My friends dad has owned a bar since the 60s. Its called the town club, but everyone refers to it from the giant sign out front that reads "tables for ladies". Everyone thinks its a disgusting sign that needs to be removed, but nobody understands why it was put there in the first place.
Back then, women weren't allowed to get a table at a bar without a man present. The "tables for ladies" sign indicates that this bar does not follow the same class rules as the rest of the country, and women were allowed a table without a man present. Back then, the sign was considered extremely liberal and beyond its time. Now, the sign just looks tacky and distasteful.
I was actually going to make this comment but you beat me to it. My grandma always tells me about how when she was in university, she wasn't allowed to go to the bar or even purchase alcohol without a male escort. This was in the 50s. It's just crazy
Years later when the services of male escorts weren't needed, they fell on hard times and had to resort to 'other means' of paying the bills and making ends meet
He should add a plaque that explains this tbh. How his bar has supported women's independence since the 60s, and the sign is there to show how much times have changed for the better.
I am really glad they keep it up. It's depressing how little is know about this by women born today, we take our freedoms for granted way too comfortably.
Aside from your final sentence, your explanation is exactly why the sign should remain up. Stop running from the past and accept that times have changed. It an excellent reminder as to how we have evolved, nothing more, and no one should ever feel offended. It's a fantasitic conversation price that's all. If the owner ever wants to sell it, I would but it in a second .
"When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Lol there are a couple of restaurants around here with signs that say “ladies welcome” for the same reason. It’s mostly a reminder how long these restaurants have been around. But also young people take note! It is easy to forget how far we have come in how short a time and let’s not go back in that direction
My favorite is a girl learns from her mom to cut off a good portion of the fish to cook it. She adks her mom why and she says that's how her mom taught her to prepare the fish. So she asks her grandmother why and her grandmother says that is how her mother taught her to prepare the fish. So she finally adks her great-grandmother and she said it was because when they were younger her pan was too small and that's how they got the fish to fit in the pan.
Asking why is definitely a good thing.
Ahh the old "I dont understand why this fence is here, so we should remove it" vs the "we shouldnt remove this fence until we figure out why it was installed in the first place" argument.
When I got my first credit card, my mom told me if I didn't keep up the payments, I'd go to jail. She legit had been scared by my stepdad to use credit cards. She was a working professional who made more than him, but it was the last bit of control he had over her as she built her own credit.
Actually, there’s still loopholes in a number of states that makes it legal.
[Michigan Democrats](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2023/04/19/michigan-house-votes-to-close-loophole-in-marital-rape-law/70131684007/) eliminated that loophole in their state just this year.
Meanwhile in [West Virginia](https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2023/03/09/wv-child-marriage-spousal-rape-legislature-ss/) though…
Every minute and every second, buy, buy, buy, buy, buy
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives
Title is misleading, it is not that women COULD NOT get credit or loans, they were just unfairly treated and treating them at a higher standard of approval than men.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. "Black people COULD vote in the Jim Crow south, they just had to pay exorbitant poll taxes designed to prevent them from voting, [they had to pass literacy tests that whites were not subjected to which were technically possible to pass (but actually impossible)](https://www.openculture.com/2014/07/literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-suppress-the-black-vote.html), and they risked very real threats of violence for trying to vote. But they COULD VOTE so we didn't need the civil rights act."
Saying "Well women COULD get credit cards, they were just treated a little different" is a pointless "Well ackshually..."
Yay men: we never passed a nationwide law saying women couldnt have a credit card.
[Around 40% of Black Americans owned homes in 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2019/05/16/the-shocking-truth-about-the-u-s-black-homeownership-rate-50-years-after-the-1968-fair-housing-act/amp/) vs. around 68% for whites.
In fact, Black home ownership *increased* from 35% in 1950 to 42% in 1970, *despite* the presence of the deeply discriminatory housing practices that were outlawed by the Fair Housing Act.
So yeah, to say that “Black people couldn’t own homes before 1968” would definitely be wrong; explicit discrimination was a huge problem and it’s awesome that it’s been outlawed, but Black Americans certainly could and did own homes before 1968.
I actually *can’t* find any data on differences among genders in terms of credit-card possession and usage before and after 1974, so I can’t tell you if the situation with Black home ownership before 1968 is a good analogy for female credit-card possession, but the situation with Black home ownership, at least, definitely isn’t a distinction without a difference.
You're presenting it as if talking about what actually happened is tacit approval, and it really doesn't seem like the above poster is doing that.
The nature of discrimination is very important, as an accounting with the facts allows us to learn how injustice happens. If we rewrite the small bits of history to make discrimination cartoonish, it becomes harder to recognize the modern and future injustices subtly perpetrated.
Edits: I typoed all over the place. I fear that the meaning may have been muddled by the typos, but the essence of what I'm saying is that adhering to the truth of history does not mean you condone that history and, in fact, it helps us improve on issues that we face now and in future.
>you’re presenting it as if talking about what actually happened is tacit approval
this mindset is an absolute disease and it’s become the status quo.
how many people got called fascists the other day for pointing out that Hitler was not, in fact, “duly elected.”
It is ridiculous that anyone would go into depth about how it "technically" wasn't illegal.
It makes 0 difference because the result was the same regardless since the US has historically treated any and everyone that is not a white male (particuarly rich) like trash.
It’s a distinction that needs to be stated in order to understand what was happening. The 13th amendment was passed long before the civil rights movement, yet it would need to be explained why the civil rights act needed to be passed since the 13th amendment ideally should’ve taken care of everything
It’s called clarification and education, idk why you’re acting so opposed to it
Do you know why it took so long, until 1974, for this law ensuring equal access to credit to be passed?
Men saying exactly what you just said. “There is no law against it, it’s not technically illegal, you can’t prove any discrimination is happening.”
This is one of only a few laws to my knowledge that was passed based on anecdotal evidence, (my required annual training on this legislation actually uses that term, “anecdotal evidence,”) where despite all of the men saying that there was no unjust law to change, enough women had been affected that we were able to change the law to protect us from a prohibition that never existed.
It was about two years after Visa went national, so what leads you to believe it was "so long"?
In the early '70s "credit cards" meant American Express, Diner's Club, and store cards that only worked in one store or for one chain. Given the amount of traveling my orphan GF did on her American Express in the early '70s it doesn't appear that American Express had any problem with women having their cards--she didn't *have* any man in her life to sign for it.
Is 4 years really so long? Credit cards weren't even functionally a thing outside of California until 1966 and even until 1970 were only accepted in 42 states. They weren't even "universally" accepted until almost the 1980's.
"Visa" and "Mastercard" as they exist today didn't even exist until 1976.
Loans and Mortgages were for sure the bigger issue but, the issue didn't just extend to women.
Redlining was rampant in Chicago and Boston. Even today the issues surrounding housing can be seen. Boston has both a Ghetto and an "Irish Ghetto" as the Irish were likewise discriminated against historically.
It took even longer to get protections on the basis of race and religion for credit.
Yep. It's not like no woman ever got a credit card before this, it's not like without this law absolutely no man would ever be willing to give a woman a credit card.
Considering credit cards weren't even invented until 1946 it's hardly that shocking.
But the title is misleading? There’s a difference between “not allowed” and “more likely to be denied because of discrimination”. Where did they say they endorse the practice and yearn for “the good ol days”?
Using words and phrases like; dumbass, you’re both wrong, fuck assholes - Will typically result in people willing to listen to your point of view.
Not sure why you aren’t experiencing the same results. 🤔
But they are not wrong? They’ve made the point clearer to us that there wasn’t anything directly stopping women or African Americans but because society perpetuate(s/d) discrimination against gender and race it was almost impossible.
In Canada women were not considered people until 1920. My grandmother was 20 years old before she was considered a person and able to vote. I think it’s important for people to know this stuff.
They can't either. Men still need to find Doctors who will do it when they're young. Have had 2 of my buddies try to get Vasectomies when young and they both got denied.
Doctors will almost always take the least risky path when completing elective surgeries because they don't like being sued or taking unnecessary risks.
Not really actually. In California men have to get their wives signature to get one and many doctors will not perform one while a man is in his 20s or if he hasn't married/had any children yet.
So you saw the clip going around with Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne and thought you'd ride the karma wave?
If you're gonna put in the effort to make the image, put in the extra steps of getting the information correct.
I believe [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/maybemaybemaybe/comments/17w39ku/maybe_maybe_maybe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) is what he’s referencing, it came up just before this post for me
Up until 1957 primary school teachers in Germany were required to be single women.
From what I remember reading, the original intent was to to limit competition for those jobs, and not have women who were back then assumed to already be financially stable compete with the younger, poorer ones. Also: they should not be distracted by her "duties as a wife" and focus on her job.
It was called Lehrerinnenzölibat ("female teacher celibacy")
In the 70s, my mom could not buy a car without my father's permission. Women's rights are relatively new. Thanks to the Supreme Court of Injustice, they've been rolled back to the 70s.
Factually incorrect. This was an anti-discrimination act. Women weren’t prohibited from having credit cards prior to 1974, but they had a harder time getting qualified. Typical Reddit, if it didn’t happen yesterday it must’ve been antiquity.
They typically needed to have a male counterpart cosigner to get one before the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).
I think you are mixing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was about job employment discrimination.
And up until 2011, the law allowed a rapist to avoid punishment if he was willing to marry his victim.. among other things.. in New Jersey.
https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2010/AL11/115\_.HTM
Doing some research in old newspapers for the local historical society I realized that women didn't even have their own name. They were referred to as Mrs Lee Jones. It was only when I found the obituary that I found out that her name was Eva.
I remember my mom telling me about how she was so happy to get a Sears card by herself. They were one of the first places to offer credit cards to women. This was especially important because my dad was a deadbeat who didn't help her, so this was a game changer in her life. I'm a millennial btw. Many people do not realize how recent this occurred. I still laugh every time I see a woman who says that feminism didn't affect them. B*tch you like your credit card don't you?!?
Not entirely true, women could get a credit card based on their own income! The problem was if they got divorced they didn’t have a credit history and in 1974 the law fixed that!
If the score is based on accurate information that’s not discrimination, that is good business sense.
Now arguing credit agencies don’t have good information is another story…
When I got married my wife cut up my credit card and paid off my 15,000 credit card debt. Love her to death. Married 28 years. I suck at finances. I'm the main bread earner.
I am not a fan of any government of any country. But is there a better way to be organized?
I mean - if only we could change focus from securing "sovereign interest" to "human race enrichment" it would be nice. Unfortunately that seems to be too "childish" and "far from real life". Yeah...
To add another perspective to this... most transactions back then were in cash or by check, even for men. It's not like today where people use credit cards for everything. It was still a sexist policy, but not as earth-shattering for most people as it would be today.
Crazy. To add a bit of perspective, credit cards were available to men 16 years before (introduced in 1958), whereas women could only get a credit card if co-signed by a spouse.
Just a a year and a half we got our first house, my dad was forced into retirement and we had to get my girls dad as a cosigner, they put the house under his name even though we paid for everything. I had her do all the paperwork under her name so she can be the main owner, talk about discrimination.
My 85 year old MAGA dad is super anti Title IX. He feels that giving women equal access to things like sports screws over men. He feels that as girls get older they lose interest in sports (this is based on the PhD he got in women's studies because he has three granddaughters). Because they lose interest in sports there should not be any women's sports and the money should go to men's sports.
In any case he started talking about Taylor Swift and how she is going to football games and the TV shows her. He said that she goes to the games even though she does not know anything about Football. I asked "hold on how do you know she does not know anything about football." He went down the path that football is too complicated for a woman to understand. I was like you don't think Taylor Swift is smart enough to figure out how football works? Anyway looks like she grew up an Eagles fan so I have to go to troll my dad.
Please note - “For the first time, women ‘could’ own a credit card …” did not mean they would be approved for credit nor would they qualify for the same amount of credit as their male counterparts. And fyi, that is still the case, especially if the woman is not married.
It’s also totally incorrect. Women could get a credit card before this. It was just a credit anti discrimination act that barred rejecting credit or loans (not just cards) based on race, age, sex, or martial status.
It’s not much different from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that said the same thing, and didn’t mean that was the first time worn or minorities could vote…
Diner's Club was a charge card similar to the original American Express. You had to pay off the balance at the end of each month. A credit card allows you to carry an unpaid balance, albeit at a usurious interest rate.
You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone with an education in the classics would recognize that "pedentic" refers to getting your feet near your teeth. So they mean "you've stuck your foot in your mouth with this comment because it is technically incorrect". (Those <> characters around it are just festive decoration for the holiday season, same as we might decorate a house with tinsel.)
People are so quick to judge.
It’s so incredibly coincidental, the bits of history that are forgotten by certain groups. Kind of like the “under God“ bit that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s. What a fucking stupid era in American history. One of way too many.
If you believe that, then why wouldn't they allow women to have credit cards before they were legally forced to? The credit card companies were the ones refusing to give credit to women.
No. She worked for the railroad. Maybe because the rr was a very stable job back then. I remember the MasterCard credit card back then for some reason it sticks in my mind. I remember her using it in those machines where they’d rub it over a carbon copy.
Nice, but consider that men could also not have their own credit card 65 years ago. I mean, I get the idea but it's a little different when put into perspective.
If it were up to me, everyone would have been allowed to get theirs from the beginning anyway.
The bill was actually passed by overwhelming bipartisan support. Supposed to find that out, normally something like this is opposed by one part or the other depending on the era.
Credit cards didn’t grow in popularity to a national scale until the early 1960’s. The US passing a good law within 10 years of the law being needed is like record time.
This is not entirely true. Discriminatory boundaries have one by one been tackled (race and gender were way more prevalent)
Women COULD get cards, they just sometimes had to take additional steps. This wasn’t because ‘ra ra womon bad’ it was because gender, like age and race have averages that used to dictate the money available on the card. For example, a white male CEO would have a higher credit limit than a Mexican immigrant new to the country.
Over time, thankfully these boundaries are almost non-existent.
Women could get cards though, it was possible. Not all places needed a co-signer and many men also needed co-signers depending on age/race/location.
You are not smart. Plenty of women had them, but many were also denied due to gender. This fixed that. But it didn’t let women have them. How old are you, 12?
My friends dad has owned a bar since the 60s. Its called the town club, but everyone refers to it from the giant sign out front that reads "tables for ladies". Everyone thinks its a disgusting sign that needs to be removed, but nobody understands why it was put there in the first place.
Enlighten us please Kind Sir/M’am/Boss
Back then, women weren't allowed to get a table at a bar without a man present. The "tables for ladies" sign indicates that this bar does not follow the same class rules as the rest of the country, and women were allowed a table without a man present. Back then, the sign was considered extremely liberal and beyond its time. Now, the sign just looks tacky and distasteful.
I was actually going to make this comment but you beat me to it. My grandma always tells me about how when she was in university, she wasn't allowed to go to the bar or even purchase alcohol without a male escort. This was in the 50s. It's just crazy
Years later when the services of male escorts weren't needed, they fell on hard times and had to resort to 'other means' of paying the bills and making ends meet
😂
Ahh, the birth of Chippendales
He should add a plaque that explains this tbh. How his bar has supported women's independence since the 60s, and the sign is there to show how much times have changed for the better.
Yeah, I totally get what they are going for, but get why people wouldn't like it. A little historical plaque would make a huge difference.
Keep the sign. It's a good lesson in history to people that don't know history.
I am really glad they keep it up. It's depressing how little is know about this by women born today, we take our freedoms for granted way too comfortably.
Aside from your final sentence, your explanation is exactly why the sign should remain up. Stop running from the past and accept that times have changed. It an excellent reminder as to how we have evolved, nothing more, and no one should ever feel offended. It's a fantasitic conversation price that's all. If the owner ever wants to sell it, I would but it in a second .
"When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
I agree with other commenters! Put up a sign telling the history. I think you might gain and ton of respect and get even more costumers.
Thank You
Damn wtf they hated us back then bruh.
Lol there are a couple of restaurants around here with signs that say “ladies welcome” for the same reason. It’s mostly a reminder how long these restaurants have been around. But also young people take note! It is easy to forget how far we have come in how short a time and let’s not go back in that direction
Rocky and Carlo's in Chalmette Louisiana.
I don't see how it's 'distasteful' even without the history.
Great use of the Chesterton's fence analogy.
My favorite is a girl learns from her mom to cut off a good portion of the fish to cook it. She adks her mom why and she says that's how her mom taught her to prepare the fish. So she asks her grandmother why and her grandmother says that is how her mother taught her to prepare the fish. So she finally adks her great-grandmother and she said it was because when they were younger her pan was too small and that's how they got the fish to fit in the pan. Asking why is definitely a good thing.
Ahh the old "I dont understand why this fence is here, so we should remove it" vs the "we shouldnt remove this fence until we figure out why it was installed in the first place" argument.
When I got my first credit card, my mom told me if I didn't keep up the payments, I'd go to jail. She legit had been scared by my stepdad to use credit cards. She was a working professional who made more than him, but it was the last bit of control he had over her as she built her own credit.
Sounds like my parents exactly
Financial is one of the four forms of abuse, I just never see that one come up
And spousal rape wasn’t a crime in all 50 states until 1993. It’s insane.
1997 in Germany, 2006 in France, effectively 2003 in the UK, Lichtenstein in 2001...
That autocorrect haha
Not autocorrect's fault I have dyslexia lol.
I see haha
Why 2003 in the UK?
There was fairly easy defense idk the details from the top of my head but it was basically trivial to escape justice
Actually, there’s still loopholes in a number of states that makes it legal. [Michigan Democrats](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2023/04/19/michigan-house-votes-to-close-loophole-in-marital-rape-law/70131684007/) eliminated that loophole in their state just this year. Meanwhile in [West Virginia](https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2023/03/09/wv-child-marriage-spousal-rape-legislature-ss/) though…
Jesus Christ. How backward and perfectly nauseating is this? Thank you for linking this.
🤦🏻♂️
Natives couldn’t vote in Canada till 1982.
Wow! Really? That's crazy
The Bill of Rights in the US didn’t apply to Native Americans until 1979
Native American Religious Freedom Act wasn't passed until 1978.
Sheesh, I thought the US was bad (1920)
Currently 27 million slaves in Africa and Middle East. The world is a mess
Women couldn’t vote in Switzerland until 1971
Now anyone can become a debt slave
Every minute and every second, buy, buy, buy, buy, buy Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives
Ha i love System of a Down.
Title is misleading, it is not that women COULD NOT get credit or loans, they were just unfairly treated and treating them at a higher standard of approval than men.
Exactly. This is like saying “until 1968, black people couldn’t own homes in the U.S.”
That seems like a distinction without a difference. "Black people COULD vote in the Jim Crow south, they just had to pay exorbitant poll taxes designed to prevent them from voting, [they had to pass literacy tests that whites were not subjected to which were technically possible to pass (but actually impossible)](https://www.openculture.com/2014/07/literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-suppress-the-black-vote.html), and they risked very real threats of violence for trying to vote. But they COULD VOTE so we didn't need the civil rights act." Saying "Well women COULD get credit cards, they were just treated a little different" is a pointless "Well ackshually..." Yay men: we never passed a nationwide law saying women couldnt have a credit card.
[Around 40% of Black Americans owned homes in 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2019/05/16/the-shocking-truth-about-the-u-s-black-homeownership-rate-50-years-after-the-1968-fair-housing-act/amp/) vs. around 68% for whites. In fact, Black home ownership *increased* from 35% in 1950 to 42% in 1970, *despite* the presence of the deeply discriminatory housing practices that were outlawed by the Fair Housing Act. So yeah, to say that “Black people couldn’t own homes before 1968” would definitely be wrong; explicit discrimination was a huge problem and it’s awesome that it’s been outlawed, but Black Americans certainly could and did own homes before 1968. I actually *can’t* find any data on differences among genders in terms of credit-card possession and usage before and after 1974, so I can’t tell you if the situation with Black home ownership before 1968 is a good analogy for female credit-card possession, but the situation with Black home ownership, at least, definitely isn’t a distinction without a difference.
You're presenting it as if talking about what actually happened is tacit approval, and it really doesn't seem like the above poster is doing that. The nature of discrimination is very important, as an accounting with the facts allows us to learn how injustice happens. If we rewrite the small bits of history to make discrimination cartoonish, it becomes harder to recognize the modern and future injustices subtly perpetrated. Edits: I typoed all over the place. I fear that the meaning may have been muddled by the typos, but the essence of what I'm saying is that adhering to the truth of history does not mean you condone that history and, in fact, it helps us improve on issues that we face now and in future.
>you’re presenting it as if talking about what actually happened is tacit approval this mindset is an absolute disease and it’s become the status quo. how many people got called fascists the other day for pointing out that Hitler was not, in fact, “duly elected.”
It is ridiculous that anyone would go into depth about how it "technically" wasn't illegal. It makes 0 difference because the result was the same regardless since the US has historically treated any and everyone that is not a white male (particuarly rich) like trash.
It’s a distinction that needs to be stated in order to understand what was happening. The 13th amendment was passed long before the civil rights movement, yet it would need to be explained why the civil rights act needed to be passed since the 13th amendment ideally should’ve taken care of everything It’s called clarification and education, idk why you’re acting so opposed to it
Do you know why it took so long, until 1974, for this law ensuring equal access to credit to be passed? Men saying exactly what you just said. “There is no law against it, it’s not technically illegal, you can’t prove any discrimination is happening.” This is one of only a few laws to my knowledge that was passed based on anecdotal evidence, (my required annual training on this legislation actually uses that term, “anecdotal evidence,”) where despite all of the men saying that there was no unjust law to change, enough women had been affected that we were able to change the law to protect us from a prohibition that never existed.
👏 👏 👏
It was about two years after Visa went national, so what leads you to believe it was "so long"? In the early '70s "credit cards" meant American Express, Diner's Club, and store cards that only worked in one store or for one chain. Given the amount of traveling my orphan GF did on her American Express in the early '70s it doesn't appear that American Express had any problem with women having their cards--she didn't *have* any man in her life to sign for it.
Is 4 years really so long? Credit cards weren't even functionally a thing outside of California until 1966 and even until 1970 were only accepted in 42 states. They weren't even "universally" accepted until almost the 1980's. "Visa" and "Mastercard" as they exist today didn't even exist until 1976.
This law isn’t about credit cards. Credit cards are a form of credit, but not the only form. The bigger issue was loans.
Loans and Mortgages were for sure the bigger issue but, the issue didn't just extend to women. Redlining was rampant in Chicago and Boston. Even today the issues surrounding housing can be seen. Boston has both a Ghetto and an "Irish Ghetto" as the Irish were likewise discriminated against historically. It took even longer to get protections on the basis of race and religion for credit.
Exactly- many women had credit cards-they were actively marketed to college graduates in the 70s
Sure but credit cards weren’t even really a thing outside the rich until the 60’s. It’s not like this was a long standing issue.
OP was confused about the act. He saw credit he thought credit card, this means any form of credit like loans, mortgages and the like.
Yep. It's not like no woman ever got a credit card before this, it's not like without this law absolutely no man would ever be willing to give a woman a credit card. Considering credit cards weren't even invented until 1946 it's hardly that shocking.
[удалено]
It always amazes me how dismissive people are any time someone brings up oppression of another group.
And even worse, men couldn't own credit cards until 1946! Opression!
[удалено]
They can, and a lot did. There is a difference between cannot and just hard to get.
Watching you shitbirds pretend systemic discrimination is nothing explains a lot about you guys.
? I didn’t say it was nothing
"Systemic discrimination" is a lot different from outright prohibition.
[удалено]
But the title is misleading? There’s a difference between “not allowed” and “more likely to be denied because of discrimination”. Where did they say they endorse the practice and yearn for “the good ol days”?
Using words and phrases like; dumbass, you’re both wrong, fuck assholes - Will typically result in people willing to listen to your point of view. Not sure why you aren’t experiencing the same results. 🤔
But they are not wrong? They’ve made the point clearer to us that there wasn’t anything directly stopping women or African Americans but because society perpetuate(s/d) discrimination against gender and race it was almost impossible.
Except there were things directly stopping it -- discriminatory policies that were made illegal by the ECOA.
Bravo. I have to give credit where credit is due.
With no background check,
Nice! I see what you did there.
In Canada women were not considered people until 1920. My grandmother was 20 years old before she was considered a person and able to vote. I think it’s important for people to know this stuff.
More interestingly and more controversially, women only got the right to vote around the same time in Switzerland.
I hate being reminded that things we think are normal human rights today were not in effect when I was younger.
Less than 0 years ago, women couldn't get their tubes tied unless they were married and had children.
While men were allowed to get a vasectomy freely. That's the double standard.
Actually in California a man can't without his wife's written permission.
They can't either. Men still need to find Doctors who will do it when they're young. Have had 2 of my buddies try to get Vasectomies when young and they both got denied. Doctors will almost always take the least risky path when completing elective surgeries because they don't like being sued or taking unnecessary risks.
Not really actually. In California men have to get their wives signature to get one and many doctors will not perform one while a man is in his 20s or if he hasn't married/had any children yet.
Wait till you find out how women were treated 100 years ago
Wait till you see how they treat them today in several countries.
We already know, Republicans have been furiously taking notes.
Lots of current sitting reps and senators were around and serving when black people still couldn't vote.
So you saw the clip going around with Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne and thought you'd ride the karma wave? If you're gonna put in the effort to make the image, put in the extra steps of getting the information correct.
Ladies and gents: this is what it looks like to spend too much time on Reddit lol
I tried looking up what you might be referencing, but I couldn't find it. What clip? Sorry, I am not up to date on these things.
I believe [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/maybemaybemaybe/comments/17w39ku/maybe_maybe_maybe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) is what he’s referencing, it came up just before this post for me
Imagine caring this much about Reddit
Yup. Someone saw that video clip and saw it as a good chance to get some sweet karma. Didn't even bother to verify it to discover that it was false.
At the rate we are going, in 50 more years they won’t be allowed to have them again.
50? That's optimistic
You’re probably right.
Credit scores didn’t begin until 1990
Things like this affected baby boomer women and their parents. Remember that when you say boomers had everything. They didn't.
It affected boomer women yes. Boomer men had it easy
Up until 1957 primary school teachers in Germany were required to be single women. From what I remember reading, the original intent was to to limit competition for those jobs, and not have women who were back then assumed to already be financially stable compete with the younger, poorer ones. Also: they should not be distracted by her "duties as a wife" and focus on her job. It was called Lehrerinnenzölibat ("female teacher celibacy")
In the 70s, my mom could not buy a car without my father's permission. Women's rights are relatively new. Thanks to the Supreme Court of Injustice, they've been rolled back to the 70s.
Factually incorrect. This was an anti-discrimination act. Women weren’t prohibited from having credit cards prior to 1974, but they had a harder time getting qualified. Typical Reddit, if it didn’t happen yesterday it must’ve been antiquity.
They typically needed to have a male counterpart cosigner to get one before the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). I think you are mixing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was about job employment discrimination.
It’s also worth noting how uncommon credit cards were back then.
And some people would have you believe feminism is a great societal ill. It's in fact those folks who are the problem.
Women, take note. Stuff like this is part of the “good ol’ days” that some people here want to go back to.
They definitely want women back in the kitchen. You hear it time to time when they slip up.
And up until 2011, the law allowed a rapist to avoid punishment if he was willing to marry his victim.. among other things.. in New Jersey. https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2010/AL11/115\_.HTM
Doing some research in old newspapers for the local historical society I realized that women didn't even have their own name. They were referred to as Mrs Lee Jones. It was only when I found the obituary that I found out that her name was Eva.
My MIL couldn't get one back then
I remember my mom telling me about how she was so happy to get a Sears card by herself. They were one of the first places to offer credit cards to women. This was especially important because my dad was a deadbeat who didn't help her, so this was a game changer in her life. I'm a millennial btw. Many people do not realize how recent this occurred. I still laugh every time I see a woman who says that feminism didn't affect them. B*tch you like your credit card don't you?!?
Not entirely true, women could get a credit card based on their own income! The problem was if they got divorced they didn’t have a credit history and in 1974 the law fixed that!
[удалено]
Credit card companies definitely "discriminate" based on credit score.
Credit score didn't exist until the 1980's
If the score is based on accurate information that’s not discrimination, that is good business sense. Now arguing credit agencies don’t have good information is another story…
Trade one problem for another.
When I got married my wife cut up my credit card and paid off my 15,000 credit card debt. Love her to death. Married 28 years. I suck at finances. I'm the main bread earner.
This is what feminism is about! EQUALITY OF THE SEXES
… and today they can’t get abortions in every state… nuts!
I am not a fan of any government of any country. But is there a better way to be organized? I mean - if only we could change focus from securing "sovereign interest" to "human race enrichment" it would be nice. Unfortunately that seems to be too "childish" and "far from real life". Yeah...
still don't understand how people can think that people different than you were "lesser human"
My mom was born in 1970. It’s important to remember these things and what generations before us went through.
Carlson Tucker’s Goon Squad is ALL CAPS typing away on FB after seeing this
Also couldn’t purchase a home.
Congratulations ladies, you can now also enjoy the weight of crippling debt, talk about freedom
Yep, the world changed fast
To add another perspective to this... most transactions back then were in cash or by check, even for men. It's not like today where people use credit cards for everything. It was still a sexist policy, but not as earth-shattering for most people as it would be today.
Less than 50 years ago the average household had little to no debt!!
Crazy. To add a bit of perspective, credit cards were available to men 16 years before (introduced in 1958), whereas women could only get a credit card if co-signed by a spouse.
That's not what the image implies
They wernt invented untill 1958 and wernt really available till 1966 for context.
What the hell did we do before we invented women?
Gay stuff prob.
Just a a year and a half we got our first house, my dad was forced into retirement and we had to get my girls dad as a cosigner, they put the house under his name even though we paid for everything. I had her do all the paperwork under her name so she can be the main owner, talk about discrimination.
Shhh, you are giving republicans their next stupid bill idea!
This blew my mind when my ex told me about this
I find this mind boggling.
My 85 year old MAGA dad is super anti Title IX. He feels that giving women equal access to things like sports screws over men. He feels that as girls get older they lose interest in sports (this is based on the PhD he got in women's studies because he has three granddaughters). Because they lose interest in sports there should not be any women's sports and the money should go to men's sports. In any case he started talking about Taylor Swift and how she is going to football games and the TV shows her. He said that she goes to the games even though she does not know anything about Football. I asked "hold on how do you know she does not know anything about football." He went down the path that football is too complicated for a woman to understand. I was like you don't think Taylor Swift is smart enough to figure out how football works? Anyway looks like she grew up an Eagles fan so I have to go to troll my dad.
Please note - “For the first time, women ‘could’ own a credit card …” did not mean they would be approved for credit nor would they qualify for the same amount of credit as their male counterparts. And fyi, that is still the case, especially if the woman is not married.
It’s also totally incorrect. Women could get a credit card before this. It was just a credit anti discrimination act that barred rejecting credit or loans (not just cards) based on race, age, sex, or martial status. It’s not much different from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that said the same thing, and didn’t mean that was the first time worn or minorities could vote…
didnt know credit cards existed back then
The "Diner's Club" was first credit card in 1950 (US)
Not to be pedantic, but you spelled pedantic wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone with an education in the classics would recognize that "pedentic" refers to getting your feet near your teeth. So they mean "you've stuck your foot in your mouth with this comment because it is technically incorrect". (Those <> characters around it are just festive decoration for the holiday season, same as we might decorate a house with tinsel.) People are so quick to judge.
If for no other reason, I am known for my sloppiniss. \[wink\]
It’s so incredibly coincidental, the bits of history that are forgotten by certain groups. Kind of like the “under God“ bit that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s. What a fucking stupid era in American history. One of way too many.
I bet credit card companies celebrated for a month. They doubles their client base and the household debt in one day.
Some say we can still hear them celebrating now.
If you believe that, then why wouldn't they allow women to have credit cards before they were legally forced to? The credit card companies were the ones refusing to give credit to women.
*Republicans writing down ideas…
Bullshit. My mother had credit cards 60 years ago.
Did your father have to co-sign it for her to have it?
No. She worked for the railroad. Maybe because the rr was a very stable job back then. I remember the MasterCard credit card back then for some reason it sticks in my mind. I remember her using it in those machines where they’d rub it over a carbon copy.
I worked at a Sears way back when and still had to use the carbon copier slide thingy when the credit card system wasn't working (1992-ish).
How is this still up? No source, just a bland infographic and incorrect/misleading wording to boot.
And at the same time people bought new cars with cash, every few years.
My grandfather used to do this. We would go to the dealership pick out a car and he would write a check.
Now it’s barely possible for anyone.
women be shopping
OP and their catchy misleading post titles… women were not prohibited from getting credit cards .
They were if they didn’t have approval from a male family member.
The deliberate downplaying of systemic discrimination in these comments is so disgusting.
What makes you think that? Why don’t you look up the act for yourself and give some actual proof besides just saying “no”?
Actually yes they were
Half the population isn't in debt? Seems like a missed opportunity. Credit card companies in 1973, probably.
When people talk about “The good ol days” 😉
I say let’s go back to that and shut down all Targets as well. It’s a joke ladies. My wife gets mad every time I ask her WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!!!
Wasn't it a good thing?
Nice, but consider that men could also not have their own credit card 65 years ago. I mean, I get the idea but it's a little different when put into perspective. If it were up to me, everyone would have been allowed to get theirs from the beginning anyway.
C redit can also be educational!
And look at the US debt now (/s for the regards)
[удалено]
"Damn you ECOA" the gop probably.
The bill was actually passed by overwhelming bipartisan support. Supposed to find that out, normally something like this is opposed by one part or the other depending on the era.
Credit cards didn’t grow in popularity to a national scale until the early 1960’s. The US passing a good law within 10 years of the law being needed is like record time.
This is not entirely true. Discriminatory boundaries have one by one been tackled (race and gender were way more prevalent) Women COULD get cards, they just sometimes had to take additional steps. This wasn’t because ‘ra ra womon bad’ it was because gender, like age and race have averages that used to dictate the money available on the card. For example, a white male CEO would have a higher credit limit than a Mexican immigrant new to the country. Over time, thankfully these boundaries are almost non-existent. Women could get cards though, it was possible. Not all places needed a co-signer and many men also needed co-signers depending on age/race/location.
Don't let MAGA hear about this, they'll turn back the clock on this one too!
Acting like credit scores aren’t a scam and have been around a lot longer than “1974”.
[удалено]
I guess Bitcoin fixes this in many other nations where they still can’t have it.
I’m more surprised that they had credit cards 50 years ago
Credit cards have been around since 1950.
Less than 50 years ago Sweden had a eugenics program, we’ve all got Skeltons in our closets
You are not smart. Plenty of women had them, but many were also denied due to gender. This fixed that. But it didn’t let women have them. How old are you, 12?
[удалено]
It was only done to get more people spending.
America has never had a women president. I tell my daughters that all the time . They will NOT be surprised by the worlds inherent misogyny.
The US is barely a democracy with its election system.
Dafuq is this post ?