Why do people pretend the only thing men had to offer was a paycheck?

Makuta_Servaela · 2024-03-01T16:05:07+00:00

I just refuse to believe women had no autonomy because they were financial sex slaves to their husband.

There are nuances to it.

In a society in which a woman can have a job, but you can legally refuse her money and refuse to sell her a house/home loan/ credit card (which was the case up until only a few decades ago) then even having money doesn't solve the problem, unless you have a lot of it, and most people didn't.

There was also the issue of contraception and abortion: women could be discriminated against if they had kids, and women had a hard time controlling whether or not they had kids. This was especially an issue in the 1900s when we pushed away from communal raising from older family into the chaos that was the nuclear family.

Regarding the factory working and Rosie the Riveter, those jobs were stripped away as soon as the men came back from war. Women were promoted factory jobs because men weren't available, but once men returned, women were kicked to the curb again because the idea that a woman was "stealing" a job that a man could have was horrific.

And then there was prohibition, which was started for a number of reasons, but the feminist backing specifically was because women couldn't do shit if their husbands decided to drink away the family savings (and given the time period, and how many of those men had PTSD from the war, it would make sense that a lot of men were doing just that).

It's not that women has no autonomy at all, it's that society at large could and did deny them access to resources on the basis of them being women.

TonysCatchersMit · 2024-03-01T15:57:55+00:00

Women have always worked. What they didn’t always have was the legal right to keep and manage their own capital, access to higher education and thus higher paying employment and most importantly birth control.

Once women were able to control when they got pregnant, everything else came with it.

EulenWatcher · 2024-03-01T16:21:22+00:00

It depends on what time periods we’re talking about. I’m going to use Russian history as an example. Russia was and is Orthodox. The church put men above women and we still don’t have any specific laws against DV, moreover, home beatings were decriminalized a few years ago.

It was much worse in the past, when most Russians were serves, basically slaves with little to no rights. In a family unit men had more power and they were free to abuse women, as a) light beatings weren’t considered a crime and b) even if a man killed his wife, he wasn’t always persecuted for it as we can see from different historical documents and writings.

We had a book teaching people how to take care of their household and in the book there are instructions on how to beat your wife. Some people argue that the author didn’t want to promote domestic beatings, but it was an attempt to make them lighter and to teach men not to cause much physical damage.

Yes, women always worked alongside men - they were serves too. They also were fully dependent on their husbands as they lived with his family and couldn’t leave.

From what I remember in the US women couldn’t open their bank account at some point. Do you think it doesn’t reflect women’s position during that time? Also women working doesn’t mean they made enough to provide for themselves. A lot of jobs just wouldn’t hire women and traditionally female jobs are usually low-paid.

MistyMaisel · 2024-03-01T17:34:20+00:00

You aren't seeing it in the real world because the type of men who can't get a girlfriend often aren't out in the real world, often don't display their lack of useful social skills in the kinds of encounters you'd have with them, you wouldn't know their education level, you wouldn't know their cooking or cleanliness levels and if you'd asked, like most people, they'd self-evaluate as "normal/good enough".

***

Financial slaves probably isn't an accurate term. Here. Property would be pretty accurate for a lot of human history. And then domestic and sexual servants for a lot more. And yes, poor women did work very often. The issue you're missing is that their money wasn't their own. It went to their husband in most cases or legally could be stripped from them along with their children. And, this doesn't change the fact they couldn't have survived or participated as a sole individual in society. It also doesn't change the fact many were arranged into those marriages. But yes, women have worked for much of history. That is a non-factor in how owned they were or were not by their men. After all, if you were a poor man, why not have your woman work, take care of the domestic duties, and be your sexual domain. That's a good use of your property right there to add even more burdens.

***

No, what changed is that suddenly it was ok for women to become educated, own their own property, have their own bank accounts, have their own credit, have their own reproductive freedom, have the ability to divorce without proof or cause, and also not be lobotomized (look it up). Women were always being mildly educated if possible or working where necessary. What changed was their freedom and ability to act as a free agent.

What you refuse to believe or do not is of little consequence. Until very recently, if you were a married woman (and you had to be in order to have a stable life), your husband could have your brain cut up for being annoying to him or not behaving how he liked. LEGALLY. If that was going on, I am not sure why you think sexual slavery glossed over using the term "marriage" is some wild reductionist fantasy. It isn't. And the only reason men believe it is, is because it hasn't been done to them ever in a sustained way. The things that have been done to women, their bodies, and their agency throughout human history legally and commonly share more in common with the Holocaust, the Slave Trade, and Catholic Sexual Abuse scandals than almost anyone is comfortable discussing especially if they're male and especially if they don't want to hear that most men of the past were a paycheck that got chosen for you by your family.

And lest you think I'm some screeching feminist, I'm not. I'm simply educated and glad that unlike my great great grandmother, I have freedom and choices over myself, my body, and my future which allow for a man, but do not require one.

fucksiclepizza · 2024-03-01T19:05:10+00:00

It's said on this sub again and again, whenever there's a shit post about what whoever brings to the table, most of dudes themselves say provider and protector.

Not sure where you live but around here no dudes get kicked out at 18 and no girls are getting their education and life straight paid for - unless the parents are rich but they pay for all their kids, not just the girls.

Trikger · 2024-03-01T16:54:38+00:00

Women were financial slaves in the past. It was only in the 60's that US women were allowed to open their own bank account. I say "allowed" because it wasn't an actual given. Unless their husband co-signed the papers and gave his permission, the woman's request would be declined by the bank.

In 1974, the act was passed that finally gave women the right to have their own money.

If they need help going through college they should be looked after.

Women have more student loan debt than men.

Elixier_55555 · 2024-03-01T17:44:20+00:00

As an african woman, born & raised in the motherland, there's areason western incels cry about feminism constantly. That claim it "ruined things". What do they mean exactly? That victims can easily leave? They miss women parading as nothing but overworked child bearing slaves trapped in a circle with zero rights...

Most men in this sub for example talk about finances so much, but their main hindrance when it comes to dating is far from money from what l have seen with my online interactions. Or being socially anxious... Most, who are obviously american have the main character syndrome, listen to reply not listening to understand, highly argumentative, zero kindness/empathy/basic manners/basic human decency characteristics. Heavy on the zero empathy towards other individuals. Its all about "me me me" to them. And they don't bother to think outside of their bubble/country either about most things...

And the thing is, at least back then, abusive personalities could get wives because men had the upper hand. Even if you didn't have the charm, they could at least arrange someone for you. Arrangements in most cultures were a common occurrence.

These days, men have to actually put in the work. And women have to ACTUALLY like you, as man yes, but also as a person. And its proving most men in advanced/developed countries are failing/lagging heavily.

Most are of course into porn too. But fail heavily with basic female anatomy, foreplay, intimacy, and sex. How can someone still not know where the clit is in 2024?

Sit an Asian, European, Arabic, African & American men in a room, and you'll easily spot the american within a minute...Personality will take you to places money never will when it comes to romance. But do they ever listen? No. Just loud and argumentative...

Now l am not saying my western sisters are perfect/angels, they have flaws too, that l do acknowledge, but sometimes l realize why they're the way they are due to what they have to deal with...

januaryphilosopher · 2024-03-01T15:51:53+00:00

Women always had limited options to work and for little, it would also be hard to care for themselves at the same time as until relatively recently looking after a home has been a full time job even without children in the picture. There were few opportunities to survive independently as a woman and they they tended to involve giving up basically everything else.

KayRay1994 · 2024-03-01T15:52:36+00:00

It was certainly possible for women to become powerful, however, the majority still needed the support of a man for basic living - to add to this, life prior to modernization (ie. post WW2) was far more dangerous and survival in itself was more difficult - so the physically stronger and more aggressive sex, males, were expected to protect on top of the providing.

Also, to state the obvious, WW2 was a HUGE outlier because during the war, the men were out fighting - after the war, people returned to their gender roles, which, to an extent people wanted - and that’s actually one thing I want to highlight, gender roles themselves and people living by them isn’t a bad thing, its when people fall for these roles out of social pressure (ie. after WW2) or force in when it becomes an issue - I do think if fully left to their own freedoms, most people would do what feels natural to them and outliers are free to do their own thing - but that’s a tangent in itself. However, social pressure also played a role in maintaining gender roles as housework became more automated, hence second wave feminism.

To add to this, women still didn’t have basic financial rights - in many countries they weren’t allowed to open a bank account till the 60s, and own a credit card till the 70s

Nellylocheadbean · 2024-03-01T16:04:19+00:00

It depends how far back in history you go.

But for most of it (100+ years and further) women needed men solely for survival. Throughout most of history men had the OPTION to stay single and still live a relatively decent life. The same couldn’t be said for the majority of women (not all).

That’s mostly the argument I see ppl present when this topic comes about. Not necessarily that men were useless outside of providing. But I do believe men needs were prioritized when dating, now that’s reversed.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2024-03-01T15:55:42+00:00

We act as though there was this big shift

This is true. We act as though there was a cut off where "history" ended and "modern times" began. Rather than acknowledging that society has constantly been changing since humans have existed. There have been points in history where women couldn't own property, but that wasn't always the case. In England, i believe it was between the 1750s and 1960s. In that period, you coukd easily argue that women were in some way enslaved.

Safinated · 2024-03-01T16:06:36+00:00

A different role don’t mean shit if your still not able to earn enough to make a living on your own

Either you’re dependent or you aren’t

encyclopediasyphilis · 2024-03-01T21:10:53+00:00

Women in North America got a big taste of leaving the household to be productive and feel comradery during the war efforts. Women went to factories to build planes, machine guns and ammunition with other women, lunch pail in hand. Some of them probably really liked it.

Then, feminism told women to get degrees. Boys clubs were infiltrated. Women could now own property on their own - buy their own home and own their own land.

Then, feminism told women to never rely on a man for anything and be financially independent. After all, we expected no less from men.

But then something they didn't forsee happened. The DINKS. Dinks are "dual income no kids". Dinks could be two university educated (or just working class) people. Two incomes without the financial costs of having kids around. They had a house with two garage doors instead of one, and a car behind each one. They had the first color TV's, the first VHS tape machines (VCR's the size of suitcases) and the first microwave ovens. They had a really superior life with their two income / no kids spending power.

So what happened? Everyone else did this too, and the market quickly responded by eating up that leverage. People got used to the higher living standard, and the cars and technology. VCR's became home theatres. Color TV's became flat screens. Cars once used for transportation were then luxury items with leather, and fine interiors and guidance systems and myriad safety and comfort features. Now, both people needed to work to afford these lifestyles. Women who wanted to be stay-at-home moms were not just scowled at by feminists, but their families would struggle greatly trying to make a modern family work on a single income.

So, who wrecked it all? Feminists? Dinks?

I say prosperity did it. If women traded in being a home-maker and housewife for degrees and careers and are now happier and more fulfilled who is to argue? Is it better for kids? Who is to say?

This much I know. We can never forget the sheer monetary value that a homemaker brought to the table. In fact, many people today do this math all the time. It's the "daycare equation". If her income to supplement his is not enough to cover the child care costs of her being out of the home, then it's deemed not worth the effort. And further to that, look at the housework that needs doing. If she is expected to work and do it all, we know the outcome. Beta Brad gets divorced. So, here is the jobs the woman is doing:

- Childcare, cooking, cleaning, shopping.

Now, to get this done you don't just need a daycare or childcare provider (at a minimum, a sitter) you need a full-on nanny or child-care provider AND separate housekeeper/maid.

There are different ways to do this. One way is both people work hard at well paying careers and outsource childcare, housekeeping and even cooking (or just eat out a lot). One way, that is disappearing, is for him to bring in the money and her to SAVE all the money by doing herself all the housework, cooking and childcare. Big job - worth a huge amount of money. The last way is the way Red Pill tells Beta Brad NEVER to do. BOTH people work outside the home but he thinks only one of them need work INSIDE the home.

The best way to become a divorced Beta Brad is to expect her to work outside the home and inside the home like a stay-at-home mom and housekeeper.

If men were treated this way, we'd quit too. True Red Pill is the ability to admit this, I think.

Red Pill, to me, is reality mixed with brutal honesty. Flamesuit on.

Realistic-Ad-1023 · 2024-03-01T21:13:34+00:00

Act like a human ATM, get treated like a human ATM.

ComfortableJeans · 2024-03-01T15:43:14+00:00

Honestly, in my experience looking into the dynamics of my grandparents, it's total bollocks.

The way it worked, at least in my grandparents' and great-grandparents' relationship, was that the man went to work and the woman was in control of all the money. He didn't spend shit. She did.

All of the men in my family worked themselves to death, while the Wives were at home, taking care of the house.

My grand/great grandfathers were coal miners, except for one. And he was an ash man. He'd sift through burnt ashes of refuse to make sure they were ready for disposal.

These were back in the days of zero safety regulation, so they worked in horrible conditions and died early from horrible illnesses.

I know times were different back then, but if someone HAS to be described as a slave in that dynamic, I struggle to imagine it was the person at home, but not the one mile underground, digging out rocks by head lamp for 9 hours a day, getting black lung, silicosis and vibration white finger for money he would never get to spend.

I bet there were higher rates of bad shit happening back then. But this idea that girls were just house slaves, desperate for freedom from the evil slave master boys, is ridiculous.

My my grandmother's got jobs because they were bored at home having done all the work and they wanted something to do. And EVEN THEN they kept all that money still. No one told them they weren't allowed to, or they were forbidden from leaving the house. It was just "I love you, sweetheart. Whatever makes you happy."

Was it probably easier for monsters to get away with being monsters back then? Yeah, probably.

People generally aren't vile monsters to the people whom they love unless they were monsters already. The reason boys don't abuse the ones they love isn't because they don't have social permission.

AutoModerator · 2024-03-01T15:35:26+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Crimson-Pilled · 2024-03-01T17:29:14+00:00

That is how they percieve their beta buxs. The men who give her more than financial benefit are the Alphas she genuinely desires.

apresonly · 2024-03-01T20:50:09+00:00

because, due to socialization, men are uncomfortable offering anything else.

If you disagree, please list specific ways men show love to their loved ones (romantic and non-romantic is fine).

deedeejayzee · 2024-03-02T02:50:10+00:00

Women weren't able to have their own bank accounts until 1974. A woman wasn't able to be completely financially independent until more recent times. Without a bank account, they couldn't get a mortgage or car loan, or anything. They could also be fired if they got pregnant.

thetruthishere_ · 2024-03-02T04:18:14+00:00

Im an actual escort and dont only see men as a paycheck.

I think its a smaller minority of people that only see that.

Frankly, the last thing I seek in a man is money when it comes to dating.

gopher_glitz · 2024-03-01T16:23:26+00:00

Be a broke man and see how much love you get.

SecondEldenLord · 2024-03-01T17:31:45+00:00

Because in most of our human history most men were seen as only two things: soldiers and piggy banks. Women keeps saying that they were oppressed throughout history but I would say its quite the opposite, men were the more oppressed. I ask you this, what is worse? To stay at home, cook and clean and take care of the family or to go to wars to die a painful death or worse, be captured by the enemy and be tortured?

Geselshaft · 2024-03-01T17:06:51+00:00

A woman doing the slightest labor for her family is considered oppression.

Which is weird because all women’s labor has been automated away, even their status as a fleshlight (which is true, women consider all consensual sex with them being “used”).

Women only see men as an income stream. They lie and say they don’t, but everything they claim they like about men is money based, or free labor based (money).

They aren’t pretending, they’re categorically telling you they don’t like men, and it’s only about money.

Really pay attention next time the women here get a full head of steam going and start their man hating. Really look at the words the use.

They’ll straight up tell you they don’t like men and only care about taking a man’s money and revenge because chad left them on read.

Since they have zero labor to do anymore, they’ve made up more and more ludicrous things to whine about. They don’t want to be men’s therapists (even though men are evil and stoic and don’t express emotions), man won’t remember birthdays (because phones don’t exist) or any other nonsense they’re literally digging out of the 1930s dust pile feminists lie about.

So why isn’t surprising they only think about men as an ATM?

As far as historical autonomy, feminists hate regular women. They ignore all the work they did throughout history, don’t recognize any work they do for families, and hate families in general.

SyllabubSure5715 · 2024-03-01T16:04:40+00:00

When I initiated my divorce I had nothing but contempt left. I think there is contempt growing among men. Having this mass of disrespected and emasculated men can’t lead to anything good. Men are quitting relationships. I know because I did.

gntlbastard · 2024-03-01T16:47:36+00:00

In order to sell feminism every grandfather was turned into a wife beating/raping monster. About the only way they could socially condition women follow along.

Tokimonatakanimekat · 2024-03-01T15:50:38+00:00

The only 'slave' of the past I see is commoner family unit as a whole, where both husband and wife are co-dependent on each other to survive and provide to society.

EveningEveryman · 2024-03-01T16:04:22+00:00

It's because for most men that's the only thing that will make the difference. If we don't take career development into account what will I have at 35 that I don't have at 22? Would I be more or less handsome? Probably the same level, lookswise. Do you want to know what would make the difference? Money.

Women only like a few men for their looks, so for most men, most women may as well be prostitutes with an agreement of commitment.

AutoModerator · 2024-03-01T15:35:25+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Silver_Past2313 · 2024-03-02T02:15:04+00:00

<image>

Apoliticalbear · 2024-03-02T04:53:00+00:00

Dude, it is the first day of women’s history month. Do yourself a favor and start learning about women’s history. This is US based

women’s banking history

More banking history: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/

Women would lose their citizenship if married a foreigner in America https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

The Temperance Movement was tied to Women’s suffrage because women were dependent on men. Some men preferred to spend all of their wages on liquor, instead of supporting their families.

https://www.lcmm.org/prohibition/womens-suffrage-temperate-movement/

More American women’s history https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/

Women were expected to give up their jobs upon marriage or pregnancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar

Your refusal to believe women had no autonomy until recent history (20th century) is foolish when you learn about women’s history

Disclaimer: I didn’t cover the history of Black, Indigenous, and Women of color. Those history is filled within intersectional of race, gender, and caste.

Different_Cress7369 · 2024-03-02T09:09:40+00:00

Rosie the riveter was in her position because women were recruited to work in positions that they had always previously been barred from during WW2. That many men were away fighting the war, that - out of desperation - women were allowed into what had always been men only jobs. Of course, once the men came home, the women were shooed out again, but it did prove that women were physically and mentally capable of working in these positions.

KorinTowerFreeloader · 2024-03-02T11:26:25+00:00

Men are perceived to be disposable. It really tells you everything you need to know if you are seen merely as a resource just because you are a man.

Realistic-Ad-1023 · 2024-03-02T16:24:55+00:00

It’s legally your responsibility, that you love and care for the same way you would a biological child. That’s your own shit - but don’t put it on all other men. Because I know lots of step dads, adoptive dads, grandpas, uncles, and community members who care for and love children as they would their own. Just like with the women in my life. That baby is chosen. It’s more loved than any oopsie baby the parents didn’t want but couldn’t get rid of.

Yeah… sure it happens. Men can be violent, yes. But to believe it’s a societal norm specifically because of single mothers is just misguided and ignorance. These young boys who turn to gang activity and violence are from disadvantaged communities without resources. Which just further proves my point. How many middle class white kids with a single mom do you know who join a gang? How many young men in the ghetto with two parents do? It literally drives my point home. You have to be a teenager with anger issues. I don’t believe you truly believe “single mothers” create gangsters and not their lack of resources and community. Like only an absolute imbecile would believe that.

Icy_Cold8580 · 2024-03-02T16:32:51+00:00

Let me introduce you to the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Previous to this law, banks could deny women credit cards and loans for simply being a woman. A male co-signer was required, either a father or a husband. See, women could work, but we couldn’t leave an unhappy marriage because we couldn’t buy a car or a home on our own. That was 50 years ago, and somehow men are just now realizing that women never wanted to be house slaves, we simply didn’t have any other options.

Now that women have the ability to thrive on their own; get an education which allows them to excel in a career, earn good money, and have access to credit to buy cars, homes, and have credit cards / purchasing power, we no longer need to settle for the life we were previously relegated to. Women will no longer tolerate the bare minimum, which was basically groceries, a roof over the head, and mowing the lawn once a week in the summer. Now women expect a partner who shares in domestic chores and parenting. So yes, there was a most definitely ”big shift” event. It wasn’t access to jobs, it was equal access to credit.

jojiburn · 2024-03-02T20:24:10+00:00

It’s not that way that’s just your perception given from social media and your parents. Go out and actually meet people, everyone is different.

abaxeron · 2024-03-03T08:41:42+00:00

Because "men aint shit". It's not something that "people" (women) know to be true, but it's something they desperately need to justify in order to keep the preferential status quo going.

In this very thread, we get "people" repeating "women couldn't get credit cards until 1974" nonsense, completely forgetting that the first mass produced credit card rolled out in 1973, and the Internet will not appear for an upcoming decade.

They know they are wrong. Don't overthink it.

ThrowRAring2023 · 2024-03-04T09:04:04+00:00

Too often, that’s all men think theg need to bring to the table. So if you think you can skip childcare and chores bc you work… and basically your contribution to the family is money.

Why do people pretend the only thing men had to offer was a paycheck?

Comments

1862: First state allows women to open bank accounts regardless of marital status.

Title	Why do people pretend the only thing men had to offer was a paycheck?
Author	FeistyFix2648
Upvotes	45
Comments	406
Date	March 1, 2024 3:35 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1b3x5n9/why_do_people_pretend_the_only_thing_men_had_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-do-people-pretend-the-only-thing-men-had-to.1246837 https://theredarchive.com/post/1246837