this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
531 points (98.2% liked)
2meirl4meirl
255 readers
162 users here now
Welcome to 2meirl4meirl
Memes that are too dark for most. Post responsibly, cry collectively.
Rule 1: Respect the Community
If you’re not into self-deprecating, dark, or suicidal humor, this isn’t the place for you. Kindly block and move on. This is just how some of us cope
Rule 2: Respect One Another
We’re here to laugh through the pain, not to make it worse.
- No harassment
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Don’t be malicious
Rule 3: Title Requirement
All post titles must be 2meirl4meirl.
- Makes posting lazy and easy
- Lets people who don’t want this humor avoid it
Rule 4: No Forbidden Formats
The usual stuff applies:
- No spam
- No illegal content
- No porn or explicit content
- NSFW content must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, please report it.
Otherwise post your memes, share your pain, and salute your fellow sadpeeps
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember maintaining a household used to be considered a full time occupation for 1 adult per household.
We need to bring that idea back and separate it from gendered labor. 1 adult's full time pay should always cover the cost of a home and family
2 part timers should be able to work also
As long as the math adds up. Right now you need 40 hours a day to do everything yourself
I assume you mean a week but I find what you wrote funnier
No, I meant a day. Like the meme in the post says, there's not enough hours in one day for one person to take care of everything.
That was also established back before dishwashers, laundry machines, refrigerators (so you can go shopping every couple weeks instead of every day), public school, etc. Modern conveniences streamline a lot of domestic tasks.
I still think a single income should support a family, but maintaining a household isn't as labor intensive as it once was.
The 1950s had basically all of that and the standard was still the same. Before that extended family households were more common and the labor was spread to multiple adults and children had more expectations
Those were all pretty new in the '50s, plus that's about when women started entering the workforce in greater volume, and also when you start to see the stereotype of housewives sitting at home eating bonbons.
These conveniences have become necessitates though.
I work to buy a dishwasher to wash my dishes so I have more time to work. It's trapping us in a consumption cycle
you don't have to do any of that man. you choose to do it.
you can use paper plates.
you remind me of the people i meet who 'don't have time to cook' but then spend $1000 on food each week, and then complain they have to work more to afford food.... it's not the system... it's that you refuse to do the responsible and smart thing.. which is cook and spend $100 a week on food and work less.
Wild assumptions. I do cook my meals, still doesn't change the system. Plus I can't just "work less" my job, like most, has set hours
so you have a ft job that is 35-40 hour a week, and you want to work less than that?
i have a 40 hour job my entire adult life. never felt it was 'too much'. but then again i don't think basic adult responsibilities are a horrible undue burden. But I am aware many of my peers think it is.
Yes I've heard the "I've never once been tired in over 30 years working 100 hours a week at the moving rocks company. So therefore you can not ever be tired unless I deem it worthy" argument before. It's insufferable
Nobody is working 100 hour weeks. Please straw man more.
The clear over exaggeration was the point, and never meant to be take seriously.
It was used to display my general annoyance of the argument
Not really? You'll have to wash dishes anyway, and it only takes like 10-20 hours of work to pay it off. It's not like it's a consumable or subscription service.
Again, that doesn't mean I'm pro-consumption, but certain appliances just objectively save time and make your life easier.
You took that too literally. It's not about the dishwasher per se it's about the whole lifestyle.
How so? There's a difference between constant mindless consumption and buying tools that save you time and effort. If you wanna talk TVs and jet skis and designer bags, yes obviously you have a point. But that's not the same as labor saving appliances.
Convinces aren't made to save us time and effort. Back to the example of the household all the modern conveniences did was decrease the about of labor needed to maintain a home.
Did that surplus of labor help us? No now conveniences became necessary because households required a dual income.
If all the modern conveniences saved a home maker 30 hours per week those did not become free. That labor went to making quarterly profits. Now you need 2 adults working so you have to buy these things to have any time to do other things
And the assumption becomes that everyone has those things and can therefore work even more. For pay that hasn't kept pace with inflation for decades.
I don't see the connection here. I think you're drawing a cause-effect relationship here that doesn't exist. Dual incomes aren't necessary because we have appliances, it's because wages haven't kept up with productivity or inflation. I don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that it's somehow a direct consequence of labor saving appliances.
Once again being too literal it's the whole system conveniences are just a part of that
But you're conflating different aspects of the system. Modern conveniences aren't the product of capitalism, they're the product of human invention. Yes they were produced under capitalism, but they would've been developed under any economic system that supports human invention.
The consumption trap you're talking about, the whole "Working jobs we hate, to buy things we don't need, to impress people we don't like" thing, is a separate thing. Dishwashers and refrigerators aren't the same as jetskis and handbags.
Instead of that, we now have unaffordable housing, which forces you into serial tenancies. The rent prices are so high you need to live with one or more people. All of you must work to make the rent. Also there's a deposit, so you must somehow keep on top of the housekeeping, or you will owe money to the landlord. If that sounds unfair and ridiculous, that'll be because it is. But if you complain, you'll be the one that's crazy, because that's just the way the world works
and as the years go buy, your salary goes up, and you get fewer roomates, and as it goes up more you get your own place, or get into a relationship and get a place with that person.
it's not 'ridiculous' it's how it's always been. nobody was living on their own at 18-25.
Not any more matey. Not for millennials like me. I have two kids, I'm in a steady long term relationship, and I still rent, like about 50% of people my age. For boomers, the figure was 23% at this age.
Nice of you to assume I'm a lot younger than I am, I suppose?
i'm a millennial. i've never not had a raise each year that easy covered my costs. the reason i own is because instead of partying in my 20s i was building savings. i remember being 24, maxxing out my 401K while my peers were calling up mom and dad because they were spend way more than their salary could cover.
all the people i know who don't own it's because they chose low paying jobs, or refuse to give up partying. anyone who took their life more serious is doing very well. that isn't society's 'fault' it's their own poor long term decision making. but they blame everyone else.
but also, why would you have kids if you can't afford a home?
I see the difference between you and I. It's that people talk to me at parties. Look the figures and facts are available to you, you have an internet connection. Home ownership and financial stability have crashed among our generation. It's just true. You have been lucky, and boring enough in your choices to make that luck count. Most of us haven't.
I know someone who was made homeless despite working 60 hour weeks for a job at the local council. So "all the people you know", who you are judging so harshly might not actually be a good indicator of what's what. I think there is quite possibly a decent level of bias in your thinking, which confirms your firmly held belief that you deserve what you have because you worked for it. Maybe you do. But I know ten people who work harder than you who have less than you have, so...
right, i'm a boring anti social asshole. that's why i'm doing well... and not because i grew up in 'poverty' and had to learn to pay my own bills from a young age and now reap the rewards of lifelong responsibility and lack of a entitle attitude towards the world. where i come from nothing was given or expected. i never expected to own a home or get a job, i knew i had to earn it.
If only I had overspent all my money partying and traveling in my 20s, and i was sitting here at 40 with six figures of debt. then i'd be a 'real' millennial...
hard work doesn't mean anything unless you budget. i know people who work 80 hour weeks, making 300K and are still massively in debt. because they spend more than they make.
sadly math doesn't care about rich or poor or lucky or unlucky. many people in our generation are entitled nitwits who don't know how math works. and many support the very same policies that are impoverishing them. most of my friends are anti-housing development, despite the fact they can't afford homes. they cause their own suffering.
Hey, nobody said "asshole".