Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

Could a single working woman open a bank account? What would she do with her money? Or was it just married women that had to have their husbands name on the account?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

The US of course. Marriage was an absolute necessity for a woman to survive unless she was from a very rich family. And even then she didnt really have access to her money without intermediaries and estate lawyers etc.

Anonymous wrote:Hoeflation is a major issue these days

Hoeflation is a neologism that refers to the inflation of perceived social and sexual desirability, often fueled by social media platforms. It's a modern phenomenon that has sparked intrigue, debates, and, yes, quite a bit of confusion.
https://www.enotalone.com/article/relationships/hoeflation-exposed-13-insights-for-a-healthier-relationship-r8763/

Ha! Omg. I love that name.

They were worse before IMO. My grandma was clearly abused by grandpa. She had her own apartment nearby where she could go when grandpa went crazy at times. They owned a small farm and usually lived there. They never divorced though. He was alcoholic and died of heart attack. Police did nothing as domestic abuse was not a crime unless you kill the other person.
My father was just as abusive to my mother; she had nowhere to go. He found her every time. She finally divorce him when we were in high school. I begged her to do it long before. This all was in the old country.
I left my husband within two years in US when he got physically abusive. Leaving has become easier.
Most men I met have not been marriage or even dating material. A lot of untreated mental issues and special needs that come out when they can't hide them anymore.

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re kidding me. We KNOW women were trapped in marriages. They didn’t have the ability to get a credit card or even checking account without a husband. Forget earning power to survive alone. I’m flabbergasted how you don’t know recent history.

I’m not trying to be pedantic, but you cannot believe that 47% of marriages were between women and horrific abusers who beat them and they couldn’t leave. I’m trying to understand realistically if people were generally better spouses to each other or if half of marriages were as bad as they are today, but women could not leave them.

Define being a better spouse. Do you think men were more involved in the household and childcare in the 1950's? Absolutely not. So I'd say no, at least men weren't better spouses back then.

Why would you define it that way??

Is a lawyer a bad lawyer for not doing surgery? Is a doctor a bad doctor for not welding? Is a welder a bad welder for not delivering mail?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re kidding me. We KNOW women were trapped in marriages. They didn’t have the ability to get a credit card or even checking account without a husband. Forget earning power to survive alone. I’m flabbergasted how you don’t know recent history.

I’m not trying to be pedantic, but you cannot believe that 47% of marriages were between women and horrific abusers who beat them and they couldn’t leave. I’m trying to understand realistically if people were generally better spouses to each other or if half of marriages were as bad as they are today, but women could not leave them.

On DCUM, not doing the dishes and not conspicuously-enough sharing “the mental load” are equivalent divorce triggers to abuse.

So is the inappropriate use of hyphens.

People have higher expectations for quality of life now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

I don’t think anyone forgot that in the span of four posts on this thread.

You know people post after reading the OP without reading all subsequent posts, right? Of course you do. You're just being a jerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re kidding me. We KNOW women were trapped in marriages. They didn’t have the ability to get a credit card or even checking account without a husband. Forget earning power to survive alone. I’m flabbergasted how you don’t know recent history.

I’m not trying to be pedantic, but you cannot believe that 47% of marriages were between women and horrific abusers who beat them and they couldn’t leave. I’m trying to understand realistically if people were generally better spouses to each other or if half of marriages were as bad as they are today, but women could not leave them.

Define being a better spouse. Do you think men were more involved in the household and childcare in the 1950's? Absolutely not. So I'd say no, at least men weren't better spouses back then.

Anonymous wrote:In 1955, 2.3% of marriages ended in divorce. Today it is between 35-50%. That’s huge! Are marriages a lot worse today or are men worse husbands/women worse wives? Were 47.7% of people just absolutely depressed and miserable in their marriages in the 50s and we don’t know about it?

Yes, because (1) the women didn't have a choice so what was the point in complaining about it and (2) people didn't value mental health as much. This was very much the "buck up" generation.

How old are you that you don't know this? It seems like you're really out of touch with that generation.

Really? Consider how many fewer options women had in 1955. It doesn't mean they were more happily married - it means those women had no way out so they dealt with it.

Hard to tell. Women have more choice, but the choices are still poor. Now they need to raise children, manage a household AND hustle to earn a living. They are subject to the “light” abuse of their employers. They still need a second income to raise children, which is why many stay in unhappy marriages.

Anonymous wrote:In 1955, 2.3% of marriages ended in divorce. Today it is between 35-50%. That’s huge! Are marriages a lot worse today or are men worse husbands/women worse wives? Were 47.7% of people just absolutely depressed and miserable in their marriages in the 50s and we don’t know about it?

'

I think ... yes, people were miserable and unhappy in the 1950s. In the 50s women were almost often dependent on men. They were discriminated against when getting jobs (it would go to a man who had a family to feed), they were paid less (because they weren't men with families to support), financially (they couldn't get a credit card without a male co-signer), in expectations (nobody thought women had enough brains or fortitude to survive). They'd often lose their kids b/c they didn't have a job. Birth control couldn't be had by unmarried women. So all of this leads one to weigh their options and ... stay married.

Anonymous wrote:Marriages aren't worse, but the men to pick from certainly are.

Read about hoeflation, that's why there are passports bros dedicated to finding foreign women