You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t think American elementary school teachers were allowed to be married until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at least in some states.
This can’t be true
It is sadly.
They also couldn’t get a credit card
They also couldn’t guarantee they wouldn’t be fired for being pregnant.
They also couldn’t take legal action against workplace sexual harassment.
They also couldn’t decide to NOT have sex if their husband wanted to.
Last one there was recent enough that some millennials were made via rape made legal because tha perpetrator and victim were married
You also couldn’t get a divorce for incompatible differences, you had to prove your husband was at fault for some kind of marital crime like adultery or physical abuse. He could leave you with a single penny to your name, lock you out of your shared bank account, and go live with his mistress in another state, but if you couldn’t prove he’d put his dick in her, no divorce for you. Which means you can’t re-marry someone who will let you have access to a bank account, and depending on the exact year you couldn’t even travel alone to chase him down.
It is. Fortunately it was around the time grandpa died so grandma was only very screwed instead of extremely screwed.
On the other side great grandpa went crazy in the 30s and great grandma couldn’t open a bank account despite having a kid and her husband being in and out of the nut house. Thankfully she was tough
Almost like “obviously” isn’t a solid argument for anything.
Abusive husbands also used to “go missing” a lot more too.
In a recent thread somebody said their great grandmother killed her abusive husband and took their daughter from Texas up to Alaska to live. Another person said their grandmother just made stabbing motions and said something like, “took care of him.”
My grandmother’s aunt fled to Australia after half her family died of dysentery. It was a very sad story for a very long time in the family and the town. Her husband moved the whole family across the Atlantic Ocean to Canada away from her immediate relatives in England because of a good job and land prospects. But their household was stricken with a bloody flux a few months later and sadly only the women survived, alone in a foreign country with nothing. It was just a sad and dark part of our family history growing up, we were taught to respect our great great aunt because she’d “been through a lot and faced it bravely” with watching her family die. As a teenager I could tell there was more going on by the way the older adults glanced at each other, but never knew what.
I was 30 when mum told me that my great great uncle was an abusive pick who moved his wife overseas to isolate her so he could get away with more, and it wasn’t a coincidence that he and his “apple that never fell off the tree” son both shit themselves to death after eating a family dinner, but his wife was fine.
Yeah though towns used to rule together to beat the shit out of bankers forclosing on widow’s homes, so that’s something we could start doing again.
So you have a source for that? Sounds plausible but also too good to be true.
NYTimes, July 12, 1952
They ultimately got her, but they put up a hell of a fight.
local asshole gets shot by town, no witnesses the sheriff also conveniently left town after telling the group to not confront the guy and just form a neighborhood watch.
I also remember reading an article about communities going to a widow’s home, armed, to tell the bank rep to fuck off. It included a picture of 6 to 8 men with rifles at a homestead with a sign saying not to harass the widow. I can’t find anything right now though.
I mean penny auctions were a well documented thing. Americans used to be metal. Wonder what happened?
Not a banker, but there is the case of the town where most everyone was present for the murder, but nobody saw it happen Link
Imagine being such a piece of shit that absolutely everyone that saw you die and heard you died won’t snitch. That is a feat at this point
I used to work for an insurance company (life, not health), and when business was sluggish my duties included tidying and auditing very, very old policies. 99% of policies from the 1930s-50s were for men, and the few women’s policies all had LETTERS FROM THEIR HUSBANDS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE.
What’s the point of auditing something that old? Wouldn’t it just be digitizing and archiving at that point?
Doublechecking numbers, like @phdepressed said, while also making sure that all the pertinent pages had been legibly scanned before incinerating the originals.
Making sure things have/had been paid appropriately by both sides is still important.
dont worry, were headed back in that direction with project 2025
What do you think “Make America Great Again” means?
It means “Our useful idiot will make us even richer!”
Big fan.
Amazing job making the Christians believe they’re serving God while doing your bidding.
As you know, we don’t live for very long and are really dumb. We’re naturally having a hard time figuring out if Revelation is when you show up or God and if that’s happening sooner or later.
Would you mind shedding some dark on the subject?
Yeah, that “bit” of nuance is that it’s not true.
Some banks forbade women from opening bank accounts in states where the right wasn’t already guaranteed until the 1974 federal passing of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act guaranteed the right to all citizens.
It sucks. But, don’t lie. We don’t manipulate. We teach.
So it was true in some parts of the US …
All the more reason to just be accurate and say “banks were still allowed to deny opening accounts for a woman” rather than say “women couldn’t hold bank accounts until 1974,” which just isn’t true. The truth is still plenty bad, we don’t need to pull a Vance card.
Everyone from lemme.ee converses in bad faith because Bronzebeard makes hasty generalizations, just like the OP.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.
The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.
You’re not making sense anymore. If you explain to me how you’ve made a hasty generalization then I’ll continue to engage. If not that’s also OK.
I don’t think people understood the joke of the hasty generalization you made there…
You underestimate “people”. Better to overestimate them and invest into those that rise to the occasion.
If it happened in some states, then it happened, nothing misleading about saying it happened.
That’s not what was said, though. “Some banks weren’t legally required to let women open bank accounts” is a very different statement than “women couldn’t open bank accounts.”
I disagree entirely, I understood it as “no women were allowed to have a bank account anywhere in America before 1974” and I guarantee I’m not the only one. The very existence of this discussion thread proves your statement wrong.
Correct.
I don’t think that’s the point in dispute, but that’s not what the quoted post is saying.
“Women weren’t allowed to open a bank account in the USA until 1974” implies that, until the year 1974, there were no women in the US who had opened bank accounts.
The more accurate statement would be “The right for women in the US to open bank accounts wasn’t nationally established until 1974,” which aligns with the reality wherein many American women were still able to open bank accounts before then.
You’re wrong about this. Therefore you’re wrong about everything.
I also can make hasty generalizations.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
Are you a bot? You just keep repeating the same statement over and over.
When one logical fallacy doesn’t succeed, the next is almost always ad-hominem.
Once again, thank you for the teaching opportunity.
I took a look at your post history. You’d benefit quite a bit from learning your logical fallacies. If you’re committing them then you’re being deceived by them. Specifically I recommend a Phil 100 logic course. Should be free.
Why are you spending so much time (and yet so little effort cx) to deny that women had fewer rights back then?
Why are you attempting strawman fallacy?
What would you call it when the ability to deny accounts to women was present and practiced?
Grave injustice.
Right, but because it occurred, that means it’s true that women were denied the ability to open accounts. Black people did submit ballots before the voting rights act, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue to say that black people weren’t allowed to vote.
But the statement “women weren’t allowed to get a bank account in the USA until 1974” is false. Women were allowed to. And banks, depending on the area, were allowed to deny them service merely for being women. That was the bad thing that got rectified in 1974.
The “women weren’t allowed” is hyperbole at best, and lying at worst, to try to overemphasize what is already an injustice, and makes it easy for those that would argue with the general point being made by dismissing something that is clearly and demonstrably false. It hurts the argument.
And if the idea you are professing is that if even two women were denied access to bank accounts, then “women were not allowed to have bank accounts” was still true and accurate, then you (and the OP) are being deliberately misleading.
The reality is, it was shitty that it was legal and acceptable in the past to discriminate based on race, gender, or any of the other protected classes of today. It’s bad enough as it was without suggesting “women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts” or “black people weren’t allowed to buy samdwiches” (because it was legal for a restaurant to deny service based on race).
Are you aware of why 1974 is significant?
It’s the year my sister was born.
What’s true for one is true for all! My God, how could I be so stupid? Thank you so much. Without your brilliant insight I might never have reasoned this out for myself.
Why do you feel that they’re incomparable?
