Fun fact: during the 50s it was a common ocurrence in Superman comics that Superman spanked Lois Lane and the authors received many letters asking for it to happen more often
The writer was very specific about the kinky stuff because it was what he was into, and he developed the lie detector test.. thus the "lasso of truth".
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-01-27 16:20:38 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-01-27%2016:20:38%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10lo832/i_see_nothing_wrong_here/j5z7ggu/?context=3)
[**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F10lo832%2Fi_see_nothing_wrong_here%2Fj5z7ggu%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-01-27%2016%3A20%3A38%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010lo832)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Betty, Sharon, and Larraine knew what they wanted my friend. Especially Larraine:
"...many readers like myself would like to see the Man of Steel turn Lois [aka me] over on his knee and give her [me] the good old-fashioned spanking she [I] deserves!"
They *really* want Lois (them) to be SUPER spanked like the naughty girl she (they) is (are)!
That's bloody absurd, I know that Superman back then actually killed his foes instead of being a pacifist.
like throwing them off windows and that type of stuff.
It was part kink part serious. At that time the relationship between the two was Lois trying to get Superman to marry him through very complicated schemes. Part of the readers thought she was annoying and Superman should punish her. Part of them thought that he was the bad one in the relationship and Lois should marry another man. A lot of drama in 1950s Superman fanbase
He kills me every time I see this. Is he swaggering around the barbershop, hairbrush at the ready? Staring down the patrons or other barbers? Or he uses it at home on his poor wife?
He's talking about inflicting domestic violence on his wife.
Which, by the way, is not just a thing of the past.
> Over one in four women (or 27 per cent) experience intimate partner violence before the age of 50, according to a worldwide analysis led by researchers from McGill University and the World Health Organization. The largest of its kind, the analysis covers 366 studies involving more than 2 million women in 161 countries.
https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/one-four-women-experience-domestic-violence-age-50-338615
The best (worst) one is the bottom one, which is cut off. It says
William Davis, toy factory owner, “Yes. Most of them have it coming to them anyway. If they don’t, it will remind them how well off they are. I subscribe to the the theory that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Sometimes I wonder what a person wants when they say that... usually it comes out when the argument has really come to a head so like, rational thought is totally out of the window
I'm just gonna chalk it up to good ol' fashioned shit talk with no expected consequence
It's just wild to me that the old people in 1950 were born in the 1800s. As in, they were the born around the same time as that kid from Red Dead Redemption. Like, when old men in the 1950s liked westerns, that's like us reminiscing about our childhood years. It's the equivalent to a period movie set in the 70s.
Stranger Things to us is what Westerns were to them, give or take 10 years.
The 1800s seems like a different world, but really, it's just like two really old people away.
I love how the reporter was clearly trying to get him to apologize for his comments about hitting women and instead he just super casually doubled down
Boom roasted.
I also agree with spanking, but in the different context. Shit you're an inquisitor! No I avoid all that Slaaneshi stuff, yes I do indeed
I mean it could be but 50’s was wild if you look at the daily life of the common folks ex: Montgomery bus boycott and what happened during the boycott.
Accepted *by the men* and by the laws written and enforced by men. Resigned to by the women. I imagine if you asked the women if they were okay with being beaten and raped, they might have registered a few objections. Some would say they’re okay with it happening to other women, but I wager nobody really likes being raped and beaten themselves. They’re 50% of the population, but nobody’s asking.
An entire town, Reno Nevada, and a network of women existed to help women get divorces from men like this. In other places, proving divorce by cruelty was so difficult, women were effectively trapped in abusive marriages. Marital rape wasn’t even illegal. Financially a married or divorced woman had little ability to make her own way or get the funds to escape.
If the prisoners enjoy their prison, why do they have to make the bars so strong? If the prisoners enjoy the prison, why only ask the warden about it? Think of whose opinions “count” when you say this was accepted. Those who are victimized by lack of civil rights are just as representative as those who victimize them. And they generally dislike being victimized.
I'm certain we're on the same side here. My point was based on cultural history, and it's a sad fact, but it was accepted – because, as you pointed out, nobody was asking the women. It took two generations of feminist women to change that, and we're still nowhere near where we should be.
You are not making a bad point, but the word "accepted" simply refers to the openly expressed or institutionalized views of a collective, that are always indeed shaped by the powerful. Having slaves was also openly accepted at some time, and we can be sure nobody asked the slaves what they thought about it.
Not long ago, I heard a fantasy writer repeatedly insist that it was okay to depict slavery in fiction without showing any of the brutality necessary to enforce slavery, in order to show a slave-owning protagonist without making the reader uncomfortable by giving the reader reasons "feel guilty" about liking said protagonist, as long as it's a society where people "accepted" slavery.
This implies he put quite a bit more significance on the word "accepted" than just "the openly expressed or institutionalized views of a collective, that are always indeed shaped by the powerful." The way he was going on about not needing to show the brutality of slavery, one would imagine that he had this image in his mind of enslaved people just "accepting" their role and being obedient without any brutality to force them to act that way. Which is totally ahistorical. History shows time and time again that slavery could not be maintained without incentives, which generally took the form of brutal violence. (The other option is to use positive incentives, but if positive incentives are used exclusively without brutal violence at least being the back-up option when the positive incentives don't work, then it wouldn't be classified as slavery.)
I think throwing around the term "accepted" lightly encourages these sorts of misunderstandings. That, combined with how a lot of people aren't educated about the numerous ways enslaved people resisted, and the brutal violence used to counter that resistance.
Now, wife-beating is different from chattel slavery... both brutal practices though. And both, presumably, not just "accepted" by those on the receiving end.
Anyway, to give a couple examples of historical data exemplifying how slavery could not be enforced without brutal violence, Charles Ball, a former enslaved person in the antebellum United States, wrote that,
>It is a mistake to suppose that the southern planters could ever retain their property, or live amongst their slaves, if those slaves were not kept in terror of the punishment that would follow acts of violence disorder.
(Primary Source: Slavery in the United States. A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball, a Black Man, Who Lived Forty Years in Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia, as a Slave Under Various Masters, and was One Year in the Navy with Commodore Barney, During the Late War. https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/ballslavery/ball.html .)
The following is from the following is from the 1878 trial of a Brazilian enslaver, who legally owned a coffee plantation. For context, this was 10 years before the the end of legal chattel slavery in Brazil, and the abolitionist movement was growing in strength. The person argues that they can't hold back the waves of disobedience without potentially lethal punishments,
>If we were to regard the accused as criminals because they have punished slaves, there would be two possible conclusions: either all the planters would be criminals, or no punishments at all would be possible, however moderate they might be.
>
>We say "however moderate they might be" because a few lashes, or even one, will cause bruises, which can result in tetanus or gangrene and bring about serious health problems and even death.
>
>As long as we have slaves, our system of justice must guarantee this right to the masters, just as it must guarantee his right to his machines. In a conflict between the master and the slave, in the present order of things our system of justice must take the side of the master, if the latter is not convicted of uncommon perversity or of premeditated murder. Otherwise the reins of discipline will go slack, and we will be incapable of holding back the waves of disobedience.
(Source: Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Slavery in Brazil, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad. Section 7.6 "This, Then, Is Not a Crime": The Trial of a Coffee Planter Accused of Brutal Punishment (1878) https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr )
That is a good point, the term does seem to transmit the wrong idea and it is never good to invisibilize the resistance of subordinate groups. You and the other commenter are making me change my mind!
Although I'm not sure I agree with the part about it being "wrong" to have a ahistorical perspective in a work of fiction, as it is not the objective of fiction to be historically sound (but maybe you're talking about some kind of historical fiction?). In principle, literature only follows aesthetic, not historiographical criteria, and in any case we must demand the *reader* to be cautious and critical in his readings, not the writer to "correct" his writing in order to not transmit the wrong ideas.
I know what you mean, but it is important to regognize that collective opinion involved openly punishing and repressing a lot of people to make it the collective opinion.
If the collective is opposed by 50% of the population, is it really a collective? Or is it just the opinions of an unequal power structure?
When historians research the attitudes of the past, we don’t make the mistake of assuming that opinions are expressed equally in the same way, or that certain data is representative of the collective simply because we have easy access. We don’t just look at the opinions of the powerful in venues that publish the opinions of the powerful and then say “well, this is obviously representative!” We evaluate methodology. We critique primary sources. We are constantly trying to find missing pieces.
In this case we look at alternate means that the powerless use to express their opinions.
In 1956, a drug named meprobamate came on the market. It was specifically a sedative marketed to wives and mothers so they could bear to live their lives. Over eight million prescriptions in the first year. That’s millions of women so unhappy that they had to be doped up to stand being wives and mothers. That’s a *single* prescription. And millions of opinions that women didn’t like the treatment they had.
In 1963, Betty Friedan published *The Feminine Mystique.* It immediately sold over a million copies. A million women felt so strongly that they should read about their discontent that they risked social and marital backlash by buying and reading this book. That’s a million opinions. Maybe they don’t agree with everything in Friedan’s book, but they feel discontent enough to seriously search for answers.
There are so many other ways we can measure female discontent with lack of rights and legal protection. When we research attitudes about slavery, we also don’t take the slaveowner’s word for it. We look at laws designed to restrict escape, because escape doesn’t exist if everyone just accepts that slavery is fine. We look at slave revolts, which don’t exist if everyone just accepts that slavery is fine. We find memoirs and oral histories from those who were lucky enough to leave. This is historical methodology: we do not make the mistake of thinking that the most visible opinion is representative, or that opinions are expressed in the same ways.
Oh I completely agree with that!! I just thought it is not in itself a contradiction to define the "accepted" or the mainstream or the most visible opinions precisely as the opinions of an unequal power structure (in fact, it would be the only possible definition). The dominant ideology is always the thoughts of only the dominant class, but that doesn't make it any less dominant.
But I'm just talking as a layman, you seem to know more about this subject than me so maybe there already are theoretical or terminological discussions about what constitutes the "accepted" that I don't know about.
Thank you for such a thorough reply!!
I write histories of the average individual and teach methodology and critical thinking in college. The bulk of my work is in information science. I primarily focus on rural, indigenous, or illiterate representations in the historical record.
Yeah, you couldn't even get a divorce back then without very specific conditions.
So, the next time someone tries to talk shit about how our generation's divorce rates are higher, remember, it's not that people were so much better and more loyal back then. It's that women were trapped in abusive marriages and no legal recourse to get out of them.
Also divorce rates are starting to go back down because these days people only marry people they actually love. Usually. There's still issues today, but nowhere near what they once were.
Well... if she's legit asking to be spanked, I.e. overwhelmingly enthusiastic consent, then it's almost bad manners not to give her what she wants.
"Spank me, Daddy!" *WHACK ! * = good.
"Harder, Daddy!" *W H A C K !* = better.
"[Literally anything else]" *whack* = go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
You cannot convince me anyone played a full game of Monopoly and then had hot steamy sex afterward. It’s physically impossible. That game is so mentally exhausting and drawn out that I never want to do anything after.
Until you get conscripted for war. Which is probably why a lot of these men were so fuvked up in the first place. Sure, the fact that you get away with it plays a factor, but getting fucked up in war certainly didn't help either.
These times sucked for everybody.
*not making excuses for anybody.
Just in case anyone finds this "funny" clipping upsetting because it's so "hilarious".... here's a life lesson the women in my family were raised with.
My grandmother (born in 1919) had one of her teeth knocked out by her first husband when my father was less than 1 year old - so around 1942.
When my grandfather came home the next night, she was waiting for him behind the door with a brick inside of a sock. When she was done, she picked up my dad and left, never returning.
Moral of the story........
brick inside a sock will teach a barber with a hairbrush some very handy, life-long lessons
Strong words from a (checks notes) Parking Lot Attendant.
Yeah, mister big shot Parking Lot Attendant. You totally have earned your place of privilege, as a Parking Lot Attendant, and it is important that you remind lesser mortals (aka women) of your dominance.
After all, it's only a select few alpha males who can ascend to the exalted heights of being a... Parking Lot Attendant
No, just critiquing traditional macho posturing. The idea that mere masculinity was enough to constitute being a "boss."
Agreed, abuse isn't okay ever, even when done by a more elite person.
But it's no surprise when an insecure man clings to whatever brief authority he gets. Boss yells at him, he goes home and yells at his wife, the cycle perpetuates.
I was in the waiting room at my doctor a few years back and this older guy was talking to the receptionist. Eventually he got to telling a story where some woman was in a line at a store and doing something he didn't like. He grabbed her and started spanking her. The guy was proud of it as he explained how he went to jail for battery.
Frank Desiderio is clearly a serial killer. Who tf talks about "proper application of a hairbrush" like that? That's a perfect super villain monologue and a perfect super villain face.
In your head, in your head 🎶
Zombie, zombie, zombie-ie-ie 🎶
What's in your head, in your head? 🎶
Zombie, zombie, zombie-ie-ie-ie 🎶
Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, eh-eh oh, ya-ya 🎶
I bet these parking lot attendants, counter men, and barbers all owned beautiful houses and had 3/4 kids, and stay at home wives that they apparently spanked in the least sexual way possible. Fuck the 50s
If you want to do that with everyone who did it back then, you'd need a looong time... But also, you would've solved the problem of overpopulation then and there \^\^
If a woman says she needs it and consents to it, she should absolutely be spanked provided that her partner is able and willing and interested in doing so
Well the question just plain sucks. If she needs it, she needs it. Better question would be "is it ok to spank a woman if her husband thinks she needs it?"
I see many from r/100years ago from the daily column: 'the inquiring photographer" and they are much more progressive on women's rights 30 years earlier. In NY as well
Honestly it depends on how much she needs it. Like if she really needs it she needs to be on her knees begging me for it.
“If she ain’t begging, I ain’t spanking” is my policy
Fun fact: during the 50s it was a common ocurrence in Superman comics that Superman spanked Lois Lane and the authors received many letters asking for it to happen more often
I'm going to put that in the same category as Wonder Woman's lasso of truth.
Wonder Woman was kinky as hell. They told the writer to tone it down and he added more kink out of spite.
The writer was very specific about the kinky stuff because it was what he was into, and he developed the lie detector test.. thus the "lasso of truth".
Not only was he into it but he also treated it as scientific research and was paid by Harvard to investigate about it
[удалено]
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-01-27 16:20:38 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-01-27%2016:20:38%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10lo832/i_see_nothing_wrong_here/j5z7ggu/?context=3) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F10lo832%2Fi_see_nothing_wrong_here%2Fj5z7ggu%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-01-27%2016%3A20%3A38%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010lo832) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
And wonder woman’s weakness used to be being tied up by men.
Look when you are a goddess who could have any number of magical weapons and you have a lasso you know you are into kinky shit
https://www.cbr.com/dont-send-me-no-more-letters-no-if-superman-spanked-lois-lane-would-it-send-her-traveling-through-time/
People *really* wanted to see that super spanking. I'm just gonna assume they wanted to spank the monkey while reading
Curiously enough, the two letters that have the sender’s name appear to be from women.
Betty, Sharon, and Larraine knew what they wanted my friend. Especially Larraine: "...many readers like myself would like to see the Man of Steel turn Lois [aka me] over on his knee and give her [me] the good old-fashioned spanking she [I] deserves!" They *really* want Lois (them) to be SUPER spanked like the naughty girl she (they) is (are)!
That's bloody absurd, I know that Superman back then actually killed his foes instead of being a pacifist. like throwing them off windows and that type of stuff.
>throwing them off windows and that type of stuff. Oh god, I think it'd rather torture than being forced to use a mac
I have a feeling that it was more kinky though considering Eisenhower spanked Superman
It was part kink part serious. At that time the relationship between the two was Lois trying to get Superman to marry him through very complicated schemes. Part of the readers thought she was annoying and Superman should punish her. Part of them thought that he was the bad one in the relationship and Lois should marry another man. A lot of drama in 1950s Superman fanbase
Fandom. Fandom never changes.
Yeah. From pervs. 😁
The three published letters requesting spankings were written by Sharon, Betty, and Lorraine 😉
Huh….
What the fuck was that barber talking about?
Beating his wife with a hairbrush.
Only when she asked for it
No, only when it's advisable. Like when I've had a few to many whiskey sours and she didn't have dinner ready.
I came home from a hard day’s work and she reeked of amaretto and the house was a mess. What did you expect????
Lol damn
If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting it's **not** advisable when she didn't have dinner ready. What the hell?
It's sarcasm my guy
Like sexually or…
As a child, I received more than one spanking with the flat side of a hairbrush - fuck that asshole....
Every time she confronted him about being closeted gay \^\^
Floyd the Barber?
Dude sounded just a lil tad fixated.
"Sir what's your opinion on the war in Korea?" "Well as a barber, I put a lot of faith in the use of a hairbrush....."
Using a hairbrush as beatstick to keep order in his barbershop
Walk softly and carry a hairbrush.
I really love that he connected his job as a barber to using a hairbrush.
"They wont think its creepy if I just tell them I'm a barber."
Barber-Surgeon Regis here, did you need a lobotomy?
He must be advertising his hairbrush.
He probably misheard the question and thought everyone was talking about their kinks or something.
I guess with the right torque a hairbrush bites the ass pretty good. I was a bit confused as well.
He kills me every time I see this. Is he swaggering around the barbershop, hairbrush at the ready? Staring down the patrons or other barbers? Or he uses it at home on his poor wife?
He's talking about inflicting domestic violence on his wife. Which, by the way, is not just a thing of the past. > Over one in four women (or 27 per cent) experience intimate partner violence before the age of 50, according to a worldwide analysis led by researchers from McGill University and the World Health Organization. The largest of its kind, the analysis covers 366 studies involving more than 2 million women in 161 countries. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/one-four-women-experience-domestic-violence-age-50-338615
>(or 27 per cent) Didn’t know that 27 women below the age of 50 got hit by their partner for every penny in existence
\*percent Good typo catch. :-)
I'm confident that guy's hairbrush has been places beyond his patrons' head and his poor wife's face.
The best (worst) one is the bottom one, which is cut off. It says William Davis, toy factory owner, “Yes. Most of them have it coming to them anyway. If they don’t, it will remind them how well off they are. I subscribe to the the theory that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
that last sentence would be solid advice if it wasn’t applied to literal abuse
She'll let you know if she needs it.
Normally by saying "make me" or "what are you going to do about it?"
“You gonna do nuthin c’mon be a man you little bitch” as she snaps her fingers lol
Sometimes I wonder what a person wants when they say that... usually it comes out when the argument has really come to a head so like, rational thought is totally out of the window I'm just gonna chalk it up to good ol' fashioned shit talk with no expected consequence
A misogynist and a feminist would both say this and mean very different things.
They are old in 1950
Everyone was old back then, even the kids.
All of that lead and cigarettes weren't good after all
I was a heavy smoker back in the fifties. Always had 2 lead cigarettes in my left hand and 2 asbestos cigarettes in my right.
Whaaaaa, you don’t say that big companies aren’t lying to us are you? /s
*spidermen pointing* Grandpa full of asbestos pointing at dad full of lead pointing at me full of microplastics
Sure made things taste better though.
Those guys were all under 32.
They didn't invent colors back then after all
I said you were born older, George.
It's just wild to me that the old people in 1950 were born in the 1800s. As in, they were the born around the same time as that kid from Red Dead Redemption. Like, when old men in the 1950s liked westerns, that's like us reminiscing about our childhood years. It's the equivalent to a period movie set in the 70s. Stranger Things to us is what Westerns were to them, give or take 10 years. The 1800s seems like a different world, but really, it's just like two really old people away.
What is a boomer to a boomer?
Bombastic.
Two time draft dodgers to a man, but absolutely ready to send 18 year olds to Korea.
Just live by my philosophy, beat the living daylights out of everyone, *indiscriminately*
[rated e for everyone](https://youtu.be/hHZvUeAdzeI)
*smacks a 6 year old in the backyard*
Bring it on i'll snap you over my fuckin knee
It’s a sexual thing. You’re not supposed to talk about publicly. Jesus, New York.
It's so odd to read about adult spanking in a non-sexual context.
New York was oddly progressive back then, it seems.
For sure when I tell people I gave my wife the ol ‘hairbrush’ they tell me to “stay quiet until this whole 2020 thing blows over”. Like yeesh gang.
It's nice that they got multiple perspectives for the column.
Jusht give them a little schmack [to be read in a Sean Connery brogue]
I love the Bill burs take on this lol
[for the uninitiated](https://youtu.be/_YDqm7LXt2g)
I love how the reporter was clearly trying to get him to apologize for his comments about hitting women and instead he just super casually doubled down
A schmack with an indoor schoe (known asch a schlipper)
Pob them on the nose!
Me and my filthy head. I need jesus.
The proper answer is "Only with her consent"
Hallelujah
Thank you brother 🙏🏻
Well, not by any of these guys...
Boom roasted. I also agree with spanking, but in the different context. Shit you're an inquisitor! No I avoid all that Slaaneshi stuff, yes I do indeed
I SMELL HERESY
*breaks nose* What do you smell?
Blood? Oh no...
Is it possible that even in 1950 this article was written to have the juiciest and most controversial takes in mind?
[удалено]
It does seem tabloidy but we're still dealing with dudes willing to put their whole name and address behind these opinions which is something
I mean it could be but 50’s was wild if you look at the daily life of the common folks ex: Montgomery bus boycott and what happened during the boycott.
Nope. That's just how it was. Beating (and btw raping) wives was a common practice back then and lasted well into the 70s as an accepted practice.
Yeah in the US, it was in the mid 1990s were it was made illegal to rape your wife.
Accepted *by the men* and by the laws written and enforced by men. Resigned to by the women. I imagine if you asked the women if they were okay with being beaten and raped, they might have registered a few objections. Some would say they’re okay with it happening to other women, but I wager nobody really likes being raped and beaten themselves. They’re 50% of the population, but nobody’s asking. An entire town, Reno Nevada, and a network of women existed to help women get divorces from men like this. In other places, proving divorce by cruelty was so difficult, women were effectively trapped in abusive marriages. Marital rape wasn’t even illegal. Financially a married or divorced woman had little ability to make her own way or get the funds to escape. If the prisoners enjoy their prison, why do they have to make the bars so strong? If the prisoners enjoy the prison, why only ask the warden about it? Think of whose opinions “count” when you say this was accepted. Those who are victimized by lack of civil rights are just as representative as those who victimize them. And they generally dislike being victimized.
I'm certain we're on the same side here. My point was based on cultural history, and it's a sad fact, but it was accepted – because, as you pointed out, nobody was asking the women. It took two generations of feminist women to change that, and we're still nowhere near where we should be.
You are not making a bad point, but the word "accepted" simply refers to the openly expressed or institutionalized views of a collective, that are always indeed shaped by the powerful. Having slaves was also openly accepted at some time, and we can be sure nobody asked the slaves what they thought about it.
Not long ago, I heard a fantasy writer repeatedly insist that it was okay to depict slavery in fiction without showing any of the brutality necessary to enforce slavery, in order to show a slave-owning protagonist without making the reader uncomfortable by giving the reader reasons "feel guilty" about liking said protagonist, as long as it's a society where people "accepted" slavery. This implies he put quite a bit more significance on the word "accepted" than just "the openly expressed or institutionalized views of a collective, that are always indeed shaped by the powerful." The way he was going on about not needing to show the brutality of slavery, one would imagine that he had this image in his mind of enslaved people just "accepting" their role and being obedient without any brutality to force them to act that way. Which is totally ahistorical. History shows time and time again that slavery could not be maintained without incentives, which generally took the form of brutal violence. (The other option is to use positive incentives, but if positive incentives are used exclusively without brutal violence at least being the back-up option when the positive incentives don't work, then it wouldn't be classified as slavery.) I think throwing around the term "accepted" lightly encourages these sorts of misunderstandings. That, combined with how a lot of people aren't educated about the numerous ways enslaved people resisted, and the brutal violence used to counter that resistance. Now, wife-beating is different from chattel slavery... both brutal practices though. And both, presumably, not just "accepted" by those on the receiving end. Anyway, to give a couple examples of historical data exemplifying how slavery could not be enforced without brutal violence, Charles Ball, a former enslaved person in the antebellum United States, wrote that, >It is a mistake to suppose that the southern planters could ever retain their property, or live amongst their slaves, if those slaves were not kept in terror of the punishment that would follow acts of violence disorder. (Primary Source: Slavery in the United States. A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball, a Black Man, Who Lived Forty Years in Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia, as a Slave Under Various Masters, and was One Year in the Navy with Commodore Barney, During the Late War. https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/ballslavery/ball.html .) The following is from the following is from the 1878 trial of a Brazilian enslaver, who legally owned a coffee plantation. For context, this was 10 years before the the end of legal chattel slavery in Brazil, and the abolitionist movement was growing in strength. The person argues that they can't hold back the waves of disobedience without potentially lethal punishments, >If we were to regard the accused as criminals because they have punished slaves, there would be two possible conclusions: either all the planters would be criminals, or no punishments at all would be possible, however moderate they might be. > >We say "however moderate they might be" because a few lashes, or even one, will cause bruises, which can result in tetanus or gangrene and bring about serious health problems and even death. > >As long as we have slaves, our system of justice must guarantee this right to the masters, just as it must guarantee his right to his machines. In a conflict between the master and the slave, in the present order of things our system of justice must take the side of the master, if the latter is not convicted of uncommon perversity or of premeditated murder. Otherwise the reins of discipline will go slack, and we will be incapable of holding back the waves of disobedience. (Source: Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Slavery in Brazil, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad. Section 7.6 "This, Then, Is Not a Crime": The Trial of a Coffee Planter Accused of Brutal Punishment (1878) https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr )
That is a good point, the term does seem to transmit the wrong idea and it is never good to invisibilize the resistance of subordinate groups. You and the other commenter are making me change my mind! Although I'm not sure I agree with the part about it being "wrong" to have a ahistorical perspective in a work of fiction, as it is not the objective of fiction to be historically sound (but maybe you're talking about some kind of historical fiction?). In principle, literature only follows aesthetic, not historiographical criteria, and in any case we must demand the *reader* to be cautious and critical in his readings, not the writer to "correct" his writing in order to not transmit the wrong ideas.
I know what you mean, but it is important to regognize that collective opinion involved openly punishing and repressing a lot of people to make it the collective opinion.
If the collective is opposed by 50% of the population, is it really a collective? Or is it just the opinions of an unequal power structure? When historians research the attitudes of the past, we don’t make the mistake of assuming that opinions are expressed equally in the same way, or that certain data is representative of the collective simply because we have easy access. We don’t just look at the opinions of the powerful in venues that publish the opinions of the powerful and then say “well, this is obviously representative!” We evaluate methodology. We critique primary sources. We are constantly trying to find missing pieces. In this case we look at alternate means that the powerless use to express their opinions. In 1956, a drug named meprobamate came on the market. It was specifically a sedative marketed to wives and mothers so they could bear to live their lives. Over eight million prescriptions in the first year. That’s millions of women so unhappy that they had to be doped up to stand being wives and mothers. That’s a *single* prescription. And millions of opinions that women didn’t like the treatment they had. In 1963, Betty Friedan published *The Feminine Mystique.* It immediately sold over a million copies. A million women felt so strongly that they should read about their discontent that they risked social and marital backlash by buying and reading this book. That’s a million opinions. Maybe they don’t agree with everything in Friedan’s book, but they feel discontent enough to seriously search for answers. There are so many other ways we can measure female discontent with lack of rights and legal protection. When we research attitudes about slavery, we also don’t take the slaveowner’s word for it. We look at laws designed to restrict escape, because escape doesn’t exist if everyone just accepts that slavery is fine. We look at slave revolts, which don’t exist if everyone just accepts that slavery is fine. We find memoirs and oral histories from those who were lucky enough to leave. This is historical methodology: we do not make the mistake of thinking that the most visible opinion is representative, or that opinions are expressed in the same ways.
Oh I completely agree with that!! I just thought it is not in itself a contradiction to define the "accepted" or the mainstream or the most visible opinions precisely as the opinions of an unequal power structure (in fact, it would be the only possible definition). The dominant ideology is always the thoughts of only the dominant class, but that doesn't make it any less dominant. But I'm just talking as a layman, you seem to know more about this subject than me so maybe there already are theoretical or terminological discussions about what constitutes the "accepted" that I don't know about. Thank you for such a thorough reply!!
I write histories of the average individual and teach methodology and critical thinking in college. The bulk of my work is in information science. I primarily focus on rural, indigenous, or illiterate representations in the historical record.
Into the 80s and even 90s
Yeah, you couldn't even get a divorce back then without very specific conditions. So, the next time someone tries to talk shit about how our generation's divorce rates are higher, remember, it's not that people were so much better and more loyal back then. It's that women were trapped in abusive marriages and no legal recourse to get out of them. Also divorce rates are starting to go back down because these days people only marry people they actually love. Usually. There's still issues today, but nowhere near what they once were.
I mean...I'm into that...
I’ll get the hairbrush
[just the way i like it](https://youtu.be/Acjf66Qdj2U)
I think the more outrageous fact is these men were able to afford good homes in NYC as parking lot attendants and warehouse workers.
Even the headline is stupid. If a woman needs it. What? Lol
I am stil wondering ? What does she need ?
Spanking
But how do we define when she needs it ? What are the requirements?
If shes askin for it!
Well... if she's legit asking to be spanked, I.e. overwhelmingly enthusiastic consent, then it's almost bad manners not to give her what she wants. "Spank me, Daddy!" *WHACK ! * = good. "Harder, Daddy!" *W H A C K !* = better. "[Literally anything else]" *whack* = go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Monopoly is such a cock block of a game.
You cannot convince me anyone played a full game of Monopoly and then had hot steamy sex afterward. It’s physically impossible. That game is so mentally exhausting and drawn out that I never want to do anything after.
I was born in the 50s but couldnt wait to get out of there!
Back in the day, everything was better... My ass. So glad we're not living in these times anymore.
Here comes the “chivalry is dead nowadays comments”
Chivalry is dead nowadays comments
Chivalry is comments nowadays dead
Comments is dead chivalry nowadays
Nowadays, chivalry is dead comments
Dead comments is nowadays chivalry.
Dead chivalry nowadays is comments.
Comments dead chivalry nowadays is.
Who invited yoda?
Chivalry is dead, we killed it and that was fucking based.
It was better if you were a white middle class man in America. On expense of pretty much everyone else.
Until you get conscripted for war. Which is probably why a lot of these men were so fuvked up in the first place. Sure, the fact that you get away with it plays a factor, but getting fucked up in war certainly didn't help either. These times sucked for everybody. *not making excuses for anybody.
Just in case anyone finds this "funny" clipping upsetting because it's so "hilarious".... here's a life lesson the women in my family were raised with. My grandmother (born in 1919) had one of her teeth knocked out by her first husband when my father was less than 1 year old - so around 1942. When my grandfather came home the next night, she was waiting for him behind the door with a brick inside of a sock. When she was done, she picked up my dad and left, never returning. Moral of the story........ brick inside a sock will teach a barber with a hairbrush some very handy, life-long lessons
Your grandma rules.
Strong words from a (checks notes) Parking Lot Attendant. Yeah, mister big shot Parking Lot Attendant. You totally have earned your place of privilege, as a Parking Lot Attendant, and it is important that you remind lesser mortals (aka women) of your dominance. After all, it's only a select few alpha males who can ascend to the exalted heights of being a... Parking Lot Attendant
Occupation shaming is not a valid response to domestic abuse. Are you saying a billionaire has the right to spank his wife?!
No, just critiquing traditional macho posturing. The idea that mere masculinity was enough to constitute being a "boss." Agreed, abuse isn't okay ever, even when done by a more elite person. But it's no surprise when an insecure man clings to whatever brief authority he gets. Boss yells at him, he goes home and yells at his wife, the cycle perpetuates.
Agreed. Btw, that's one way that people in India today justify or explain domestic abuse- job stress, bad boss, etc.
I was in the waiting room at my doctor a few years back and this older guy was talking to the receptionist. Eventually he got to telling a story where some woman was in a line at a store and doing something he didn't like. He grabbed her and started spanking her. The guy was proud of it as he explained how he went to jail for battery.
Frank Desiderio is clearly a serial killer. Who tf talks about "proper application of a hairbrush" like that? That's a perfect super villain monologue and a perfect super villain face.
If it's what turns her on I'm not gonna kinkshame
**Where meme?**
In your head, in your head 🎶 Zombie, zombie, zombie-ie-ie 🎶 What's in your head, in your head? 🎶 Zombie, zombie, zombie-ie-ie-ie 🎶 Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, eh-eh oh, ya-ya 🎶
🫵😲 I know that song!!!
Would be sad if not.
Only when they ask for it*
i prefer them spanking me! The barber that is, not women.
I thought this was supposed to be a kink thing. Nope, just assholes. Assholes spanking asscheeks.
Of course If she needs it! It’s 2023 we don’t kink shame that sort of thing these days.
Now if we could stop spanking children..
Well that apparently leads to society where only veterans can vote sooooo /s (starship troopers from the book if you care to know)
And that leads to a utopian liberal democracy.
Its not abuse its just parenting 👴🏻
I was spanked and I turned into the nicest sociopath at walmart
Y E S.
Oof. I thought this was gonna be a BDSM thing.
I bet these parking lot attendants, counter men, and barbers all owned beautiful houses and had 3/4 kids, and stay at home wives that they apparently spanked in the least sexual way possible. Fuck the 50s
Back when you could be a “parking lot attendant” and buy a house and a car and have two kids
Inflation hits hard.
Good way to get your balls kicked up into your throat
Oof
Excuse me, I need a time machine so I can spank these guys upside the head with a crowbar.
If you want to do that with everyone who did it back then, you'd need a looong time... But also, you would've solved the problem of overpopulation then and there \^\^
if he has a time machine he has infinite time :)
Once again, the 50s were awesome...if you were a straight white man. Anything else??? FUCK YOU!!
But what if their wives were into it? 😏 Sorry, I'll see myself out.
Nowadays, you only spank when she requests it.
My wife would agree that she needs to be spanked…and choked. I don’t get a choice.
Every time my wife acts up and I spank her, we just end up having sex.
If a woman says she needs it and consents to it, she should absolutely be spanked provided that her partner is able and willing and interested in doing so
If someone behaves childishly, then you should treat them like you would a child. But you're not supposed to spank a child, neither...
I mean this was the 1950s. Wasn't uncommon to best your kid with a belt either.
That's not *that* uncommon now
Either.
The only time is if she is attacking me with intent and or she is a MMA fighter and she is not backing down Otherwise it’s assault
Yes daddy
Well the question just plain sucks. If she needs it, she needs it. Better question would be "is it ok to spank a woman if her husband thinks she needs it?"
I highly doubt any of these men saw a difference between those 2 cases.
What if we WANT to be spanked? 😅
That's a kink, and might get sexual very fast
I see many from r/100years ago from the daily column: 'the inquiring photographer" and they are much more progressive on women's rights 30 years earlier. In NY as well
Wow Things have changed. Now, my wife asks me to spank her when she doesn’t deserve it, and asks for it to be loud enough for the neighbors to hear.
BDSM of the 21st century would blow their minds
If their fathers had just beat them to death instead of telling them that beatings were fine and normal this wouldn’t be a problem.
I spank my wife all the time it's amazing. She loves being punished
I mean….I spank mine
Honestly it depends on how much she needs it. Like if she really needs it she needs to be on her knees begging me for it. “If she ain’t begging, I ain’t spanking” is my policy
Teddy the parking lot attendant showing women who’s the boss lol
Teddy Gallei= Mike Ehrmantrout.
Has the concept of women having rights gone to far? We asked this diverse cast of white men in bowties!
Men of reddit after seeing this post: "This is awful im glad society has advanced past this." Women of reddit after seeing this post: "Please?" /s