The Good Old Days they always refer to is the world where Adult White Christian Males get to rule the world, do whatever they want, say whatever they want, everyone is subservient to them and every other race, religion, identity, minority and female is below them.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1119 points (98.6% liked)
People Twitter
7063 readers
1488 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Mild fascism was always "okay" in colonial-settler history. It was only when the Nazis went full fascist and started attacking other Europeans for either not buying into their world view or for having impure Slavic or Mediterranean blood did shit hit the fan.
For many of these regressionists, going back hinges on the ascension of neo Nazism.
It's not as conspiratorial as that.
- Politician: We'll make it like the good old days
- Voter remembering their childhood: I remember that, life was so simple.
- Politician: ...so vote for me.
All the voters are voting for their own individual fantasies. The politician just wants the votes. This is just dirty populist games.
I wish they were honest about their selfishness, at least it’s logically consistent. I’ll take that over their cult like thinking.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Women weren't allowed to open a bank account in the states until the 70's
There is a good chance grandma didn't leave grandpa because she literally couldn't
And women who had "hysteria" were given lobotomies.
Theres a reason there is still a large cohort of older folks to follow the taboo on therapy: "I'm not crazy, I don't need therapy". Because in the good ole days they just locked and chained up or lobotomized anyone with divergence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
The kind of people who want to end no fault divorce don't actually care about female suicide.
Warn them that men's life expectancy dramatically increased due to no fault divorce. Because a woman trapped in a bad marriage kills her husband.
So I'm an older lady, and when I was young, I was told many interesting things by women who were quite old (at the time.)
My mother's family is from Siciliy.
Anyway all I'm saying is this sort of thing happened a lot, and if necessary, it will happen again.
Coincidentally, I'm almost 40 and have never married... but I haven't been single in many, many years. Those stories will stick with ya, and there's no need for divorce where there's no marriage.
Till death do us part.
Why are looking at me like that!?
Ignores? No, my friend. They're completely aware and are fine with it.
More than fine. It's the goal.
Soon: "Nazis didn't care about minorities🤯"
source for the suicide stat: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950/
So the suicide rate for both genders actually significantly dropped right after 1970. Wonder what's that about?
Living in a relationship that you don't want to live in, and having no way out except death.
What's to understand?
load more comments
(1 replies)
They won't give a shit about female suicide.
Point out homicide of male partners dropped 70% and you may get their self-involved attention
This is kind of a bullshit statistic.
Female suicides for women have always been low, so the per 100k can vary a bit. In 1970 it was 7.4 per 100k and by 1980 it had dropped to 5.7 per 100k. However, in 1950 and 1960 it was 5.6 per 100k.
So really the "drop" was due to a single high decade of suicides before going back to the average that it had been at. The drop in suicides after the 1970's was really still a slightly higher rate than the 50s and 60s.
Also, men commit suicide roughly four to five times more often than women.
Far higher social stigmas and family pressure likely led to fewer deaths being ruled suicide in the 1950s as compared to today but of course there can be no data on this fact, just anecdotes.
Anecdotal and a lack of causation. Saying suicides in women dropped after getting no fault divorce after the 70's is no more a causational fact than saying female suicide rates dropped after the 70's due to Billy Joel releasing his hit single My Life in 1979
due to Billy Joel releasing his hit single My Life in 1979
Seems legit. That's a pretty inspirational song.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I've read multiple times that women attempt suicide just as much. If not more than men, men are just better at being successful
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, it is their goal, which is why they have to be killed.
No fault divorce is a no brainer.
Funny enough the people that don’t support it have no brain so I’m not so sure
Or maybe they’re just evil down to their core
Oh shoot, the GOP left some data laying around. Don’t worry. They will begin deleting such facts immediately.
Hold up. Rewind.
They used to assign fault during a divorce? What the hell?
Why was that ever a thing?
No fault divorce isn't about assigning blame. They actually still do that in certain situations, such as adultery or abuse. No fault divorce means that the state will allow a divorce even if no one is to "blame." Prior to that, you essentially needed a legal reason to get a divorce other than "I just want to be married to this person anymore."
Even if both people wanted a divorce they would have to do something like fake an affair. The husband could hire a hooker and the wife would hire a P.I. to "discover" the indiscretion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The elite and religion (same thing) need more babies
“Maybe”?
Gilead theme music intensifies
Ohh they're not ignoring it. They want to go back because of it.
Of course it is. Now a days they catch so much shit for trying to rape their wives that they just want it to go back to a time where it was okay to be a POS.
Ron Howard: "It was."
"Look how low divorce rates were. Great success!"
For some that is almost explicitly the goal. They advocate against no-fault divorce which will, by is very nature, keep more women in dangerous marriages and increase physical and sexual abuse of women. In the 1950s, women were rarely seen as hirable and that kept them financially dependent on men. Today we don't just let women work, it's a necessity for basically everyone. But while we have made sure women (and men) can still independently with programs like SNAP and medicaid, those same people advocating against no-fault divorce also want to weaken or eliminate those programs. The end result of that will mean that basic survival will require, at minimum, two-earner homes. This will further tie women to abusive husbands even if they could justify an at-fault divorce, because they may be choosing between physical/sexual abuse and being able to feed, cloth and house themselves (and their children). This will also naturally increase suicide rates among women. So... those goals are indirectly GOP platform policies.
The GOP is for gender equality by raising female suicide rates to match male ones.
Equal Opportunity Misery
Maybe?
IIRC women couldn’t get a credit card into the 70’s. Crazy.
Edit: couldn’t
Women could not build individual credit until the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). They needed a male cosigner to have a credit card prior to this.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 expanded credit card access for minorities. Systemic credit reporting inaccuracies disproportionately impacted them prior to this with Black/Hispanic neighborhoods having 2-3x more credit disputes than white areas.
There's a reason some of the anti-inclusive members of our society want to go back to a time of lower competitiveness. Unfair advantages allowed the few to have an easier life at the expense of the many.
Why would the goal be to make women miserable? Like what's the point?
To get back at them for what Eve did in the Bible. (I'm only partly kidding.)
Maybe?
view more: next ›