[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

ecab0121048a25dd9b…

Anonymous 308353

this is what moids want

Anonymous 308355

that image was crafted by eastern orthodox hands

Anonymous 308356

>>308355
the moid who made this isnt compatible with any of these

Anonymous 308357

nigga who made these should learn how to add an outline to the text

Anonymous 308358

>wife
>marriage
>inviting the government into you relationship
>basing your relationship on a written contract as if it was a business transaction

i just shake my head at everyone who considers this normal.

Anonymous 308359

>>308358
Have you heard about If These Walls Could Talk 2 segment ”1961”?

> An elderly couple, Edith (Vanessa Redgrave) and Abby (Marian Seldes) sit in a cinema watching a lesbian-themed film The Children's Hour. A couple walks out of the theater in disgust at the film, and a group of kids laugh when they see Edith and Abby holding hands. Later, at the home they have shared for 30 years, Abby falls from a ladder. At the hospital, the doctors tell Edith that Abby may have suffered a stroke. Edith asks to see Abby but is not permitted as she is not a family member. Instead she spends the night in the waiting room and in the morning she learns from a more sympathetic nurse that Abby died alone during the night, and none of the hospital workers informed her after it had happened.


If the gubmint shouldn’t uphold contracts, then who will? Private courts?

Anonymous 308360

Currently laughing and celebrating the fact that the most retarded and vocal scrotes will never get any of what's in the pic
A rare moment where life shows itself to be good

Anonymous 308361

There are zero "Christians" on 4chan or Twitter who actually step foot in a church.

Anonymous 308364

>>308359
you are trying to justify the existence of a system by the violentl consequences built on top of said system. i call you a victim of abuse.

Anonymous 308367


Anonymous 308368

yeah and I want a multillonaire

Anonymous 308375

>>308353
Women in the fifties didn't have hair like that.

>>308368
Is that a kind of pastry?

Anonymous 308376

>>308375
someone who can afford to buy me a trillion pastries

Anonymous 308377

>>308376
you're just a money seeking missle? trained to respond to currency.

Anonymous 308383

Homesteading requires hard work and is far from the liquor stores and strip clubs.

Anonymous 308520

>>308353
no one gives a shit

Anonymous 308588

>>308586
I'm sorry for you nona, wanting the lifestyle is basically a death sentence unless you don't mind being a maid that is forced to perform sexual acts

Anonymous 308599

>>308586
what I've noticed is communal males tend to be more confident in misogynistic beliefs because their community reinforces it (probably a huge reason why they want a heckin wholesome religious waifu)
males not connected to a community on the other hand? they would be much more open to other ideas Christianity has to offer
It's also the reason why the urban man is more egalitarian than the others

Anonymous 308600

>>308588
if he's not religious this isn't necessarily a death sentence imo… might depend on the country though

Anonymous 308607

>>308361
Yeah, their concept of Christianity is always a veneer to push a political agenda

Anonymous 308643

Is this not what everyone wants?

Anonymous 308649

images.jpeg

>>308588
>unless you don't mind being a maid that is forced to perform sexual acs

Anonymous 308650

82bf6c0e1a80a7ab73…

>>308360
>>308361
Yep, all this "Christianity" that has been flagged on the internet lately, and all these posts by moids pretending to be new reformed Catholics is pure performance and effort to gain clout, likes and engagement on Twitter, simply pathetic, and the worst of all is that these shitty moids simply have no real values ​​or faith in absolutely anything.>>308360

Anonymous 308659

>>308353
>The 50s Wifejak
>wants to homeschool
Do moids seriously think homeschooling was common in the 1950s?

Anonymous 308707


Anonymous 308708

>>308659
>moids
>think
anyway pic is ai generated

Anonymous 309309

>person advertised like an appliance and treated as such
>no other description except she's religious, that's it
>type most likely to be independent/gay who will probably only want a man around for labor at best
>someone with no need to marry anyone and also has a gun
Great lineup, guys.

Anonymous 309330

chuds dream.jpg

>>308659
they dont think at all. they post stuff like this and get angry that "society took this" from them, not even realizing this is a fucking 1950s hotdog commercial.
i swear, in 70 years these people will post oatmeal ads with a couple and kids at the table and wish back to the glorious 2020s

Anonymous 309336

>>308361
their religiousness is nothing but an attempt to give their shitty agenda a spiritual touch, and take away the need to rationally explain it. you cant argue with someone who will ultimately state that their point of view is gods will.

Anonymous 309362

I mean, I can somewhat understand the romanticization of the 1950s. The traditional, wholesome nuclear family lifestyle from that era had a lot of appealing aspects. One provider, a large house, 2 to 3 kids, firmly middle class with relatively few struggles. On paper, it sounds like the ideal life.
The problem is the cultural context of the time. This was a decade after World War II and a decade before the civil rights movements of the 1960s. Many men were still dealing with trauma from the war, and culturally, America wasn’t really equipped to help them. Minorities were treated extremely poorly, and many oppressive stigmas surrounding women were still deeply entrenched. There's a reason a lot of feminist literature touts the 50s as essentially the modern hell for female protagonists.
I don't really buy the idea that "only the white men actually enjoyed the 50s", since both alot didn't and alot did if they were and didn't not hook up with a psycho and probably had a better time than most working class "modern women" who are strapped with debt for their foreseeable future.
God I wish life was as simple but it's not.

Anonymous 309366

>>309362
I think feminism should embrace the fact that a large section of women would like to try being homemakers, at least for a period of their lives (like when children are young). Family focused people exist and there is more opportunity to be productive inside the home than ever. The only insurmountable problem faced is the very real career hit and life risk from having to trust another person with everything.
There's also the fact that whether women like it or not, the birth rate issue is practically looming over every single advanced or even industrialized economy in the world at this point. Not only has bribery via money, services like childcare, or even housing shown to barely work in even the Nordic countries, that level of public spending is completely unsustainable in the long run. All while the lack of young people paying in destroys the social safety nets which do exist (which women disproportionately benefit from, who lives longer again?). You can't even use the average migrants because migrants aren't actually net taxpayers as a whole, only 2nd or 3rd gen will be (whose birth rates also crash living a "modern" lifestyle).

I think what should actually be done is to give women workplace and educational protections to allow them to have children earlier if they so wish. Statistically, most women who do want to stay home, only want to do so because their children are young. So as long as there is a viable way to "catch up" once your children are of school age, there isn't nearly as much of an impact on the course of your life. It leaves those wonderful years where they're grown up or teens right at start of peak career time. Having children earlier also increases the potential childbearing age of a woman each time she gets pregnant (9 months of no ovulation, plus 1-6 months of inconsistent/rare), meaning you can easily have more later in life if desired. Mothers should get veterans style benefits, as well as an official "mother" style career track/option. While most DEI type programs are under assault, a few which are are viewed as "meritocratic", such as veterans benefits, have broad public support. If the birth rate is such a problem, it really shouldn't be that big an issue to give increasing levels of support based on how much women have chosen to disrupt their lives.

First: Offer Employers incentives to hire part-time style "mother" employees. Women coming back into the workforce still have many familial obligations. The dreaded second shift continues to be a pernicious problem and I think there's a "trad" based solution for those who want it. A "mother" career track employee gets to leave work 2 hours early for the first child, with 1 hour added per child. These aren't paid hours but they are guaranteed freedom for school pickup and chores/errands. This allows women post early-childhood years to get work experience relevant to their work specialization, still meet the needs of their loved ones and even earn start earning some income. Also give women sick days for their children by law. So much work actually CAN be done as remote work now, even if employers aren't thrilled with it. If a kid needs to be picked up early from school because they're sick, or a child stays home complete with doctors note, it should count as excused for someone on the "mother" career track. Employers would mostly use these women as support personnel for actual workers, but with the government incentives/tax breaks, the goal would be that someone on this career track is always welcome as an extra, if somewhat possibly unreliable, pair of hands.

Second: Veterans style benefits for mothers who are making the choice to return to the "proper" workforce. Hiring a woman who's going from the "mother" career track because her children are now teens or a "now single mom" should carry serious benefits. This should also carry educational benefits with it, such as allowing for re-training/education if field has had dramatic changes since you left the workforce, along with a "refresher" certification for women who didn't have much chance to use their degree before starting a family.

Third: Subsidize cost of entry, registration and certification for "cottage" (home based) industries for women with children. There is a perfectly good kitchen in most homes, a small scale food business should have some roadblocks smoothed. It should be easy to get more expensive equipment like a flash freezer. Income made from craft goods shouldn't be subject to taxes or should have write offs. 3D printing is already somewhat viable and keeps getting better. These women should have the information and some of the resources needed offered to them. Offer some remote work opportunities specifically for mothers.

Fourth: Offer educational opportunities and subsidies for "Mrs. Degrees" (infinitely available) which teach "advanced" homemaking skills. Specific classes for cuisines, jam or cheese making, sewing. Or more technical things like how to automate watering a garden.

Fifth: Allow routine "volunteer" opportunities like children's sports or tree planting to count as tax write offs for the wage of their significant other. There is quite a bit that could be run with "professional volunteers" on an ad-hoc basis, while still allowing the disruptions of daily life.

A modern "housewife" can have something much better than the 50's with some proper structure imo. There is so much more automation now. Women are far more educated. Information is now far easier to get, as is organization thanks to the internet. Shipping, refrigeration, built to order designs and manufactured materials have all undergone revolutions. Work from home exists.
It probably wouldn't even be that hard a sell politically either. At least across the westernized world. Politicians are desperate, with people not wanting migrants but wanting modern welfare systems. Men would probably embrace it. It wouldn't be beyond the understanding of the "traditional" elderly. And since the entire world is cheap, it's probably not very expensive to keep going compared to the other options.

Anonymous 309367

>>309366
Excellent writeup

Anonymous 309368

>>309366
don't worry girls, I'll do the birthing for all of us

Anonymous 309377

>>309362
>a decade before the civil rights movements of the 1960s
There were lots of civil rights stuff in the 50s. Rosa Parks' famous bus sitting was in that decade, and the military was desegregated by then too.
Also, I don't see why people keep condemning the 50s for being oppressive for minorities and for women, when it was better compared to the previous decades. I'm not saying it was perfect, but most people's idea of history comes from propaganda vilifying the past. The better the past, the more the propaganda vilifies.

Anonymous 309429

>>309366
The main problem is that specific movements and political changes are grounded in American theology and such changes would never happen on it's own. American culture is rooted in puritan principles of pain and work for the sake of work. To the puritan to acuminate wealth and then the refusal to use it was the ultimate demonstration of gods grace and the more total wealth you accumulate the better a person you therefore are. Even as the world becomes more secular these ideas are still core tenants of the Americas. We glorify work and treat a none consent desire to amass more wealth as lazy or fundamentally degrading. People with economic struggles aren't helped because the people with the money see themselves as gods chosen people and those who are struggling are struggling because they deserve it.
An American feminist movement will never consider the idea of a modern woman not spending all her time working because not working = being less than people who are and the government won't help those kinds of house wives because the upper class hate anyone not in their social level and those people are literally destined to suffer.

Anonymous 309441

>>309362
>One provider, a large house, 2 to 3 kids, firmly middle class with relatively few struggles. On paper, it sounds like the ideal life.

The thing is that this just wasnt available for everyone. People often think that more or less the whole country lived like this, but in reality it was definitely not the majority.

My father was born in 1954 in rural northern germany and his family was dirt poor, despite both his parents being teachers (his dad full time, his mom half time). They didnt have a bathroom, the toilet was a little hut in the garden, there was one faucet in the entire house and they first got a car when he was a teenager, in the sixties. Things might have been different in the US, but in germany people also often romantize the past and act like the average person was well off compared to today, while they could easily just ask their grandparents what it was like.

Anonymous 309442

>>309366
I like your ideas, but I dont think they would work.
Birthrates collapse all over the planet, and the factor is always women's education. The only countries with a birthrate over 2 or even a growing birthrate are poor and have little education to offer. There is just no way to reverse this, the only reason why so many women got so many children in the past is because they literally had no real other choice. There was simply no real life other than one in isolation and poverty if you decided against marriage and children. Your idea of subsidizing women with children is at the core not really different from all the other stuff governments already do to support mothers. Having such things is nice for mothers, but still, people wont want more children because of this.

Anonymous 309450


Anonymous 309467

>>308353
Right wing men either want women to be their submissive slaves or mommies they can cry to



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]