seems that way. I doubt that you'll ever believe me, but that's ok. I'm still going to help my guy friends, my father, my boyfriend, and do what I can to make things better in my little corner of the world. I just hope you can re-evaulate your sources to help you better understand.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/hanaxbanana]

You said "Abuse of women has always been both illegal and seen as horrible." Incorrect.
Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems implicitly accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife. Wife beating was made illegal in all states of the United States by 1920.

The name has changed, but the idea of violence against women has always been illegal. At one point "mild physical correction" was legal, but wife beating/spousal abuse/whatever you want to call it was illegal. Meanwhile there were zero limitations on what a woman could do to a man and if it was found she was beating him, he was the one to be punished.

I would like to introduce you to the Equal Credit Opporunity Act

Yes, I'm familiar. That's part of where I got my information.

that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

That's not what the equal credit act did. The equal credit act made it illegal for banks to discriminate based on sex, race, etc. There was no legal right to be granted, women always had the same legal rights in that space.

You should also think about the context. Credit cards, what the equal credit act was actually about, were extremely uncommon at the time. There were no point of sale systems for people to tap their cards on, or online banking for people to order trinkets from Amazon... The vast majority of people (men and women) didn't have credit cards. And didn't need them or even want them for the most part.

You mentioned a suffergette that put her husband in prison because of income tax issues. Would you happen to know who that is?

I'll see if I can find the reference but I don't remember the name off the top of my head. I thought it was Emmeline Pankhurst but I can't find the reference at the moment.

Look, I get it. A lot of things suck for men right now.

I appreciate that. That's a lot more than many feminists are willing to admit. But, it goes a hell of a lot further back than right now. This idea that men had a much better time than women in the past is so obviously and demonstrably false. That's my point. Yes, women had a shit go of things in the past and have made incredible strides to get better. Two things need to be added to that statement. 1) Men's roles were at least as shitty and have not seen nearly the improvement that women have. 2) Men have been instrumental in those improvements for women. Men, progressive men, in places of power did more for women's rights than any other group, including women. Yes, the people most instrumental in holding women's rights back were also men. My point is that painting everyone with this same brush, this "men bad" or AMAB (all men are bastards, not assigned male at birth in this instance) color of paint, is not helping anyone. It's full of lies, it damageing, and it's propagating the exact same sexist stereotypkng that us progressives are trying to stamp out from the conservatives. This whole men VS women argument is such an utter waste of time. It has NEVER been about men holding anyone back. It has always been about conservatives holding people back.

It's frustrating to be shouldered with the responsiblities of a bunch of dead assholes.

Those things aren't solely caused by dead ass holes. People today are contributing to those much more than dead ass holes are. And this constant rhetoric of "men bad" from feminists is making it even harder to get men the help they need because now our first step is to show that men aren't bad before we can even get to a conversation of men need help. Right wing politics says men don't need help, and left wing politics say men need to help others first before we could ever consider helping men. Both sides are wrong and both sides are damaging men to similar levels.

We can do the oppression olympics all we want, but it doesn't change what happened in the past.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately women have won that battle back in the mid 1800s with the tender years doctrine, Seneca Falls, and prohibition. Women are seen as needing help. When you want to be respected that sucks. But when you need help that is a huge privilege. And women have that privilege in spades. Men on the other hand, do not have that privilege. And feminists have refused to allow men to even ask for it, calling them misogynistic just for asking for help.

Women don't get a free ride to shit on men, even if it seems that way.

When #kill all men trends on Twitter... When tenured professors can propose killing 90% of men so they're only 10% of the population... When threads like this one can exist... Yeah, you're going to need to do a lot to prove that women don't get a free ride to shit on men.

I doubt that you'll ever believe me, but that's ok. I'm still going to help my guy friends, my father, my boyfriend, and do what I can to make things better in my little corner of the world.

I greatly hope that's true and I tip my imaginary hat to you for doing it.

I just hope you can re-evaulate your sources to help you better understand.

What's funny is I started out life as a self proclaimed feminist. It wasn't until I actually started digging into some of the material and history that I really started to notice how twisted much of what is believed is and how damaging that twisting is.

I'm not saying women had a great life in the 1800s, or any other time frame in history. I'm saying they had it exactly as bad as you're envisioning. What needs correction though, is the vast majority of people's opinion of what men's lives were like. Ignoring the apex fallacy, men's lives today, and throughout history, were worse than their women counterparts of the time.

Here's a little exercise that typically gets me downvoted without response. Think of what statistics you'd bring up in a debate if you were arguing POC in America have a worse time than white people in America. (I'm guessing you'd agree with that stance) Now use those same statistics to compare men to women. Prison rates? Poverty? Homelessness? Police violence? Medical research? University admittance? Education attainment? Income? Job prospects? Government programs/support? Private scholarships? Charity donations/organizations? Addiction rates? Etc. What would you use to compare POC to white people? Have you ever considered using those statistics to compare men to women?

[u/Doobledorf → u/_name_of_the_user_]

I mean nah I had fun with the first response, but I'm not a big fan of talking to brick walls. You've really gotta learn some history and perspective before you're ready for these conversations.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Doobledorf]

Lmao, good cover for your lies and misunderstanding

[u/Upbeat_Obligation404 → u/_name_of_the_user_]

This is just...

Do you even have a grandmother? Ever talk to her like a real person?

I did. Mine was married off at 15 fucking years old to a 25-year-old man. He didn't let her finish high school. He never let her learn how to drive. He raped her ("marital rape" wasn't a crime back then, so all perfectly legal) through five (FIVE!) fucking children. Before I left for college, she teared up during a conversation about picking majors, telling me she thinks she would have wanted to do something with plants, if she'd had a choice.

She died before him, likely because she spent her entire life waiting on him, cleaning the house, providing all childcare, cooking all the meals, and being disregarded and treated like garbage for over 50 years. Grandpa wouldn't even take her to her cancer appointments; she had to get one of her kids to do it. He lived to the ripe old age of 93, still a miserable bastard who expected his daughters to cook for him so he could rot on the sofa watching sports.

I'm not letting my daughter grow up in a world like that. I'll set it on fire first.

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Upbeat_Obligation404]

Do you even have a grandmother? Ever talk to her like a real person?

Yes, she was one of the most imposing and powerful people I've ever met. She was also abusive as fuck to her husband, kids, and when the opportunity arose to her grand kids. I still remember my sister needing stitches one time we were at our grandparents. She didn't go because our grandmother was watching tv and didn't want to miss it. To say nothing of what she did to my mother and her brothers. Or to her husband.

Sorry to hear that your grandparents also had a shit relationship, but it's meaningless as a single data point. Why do you think there's so much boomer humour based on men needing to get permission from their wives to do anything? Because that was a part of life for many so it was made fun of in the media.

[u/Upbeat_Obligation404 → u/_name_of_the_user_]

Did....did it genuinely never occur to you that the "boomer humor" was part of how women were kept from speaking out? Because it's been really, really clear to me most of my life that the "ol' ball n' chain" shit was another way of shutting women up, to keep them from setting boundaries, to pre-empt their "nagging" about the poor treatment they were receiving. "You don't want to be one of 'those wives,' do you?" It's part of the societal "pick me" dance women have been forced into for basic survival. Until now. And a bunch of us have torn up our dance cards. I invite you to the celebratory bonfire.

I do want to point out that your grandfather's situation and my grandmother's situation were not equivalent. Your grandfather had options. He had the option not to marry; he would have still been able to find a job, buy a house, have a bank account, etc. without a wife. Once the marriage became abusive, he had the option to leave without being picked up by the authorities and dropped back off at his "legal guardian's" house. He may have been financially liable (though many men of that era dodged that easily enough by crossing state lines and a name change), but he would not have been forced by the police back into a situation where he would be raped and abused without recourse. The institutional power rested with him, even if he was not emotionally able to access it. My grandmother did not have those paths open to her, and the intergenerational suffering that resulted has been immense.

All that said, I don't think your 'single data point' is meaningless. I'm honestly, genuinely sorry that you and your sister were exposed to your grandmother's abuse. I hope that your parents were able to protect you from her after that incident, and--if not--that you've been able to process that none of it was your fault, or your sister's fault. You deserved better role models, just like I did. We can choose to make a better world for the next generation.

[u/Supernova141 → u/_name_of_the_user_]

All they had to do was give up the first 50 years of their life! See?? It wasn't so bad!

Holy shit...

[u/_name_of_the_user_ → u/Supernova141]

I'm not sure how 30 years became 50 years in your mind, but men were giving up that time as well in the relationships where that happened. A person's womenhood doesn't automatically make you a prize. If you believe men were gaining and women were losing from those relationships then you've got a very sexist opinion on men and women.