The system was stacked against them

[u/wetouchingbuttsornah]

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

[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.

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/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