[Cross-post] A Rebuttal/Rant about Something I See too often Online: "Women can afford to be pickier now and disregard men because Women had no financial rights before 1974"

MSHUser · 2025-10-11T17:51:42+00:00

You know something, one of the common things I hear is women couldn't open their own bank accounts back then. Can you chime in on what you think of this claim? Cuz idk if being able to own a credit card is the same thing as opening their own bank accounts and shit.

throoooo0oooooaway · 2025-10-11T19:00:20+00:00

This just boils down to some women being unwilling to grant any sort of disadvantage to men, whatsoever. They will victim blame. They will say that it’s entirely the fault of isolated men for being isolated. They’ll even say that social isolation isn’t even that bad of a fate, as if socialization isn’t a pillar of humanity.

Any explanation they give is ad hoc and presupposes the conclusion.

Suddenly tons of men became incredibly undesirable and unworthy of love! This is truly the most wretched generation of men, apparently!

Langland88 · 2025-10-11T20:59:03+00:00

Are there any actual studies to explain why women have gotten to be pickier with dating standards towards men? I really would love to see how 6ft, 6 in., and 6 figure thing came to be and why it came to be exactly.

I figured these things are self explanatory but somewhere along the line, women around the 2010's, started to really get behind the rule of 6. I guess we could say social media as an obvious one but I feel like it goes deeper than that. Social media, despite the amount of truth behind such an answer, is often a very convenient and overused excuse for a lot of things. It would nice to explore this.

What concerns me though is that a lot of Feminists will likely try to hide that truth than give men any bit of the truth.

PeterWritesEmails · 2025-10-11T22:45:16+00:00

These arguments make zero sense. Its not like youg women descent from two mothers and young men descent from two fathers.

We all have parents of both sexes.

FriendlyAd8891 · 2025-10-11T22:58:06+00:00

Women made a deal with corporations and other Feminists. That's what happened. This was never some universally agreed deal.

It's not hard to sell yourself to corporations and enter the competition. The thing that feminists don't get is that their old role was their entire leverage in dating, but they decided to drop that for financial independence. It sounds great in theory, but in practice, it doesn't offer women more room to be pickier. The thing that Feminists got completely wrong is that their financial independence meant that they're equally attractive to a woman in the old role. It's worth everything to them, but when partering up with someone, it's worthless, because the man gets more responsibility and a more unreliable partner where your life is also not dependent on whether she earns enough and another competitor in the workforce.

It offered women to be pickier years ago, because the economic machine was still running. People seem to forget that a lot of downright sucking essential jobs were done by men. Low wage Jobs don't offer any social or financial benefit. In dating, that's also suicide. A low wage job you didn't want with a woman you didn't want with a relation ship dynamic you didn't want and unrewarded one-sided social responsibilities you didn't ask for isn't particularly a marketable deal to men. So, people naturally do whatever it takes to climb up the socio-economic ladder to save themselves.

I've said it in the past; As the economy keeps getting worse, the noose that Feminism is hanging on is getting tighter. People can survive being single as long as they distract themselves financially, but living paycheck to paycheck and not being able to pick the partner you want? That's harder to justify under Feminism. I know that people tend to blame the rich for that, but Feminists first gave a middle finger to everyone, and now, can't seem to find allies to fight those people they seem to hate. That was a poorly calculated strategy.

SuperMario69Kraft · 2025-10-12T16:29:26+00:00

Well women are pickier now in their relationships because they can afford to choose now. It was in the 70's that women couldn't get credit cards. Men just need to do better.

But this point is inconsistent even with the logic of feminism.

If women are more independent, that means they don't need to be as selective, especially in regard to men's incomes.

Well, feminists will use anything as evidence that their ideology is good or necessary. To them, women can do no wrong.

Women are getting less selective? That's because feminism puts less pressure on them to choose a provider. Women are getting more selective? That's because they don't need men as much, because of feminism.

Anyway, IMO, love shouldn't be a competition to just pick one person. If everyone was fine with just hooking up with their opposite-sex friends regularly, most of these issues with sexlessness would be solved.

MelissaMiranti · 2025-10-13T05:56:54+00:00

I just tell them it's impossible for that to be true since my mom has had the same credit card account since 1973.

Fuzzy_Department2799 · 2025-10-12T19:09:57+00:00

Its not a misunderstanding of history its the propaganda they have been taught since birth.

Local-Willingness784 · 2025-10-13T15:15:23+00:00

and arent there studies that show that modern loneliness hits everyone kind of equally? there are even some when the primary victims are elderly people, especially elderly wome,n as they live longer than their male counterparts and have less connections in general, even more if they dont have caring children, which is something very normal in a society that values productivity that much, are we suposed to tell these women to pull themselves out by their bootstraps and "not be terrible people" and all that shit people tell to lonely men?

tho im still pretty confident that with so many men begging for female attention and validation, women will never be trutly lonely in the way lots of men are and will be, but in the very hypothethic case that happened i find it hard to believe that most men would suddently care for those women in any way shape or form, tho who knows, simps gonna simp ig.

BigBeefyMenPrevail · 2025-10-15T19:34:45+00:00

Well I do need to set some of these initial talking points straight before I get on with the comment:

'no financial rights' here is standing in for a general rebuttal about woman's participation in and ownership of their own wealth. Yes, they had the ability to own a banking account before then, but the system in place was hostile to them. It required an act of government to approach parity, in the 70s as you say, which is quite recently. Which means that average 'matrilineal' pool of wealth has only had approximately 50 years to accrue, just 2.5 generations.

Picking at exceptions, picking at the nature of the inciting incident used as precident in the ruling, those points ignore the fundamentally conservative and downright stodgy nature of financial institutions. Even with the official declaration of financial independence, its easy to see how Jim Accountant may not have gotten the message, and still prioritizes the man in the room when given an option.

Its a real and valid argument. Not fit to be addressed with semantics.

BUT

The conclusion drawn that it is solely financial independance driving this 'shituation', is also not solid. I agree there. I think it is more to do with fear and solidarity.

Fear:

Women fear bad men so much it bleeds onto good men. One of the most common signs that they may be hurt by a man, is if he is lonely and desperate. Its visible, it is pitiable, and the correct choice for them personally is to avoid that individual. But then, from that, they know others will see that person the same way.

So now, our fictional woman has a choice. Either view the man they rejected out of extremely rational fear as either:

1) An inept but harmless individual looking for connection.

2) A potential predator narrowly avoided.

For ones mental health, its easy to see how you would be pulled towards option 2. And to tell others that is what you did, to assure yourself that others believe the you did the right thing.

This hurts many men, who have had the experience of approaching only to get a fake number, called creepy, etc. Doesn't feel good, to put it lightly. But I cant think of a better thing to do, we're I in their shoes.

The 6, 6, and 6, rule as mentioned, well I think it is as you say: Developed after the fact. Because fellas with those traits most often don't set off the same ringing alarm bells which disinclude certain folks.

And finally, the other leg on the Escher stool of modern gender politics.

Solidarity:

When women collectively address issues like emotional labor, like childrearing inequity, like household maintenance tasks... If one woman in a group decides she's had enough so too will the others examine their situations. If they ignore it, it implicitly affects their participation in the overall movement, and shows a lack of support of support for their friends actions.

So that gets added to the stack of things affecting relationships. Suddenly, all of the partners of that group of women are put through a fine meshed sieve, looking for traits that are unacceptable. I do think issues with household standards hold a lot more sway than they should in this arena.

For instance. If a woman doesn't do the dishes, its because she isn't a dishwashing machine, and this isnt the 70s anymore. However if a man in the same house does that same thing, its because he's a manchild that doesnt clean up after himself.

If a woman has trouble communicating her emotions, its because she's experienced difficulty in the past, and should be given grace. If a man has the same, he is putting an unfair emotional toll on his partner.

And I think some of the conversations around those points in particular are unfair or overblown, based upon completely anecdotal experiences.

Here I would plead for you to look at what your partner actually does with their time. My father got a load of grief for not cooking often enough, not doing the dishes often enough, and generally not helping around the house. But he was the man under the car at 4am making sure Mom could get to work with functioning brakes, and the man cutting and hauling all our firewood. He build our house, wired and plumbed, for $2 a square foot through thrift and theft. He more than pulled his weight, but my Mom only really saw that after the divorce.

There are reasons we got here, a lot of men doing the bare minimum, but standards have lept for a lot of complicated reasons. The number one thing I'd like to fight is misunderstanding and dismissal. I hate it when people hand wave women's issues. And I equally hate handwaving at men's issues. They are all, fundamentally, human issues.

SaltyPercentage6334 · 2025-12-22T04:27:47+00:00

Don't mess with feminists, they can't read.

ExternalGreen6826 · 2025-10-11T23:44:48+00:00

I think the pickiness comes from a few places

One from women having more autonomy over there partners, they no longer have to settle for mediocre men that they would have before

Dating apps create an illusion of choice and inflate the amount of options women really have, they may have a lot of quantity but not a lot of quality

Also with dating apps you are inherently choosing based on somewhat arbitrary superficial features

There is a lack of third spaces mixed with men not approaching anymore because it’s rude

In generally with how difficult it is to form connections in our over worked mentallly ill society we see the male loneliness crisis and the female iteration will soon follow

We have to reclaim community

I do agree in part that the no fault divorce laws can’t be the only factor otherwise these dynamics would have happened earlier And in another note I keep seeing progressives mansplaining and femsplaine male loneliness I would like to see men themselves talk about their own experiences

.the difficulties of forming connections at university were everyone is busy and people leave very quickly after class and would loathe to stay around before it

. The increasing atomisation of our society

. Other outlets such as porn, of and sex work filling in the gaps

. The fact that most people looking down on lonely men simply coast off of highschool friends therefore not understanding that like other social ills it’s environmental not just personal and that the chances of romance let alone friendship are much more precarious then they think

. Phone addictions

. The difficulty of moving

. The difficulty of having friends or university or a job etc in distant places where it is more difficult to forge close connections

It is partly true that women can afford more choice, this isn’t a bad thing but should rather be encouraged!!!

The only problem is when people work this logic backwards and thus assume since men were effectively gifted wives no matter what in yesteryear and divorce was unheard of that if you struggle with relationships there is something ring with you which to be is a pretty toxic message that many leftists send to men plus it’s pretty conservative foregoing any analysis of certain structural constraints to both men and women and treating men’s loneliness romantic or otherwise as a “skill issue”

Economy-Cry-5344 · 2025-10-12T03:24:16+00:00

I think the “facts” being used here to argue that women have had full autonomy for decades are a bit misleading and leave out some crucial context. Legal rights don’t automatically translate to real freedom or equality. Factors such as social control, public belief systems, and gender norms also shape autonomy, just as law does. For most (if not all) of history, those forces have heavily restricted women.

Sure, women technically could access credit before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, but “technically legal” doesn’t mean accessible. Many were still asked for a male co-signer or faced humiliation and denial purely based on gender. These practices and systemic bias were so widespread (preventing women from credit) that this was why the law was changed with the introduction of this act.

The same goes for things like women working or owning property (your argument about wads of cash). Yes, it was possible in some cases, but the cultural expectation was that a woman’s role was to be a homemaker, not an independent earner or investor. A few exceptions (like someone’s grandmother who owned stocks in the ’50s, who was probably extremely rich) don’t negate the broader reality that most women were socially, economically, and psychologically discouraged from autonomy.

If women today still face barriers to accessing high-paying jobs because of discrimination and social control, doesn’t it seem obvious that things were even worse back then? Women now earn the majority of university degrees, yet they’re still overrepresented in lower-paying fields while men dominate higher-paying ones.

In the past, most women’s financial stability came from their husbands or fathers. Divorce wasn’t just socially stigmatized; it could mean losing your home, your income, and even your children. So when people act like women in earlier decades had full autonomy, they’re ignoring how much risk and dependency were baked into the system. Legal rights don’t mean much when the social and economic structures make exercising them nearly impossible.

The issue isn’t that women “suddenly” started complaining in the 2020s. It’s that over time, socialization shifted. Women have had legal rights, but now also the confidence (and the permission from society) to assert those rights. They’re less willing to tolerate unequal dynamics in relationships or workplaces now that they have more awareness and support to demand better.

It’s not about women becoming “anti-male” or that they were “dumber back then.” It’s about recognizing that liberation is a process, not a switch flipped by legislation. You can’t compare a woman’s ability to legally own property in 1839 or open a bank account in 1974 to the social realities of women today who were raised being told they deserve partnership, not servitude. Here is an example of this dynamic. Black people (men) were given the right to vote on paper. But often they could not actually exercise this right because when they went to vote, they would be assaulted, intimidated, and harassed; on top of this, the workers would throw out their ballot. Yes, on paper, women had mobility, but that is not the whole reality. The social reality changed, and it became more accessible to exercise their right to vote.

So yes, autonomy existed on paper long before it existed in practice. What we’re seeing now isn’t women being difficult; it’s women refusing to settle for the bare minimum under the guise of “equality.”

Your comment about “liberal propaganda” trying to lower the population is completely unfounded. You stated you hold traditional values, so I’d assume you believe children thrive in stable, supportive homes. If that’s the case, why would you want women to be less careful when choosing their partners? Being selective would encourage healthier marriages, not divorce.

I genuinely think you have good intentions and faith in what you’re saying, but it’s not surprising that women are pushing back; you’re overlooking the long history of social control and restriction they’ve faced.

And to add: the number one cause of death for pregnant women in America is homicide (most often committed by their partners). So no, I have absolutely no problem with women being more selective about who they marry. Wanting to be happy and safe while reproducing isn’t being “picky”; it’s basic survival.

- From a Sociologist.

Title	[Cross-post] A Rebuttal/Rant about Something I See too often Online: "Women can afford to be pickier now and disregard men because Women had no financial rights before 1974"
Author	Philippians_Two-Ten
Upvotes	132
Comments	127
Date	October 11, 2025 3:14 PM UTC (10 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1o3y5hc/crosspost_a_rebuttalrant_about_something_i_see/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/cross-post-a-rebuttalrant-about-something-i-see.1563885 https://theredarchive.com/post/1563885

Comments