this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
926 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

11260 readers
2563 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 26 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I feel like both comments are misleading.

100 years ago guys were engaged in paid work and women kept house.

As technology (like gas stoves and water heating) and social conventions (like schooling and now day care) progressed "keeping house" has became less labor intensive and women had more time to find paid work.

As households earned more they could afford more so houses and groceries cost more, but in fairness they also became much more complex and costly to produce. Kids played with a hoop and a stick a hundred years ago.

Now of course both partners in a couple really need to work in order to have any chance of a comfortable retirement.

Women did have to fight for a lot of things. No doubt about that. They had to fight to not be sexualised in the workplace, they had to fight for equal access to jobs, and of course equal pay.

They did not have to "fight to work" nor "fight to get paid" per se.

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago

They had to fight for the right to have money in their own name and to be able to end a marriage without agreement from their spouse.

[–] werty@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Bollocks. 100 years ago both my grandmothers had paid jobs, as had many women before them.

[–] RustySharp@programming.dev 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

100 years ago my grandmother ran a whole train station as 'secretary', while the 'station master' came, smoked, read papers, and pretty much just chilled all day - and getting paid many times her salary.

When they said, "women fought to get paid", they meant, "getting paid commensurate to their work". And in many ways, they are still fighting for it.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Now the "station master's" wife can come in and do nothing while the "secretary's" husband does all the work.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

So did mine.

you know what they didnt have? A bank account without their husbands name on it.

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My grandmother had to marry in secret because married women weren't allowed to work. That was considered taking a job from a man who needed to support his family.

She wore her wedding ring on a chain around her neck, and one day it fell out when she leaned over. She was fired that very day.

[–] werty@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That was considered taking a job from a man who needed to support his family.

That's what all this talk of double incomes ruining the family is all about. Men don't want women 'taking their jobs'.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Or maybe it's about how dual-income households went from being an option to being a necessity, to still not even being enough to scrape by?

Maybe the owner-caste should simply be satisfied with exploiting half of the adult population, instead of exploiting every working-age adult?

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

Please take my job, I'm sick of it 😭

Men don’t want women ‘taking their jobs’.

allegedly

I'd looove to stay at home but the difficult thing is finding somebody who will pay for all that.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That was considered taking a job from a man who needed to support his family.

What about women who need to support their family?

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

They were told to ‘get a man’ and often pushed out of work, as they were almost always single mothers, who were seen as ‘sluts’ and ‘failures’.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're wrong about pretty much everything.

Poor women worked jobs and kept house in the past. Washer women and spinsters [women who spun cloth] worked from home.

Second, after WW2 and up until the Arab Oil boycott of 1973 most working class/Union jobs in the US paid enough for the wife to stay home. It wasn't until the economy started to crater that large numbers of women started looking for work.

In 1968, when Nixon was elected, 'middle class' was one job supporting a family of four with a stay at home wife. In those days $1 million was a vast fortune. By 1992, 'middle class' was two incomes' and $1 million was what a rich guy spent on a party.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

I didn't get that connection to "spinsters" until this comment, so thanks for that.

Second, after WW2 and up until the Arab Oil boycott of 1973 most working class/Union jobs in the US paid enough for the wife to stay home

Note that that's only a 30 year window. Before WWII was the great depression. Before that, working couples couldn't make ends meet without both partners "working". In some cases the women were doing unpaid or informal labour at home rather than working in a factory or something. But, they were definitely doing a lot of labour.

The post-WWII period was an anomaly rather than the norm. The labour protections from the New Deal were still in place, and unions were still strong. Plus, the US manufacturing sector was the only one that had come out of WWII unscathed. Every other country from Germany to France to the UK was having to rebuild their factories after they'd been smashed in the war. So, to get back to a post-WWII economy you wouldn't just need strong labour protections and high marginal tax rates like you had after WWII, you'd also need a devastating world war somewhere else in the world that the US could join halfway through.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think Miaa is not talking about the literal rights they fought for, but largely a commentary on women collectively valuing financial independence from being a couple over more traditional couple based partnership.

I've been watching the argument unfold on the traditionalist side but they aren't great at articulating what they are trying to say. So it always looks like rage inducing over simplification.

On the female TikTok side of the Internet, there's a lot of sentiment from women expressing disdain for the idea of going 50-50 with a man, and a lot of preference for men that out earn them. That's inconsistent from a financial independence mindset.

Then you have the women like Miaa who were like, housewife is easier than ever with the technological innovations you already mentioned. 'Why not just be a homemaker if guys appreciate that and are willing to take care of you?'

Then the red pill guys are another party in the conversation, and they are saying things like, what women say they want and their actions don't seem to be aligning and a lot of them are either done dating or at minimum have no intention of long term commitment. "Women say equality but not when the check comes. They want men to be open with their emotions but it gives them 'the ick'. Men shouldn't approach women in public because it's creepy, but now the internet is flooded with women asking where men went and why they are being so effeminate. " That's the kind of thinking I'm seeing in those circles.

It's a big mess! Do I have a fix? Nope, just commenting on the forest fire from my vantage point. I'm just thankful I'm not in the dating market.

Hopefully it's just whining from the vocal minorites that make all this content, and the majority of people are still balanced people that aren't aspiring content creators and are basically happily living their lives so we don't hear from them. Please, confirmation bias, be something good for a change. Be the fog obscuring the true good. 🤞

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

and they are saying things like, what women say they want and their actions don't seem to be aligning and a lot of them are either done dating or at minimum have no intention of long term commitment. "Women say equality but not when the check comes. They want men to be open with their emotions but it gives them 'the ick'. Men shouldn't approach women in public because it's creepy, but now the internet is flooded with women asking where men went and why they are being so effeminate. " That's the kind of thinking I'm seeing in those circles.

You don't have to be a "red pill guy" to point out those inconsistencies. You did it yourself:

there's a lot of sentiment from women expressing disdain for the idea of going 50-50 with a man, and a lot of preference for men that out earn them. That's inconsistent from a financial independence mindset.

It's kind of destructive to promote this cultural mindset where pointing out logical inconsistencies is seen as toxic. You can remove gender from that equation and it would still hold true.

No one who says guys showing their emotions gives them the ick can truthfully call themselves a feminist. That's toxic masculinity. The same applies for women who still insist that men should pay for dates.

Women can promote patriarchy and toxic masculinity, and many do without realizing it, while calling themselves feminists. "Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss" would have bell hooks rolling in her grave. Likewise, men can be harmed by patriarchy, and toxic masculinity arguably harms men the most.

What people so often miss is that simply pointing out these common logical inconsistencies, is not the same as generalizing them and accusing "all women" as some abstract concept of doing it. People are quick to ridicule someone for saying "not all men are toxic assholes," but the "not all women" argument is implicit in the whole "how dare you point out anything wrong that any woman has ever said or done?!?" mentality.

Wondering why men don't approach women anymore isn't really promoting toxic masculinity, but it is kind of silly since it's just a logical consequence of treating every man who approaches a woman as some predatory pickup artist. And pointing out that the men who ignore that obvious disdain and do it anyway are the men who don't have respect for women and boundaries, shouldn't be viewed as "incel" logic, because then you're basically focusing your ire on the person who says "Oh, women don't like being approached. Okay then, I won't approach women."

Of course, people will probably call me names for this, because how dare I express an unpopular or uncomfortable opinion? In my view, the taboo topics are often the most important to talk about. Society won't benefit from more misandristic circlejerks, if it would we'd be living in an egalitarian utopia by now.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Sure, you right, I didn't mean to imply you need to be a member of a particular community to think there's a logical point being made. Just meant to point out that there are interesting points being made scattered in every viewpoint.

I guess my goal was to kind of show that all these groups at war with one another are kind of talking past each other without really communicating.

And then I see them railing into the void about it as if that's an attempt at communication, meanwhile those people don't realize there are just as many people answering, but everyone is in echo chambers so the algorithm isn't going to spoon feed it to them.

They'd actively have to be looking for the answer in places that make them uncomfortable.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No one who says guys showing their emotions gives them the ick can truthfully call themselves a feminist. That's toxic masculinity. The same applies for women who still insist that men should pay for dates.

I love this part, deserves to be repeated.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, too many tiktok pseudofeminists are spreading this lie that "feminism" means "women participating in patriarchy" and that "smash the patriarchy" means "give hell to any man who shows weakness, because he's an easier target than the ones who are actually in power."

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Is that even true though? That men don't approach women anymore, or are they just trying to radicalize the incels more by telling them "your fellows don't want women anyway".

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

The fuck you mean they had to fight for equal pay? Their pay is still not equal!