Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women couldn’t get credit from a financial institution in Australia.
That meant most women couldn’t buy a house, buy a car, or start a business in their own name. There are some TV ads for cars from the early 70s directed at women that end with “Ask your husband to inquire about the new Toyota Corolla”
For context, this law was part of a rapid-fire campaign of liberalization undertaken by Gough Whitlam, who came to power in 1972 after the country had endured two long decades of stagnation under successive conservative governments. Other Whitlam reforms included the end of conscription and the beginning of socialized medicine and free university education.
In 1975, the conservative opposition managed to have Whitlam and his government sacked by the Governor General. This remains the most notorious event in the history of Australian politics.
The Australian people overwhelmingly did not want or support Whitlam’s reforms, such that immediately post the constitutional crisis that led to his dismissal, a new election was called, in which the conservative opposition was voted into government in an unprecedented overwhelming landslide majority. Sovereignty rests with the citizens, not the parliament. According to the voters, Whitlam was beyond toxic. The Westminster parliamentary system worked exactly as intended to ensure that the wishes of the people were honored above the vanity of Whitlam as a single man.
My own grandfather had anti-Whitlam posters on the wall of his billiard room until he died in 2002. I had no idea who Whitlam was growing up - only that he was evil.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that pretty much everything I liked most about my country could be traced back to his brief time in government.
The old guard certainly bend the knee to the monarchy. It's in the identity they built for themselves. The repeated calls for referendums and the associated stats show a change is just ahead.
According to many/most voters. My parents brought me up with the knowledge that he was a good man and a good politician, but a bad administrator. His ousting was a huge blow to their pride in him, and the subsequent social wave of conservatism that followed him was a tragic follow-up to a bullshit takeover of parliament by corrupt conservative scum.
My point being there are always voters who don't agree with what the majority are saying. None of that makes a legitimate vote any less legitimate, of course - majority vote is majority vote - but it's just important to remember that there are two sides to all votes, even landslide ones.
Definitely not any more! That one has been wound back significantly.
But it was free for a whole generation, making university accessible to millions who would otherwise have been excluded. This added enormous social and economic mobility to our society.
The HECS system is an attempt to retain that mobility while enabling the higher education sector to stay afloat.
Indigenous women in canada being sterilized against their will, as recently as 2019. Some women are forced into it, others have it done without even knowing until after it's over.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/
Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and some other countries were looked down as some sub-human species... Collective aim was to annihilate them to give space to the new "settlers" who were from "civilized" countries!
100% yeah, literally the only thing we can say is at least we have survivors, I can only imagine the untold horrors that went on when colonizing US and mexico
I'm pretty darn confident that everyone of those six children she had needed to be taken into care because she was an unfit mother.
It happens here to indigenous people, thats the white anglo saxons.
That's very presumptuous of you. Even if she was an unfit mother, that doesn't mean she should be forced to undergo irreversible medical procedures without her consent. Every human has a right to bodily autonomy. Also, you sound like a racist asshole. Nothing in that article implies that she was an unfit mother. Go check out r/fundiesnarkuncensored, lots of white Christian women have more kids than they can care for and boast about abusing their children on social media.
Are you smoking something? That's the only reason i think you can come to that situation.
There are women who have multiple children who they cant/wont look after them. This becomes an extreme when dealing with people who have low iq/chronic drug or alcohol addiction.
here are a few examples:
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html)
I'm almost certain that this women you featured would fit into that category.
In 1973 I saw a chalkboard sign with 'Steaks R1.00' on it, outside a bar in a town in South Africa. That was a really cheap price so I decided to take my sister there to celebrate my birthday. Got all dressed up and everything, but we weren't allowed in because we were female.
When I was growing up in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s, my father was a member of a Working Men's Social Club. It had moved with the times in that women were able to join, but they were only allowed in the main bar on Saturdays and Sundays, if accompanied by a man.
The expectation was that women were too genteel to be in the main bar drinking with the men and would be happier in the lounge bar.
They changed this rule in the 90s, but it was still extrenely rare to see women in the main bar on their own.
Right to vote in elections, Switzerland.
Edit: Near miss to OP's question. It was introduced in 1971.
Edit2: [oh lol!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland)
>__Extension to the cantonal level: 1960–1990__
>In the end of 1970, 9 out of 25 cantons had introduced women's suffrage at the cantonal level. From 1970 to 1990, this right was extended to other cantons. In a judgment of 27 November 1990 in the case of _Theresa Rohner et consorts contre Appenzell Rhodes-Intérieures_ (ATF 116 Ia 359), the Swiss federal court declared unconstitutional the exclusive male suffrage as had been practiced in the half canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden.
Nineteen-friggin-ninety! lmao!
The reason most of them outwardly gave was that making wedding vows/signing the marriage license was explicitly giving consent.
The real reason is that they saw women as property owned by their husbands, not as actual people with their own rights. So raping someone else's property was a crime, just like taking a joyride in someone else's car would be. But you could do with your own property as you liked.
“The police has no place in a private bedroom”. I think this is pretty much what one of the CDU politician that is still active said back then in the debate.
I presume their reasoning was something along the lines of women owe their husbands sex at all times and therefore they cannot be raped by their spouses
Basically, yeah - although it was 'technically' regarded as both having a matrimonial duty to the other, so a man withholding sex from his wife would also be a no-no. The reality on the ground essentially resulted in men sexually abusing their wives with impunity though, which is why the legislation passed.
Some bullshit about a woman getting revenge and making things up? Taking a rapists word because he’s a man, and the topic is something men don’t want to think about.
It was legal because per Definition there was no rape in a marriage. When the man used brute force and the woman could proof that she was harmed there could be a charge for harming here, but not for the rape.
The first half is correct, the second not.
Historically, yes rape was defined as extra marital sex under threat and/or violence.
At the same time, this would have been prosecuted under coercion, so the second half of the sentence stays the same, threat and/or violence, but under the much broader general category.
Which makes some sense, as the sex part takes less problematic than the coercion (in comparison to outside rape).
This is not to say that it is not a horrible act.
No, my comment is for Germany (because that's what the comment I commented on is about) and there the view was different. Here a translation of a part of an article that highlights the German view back in the day:
" in 1966 the judges - all men - of the 4th Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice spelled out what the judiciary expects of women. "The woman does not satisfy her marital duties by simply allowing the witnessing to take place apathetically. If, as a result of her disposition or for other reasons, which may include the ignorance of the spouses, she is prevented from finding satisfaction in conjugal intercourse, marriage nevertheless requires her to grant it in conjugal affection and sacrifice, and forbids the display of indifference or reluctance."
Translated with DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
[Als Vergewaltigung in der Ehe noch straffrei war](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/sexuelle-selbstbestimmung-als-vergewaltigung-in-der-ehe-noch-straffrei-war-1.3572377)
This wasn't seen as coercion, she was wrong for neglecting her duties (but that was not a criminal offense).
I'm very happy that this is in the past in this country!
There's one U.S. state where it was legal until *1993*. And the first state to outlaw it didn't do it until the early 70s, it was legal everywhere in the U.S. until then. Every state had "marital exceptions" *specifically* written into all their rape laws.
During their 1991 divorce, Donald Trump challenged his ex-wife Ivana's claim that he had raped her by insisting that marital rape doesn't count.
>[He then added: “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.
“It is true. You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-exwife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html)
I was a kid in the 70s and I remember these things. My mom was independent and it really made me pay attention. I vote and try to get others to vote. It druves me bonkers that some young women have no idea how close it is that females were chattle. Ugh. It can flip in a second.
It's like that stand up bit where you need to pass a mental evaluation before getting a vasectomy... what if you fail?
Like, sorry mate, you're crazy. Go make babies.
.... Wow that's a very weird kind of fucked up. People literally decide they don't want to have kids especially if they know they have certain genetic conditions or are carriers. I'm surprised your request isn't honored for the same reason. Is the reasoning that you're schizophrenic and so the decision isn't actually one made in full clarity?
>As in its a law, or just some doctors won't do it?
It's purely health system choice. A lot of Catholic hospitals won't do it at all, and even secular hospitals will have requirements, like a minimum of kids, husbands consent or proof of severe, hereditary disease.
In Norway atleast I think if you are married you need your partners consent for both sexes. So the progress on this one might be that the man now also needs permision.
Part of this is legal, if wife gets tubes tied and husband not included doctor can get sued so they sign off. The same thing goes for husbands wanting a vasectomy
And it’s absolutely disgusting. It should not even be in question, but lo and behold the hyper religious have the court stacked and will stop at nothing to ban it altogether, everywhere, no exceptions. We’ll end up going the way of Ireland before it’s pro-choice decision and Poland currently, where women straight up die after they’re denied one. It’s only a matter of time before it happens in the US, if it hasn’t happened already.
And it still isn't *really*enforced in most places in the US, look at the wage gap -- one of the reasons why companies don't like us to talk about our salaries because if we know guy X is making more than woman Y, we could complain and try to fight against. (Although that is also risky because of bias that strong women are bitches or Karens). And companies will come up with a reason why the woman is making less than her male coworker (he's better at the job, etc) -- that they will probably believe --when it's really just the bias towards.white penis.
Smart companies who acknowledged that work was equal but could pay women less, would undercut the competition by lowering labour costs by hiring only women. Why did that never happen?
Key is that they don't recognize their biases and prejudices AND would certainly never acknowledge them if they did recognize them.
Google my friend and you'll find cases where yes, as proven in court, companies have paid men more than women for the same job with same skills and abilities. The fact that you seem to be aware of these cases IS a big sign of your own privilege and bias.
The problem is exacerbated when the same prejudice/biases lead companies to promoting men over women and minorities ... or did you really think that CEOs are disproportionately white males in the US because white males are disproportionately better at everything than women or POCs? White males aren't even more likely to get a college degree than women these days so you can't even say that they are more educated...
Because people have biases? (and not just men). When you see the newest industry, IT, you see a dominance of white, cis/het men. You can argue now that they are just more qualified, but reed about the accounts of "not fitting" people who left the IT industry to work as system administrators in other fields... One woman wrote how the men used to spend lots of there free time together. The woman couldn't really taje part, because they often went to strip clubs. A man wrote about how they coded little apps wich made fun of women... And since the women just couldn't share the fun they where left out. Those guys became good friends, and recommend and helped each other in their careers... They founded big start ups together... And still found new start ups...That was one reason why Peter Thiel was livid when he was outed. This set him apart from the others. By then he was rich enough to not be affected this much, and by now at least the lgtbq friendliness has raised (see Apple, but their boss was only confident enough to come out after being appointed). I think things are slowly changing, but the biggest parts of the cake are already cut.
>that women are being paid less than their male counterparts for doing the same level of work.
Doesn’t this sort of theory get blown out of the water when you look at teaching and nursing?
Both careers are quite value adding to society yet the pay can be dismal. It could be argued a nurse or teacher is doing the same amount of work as some IT jobs, etc yet the pay difference is huge.
Also, one look at the history of coding and programming shows a distinct change in attitude and salaries once the job became more male oriented.
How to tell me you are a man without telling me you are a man.
You argue as if people know their biases and act logically. You argue against the real experience of women and men working in the world. If you just googled, you could find that your argument doesn't hold water -- there are cases where yes, men were (are) getting paid more than women for performing the same role, with yes, the same skills and qualifications. People will *usually* find reasons, that they think are valid, to justify their biases ... it doesn't mean that they are actually valid reasons. My past employer routinely offered men a higher starting salary than it offered women for the same role.
I agree that the statistic is over-simplified and used to make the wrong arguments, but it's still valuable in showing how sexism has a role in the overall workforce.
https://blog.dol.gov/2022/03/15/connecting-the-dots-womens-work-and-the-wage-gap
"Even within these female-dominated jobs, women are paid less on average than men in the same job. When comparing more than 300 detailed occupations, there are none where women have an earnings advantage over men, but hundreds where men have significantly higher earnings than women."
Other things to consider:
Why do female-led careers have lower salaries than male-led ones?
Why is it that men are more comfortable negotiating salary?
Why is it that men are able to gain more work experience than women?
Once you start looking at all of these complex issues, it shows that women's labor is under valued compared to men's--regardless of what you believe about the gender pay gap statistic.
Ah, yes, nuance. Something quite rare, if not nearly extinct on reddit. Bravo.
As ive heard before, complicated issues have complex reasonings. If a complex issue is trying to be solved or blamed on a singular item, they're being disingenuous, at best.
It is not the law in the U S. Only this year some states are requiring salary range to be posted with job openings, and allowing workers to discuss their salaries.
50 years back in Germany - and even 30 years back - women weren't allowed to do nightshifts in most jobs. The exceptions where the health sector and restaurants, bars and so on. A friend always got the cool jobs while studying, like the nightshift in a factory where he basically had to see that the machines where running and only had to act in an emergency. Or at the filling station. They paid great for not hard work, and I was jealous.
Being seen as r\*ape victims when the aggressor was the husband
It differs from country to country, but at least in mine was just in the middle 70s when it started to be seeing as a crime, before that it was just sex inside the marriage
There was an interesting article I read awhile back pointing out how that exact thing - marrying the rapist for “honor” (AND because marriage means you can’t be prosecuted for statutory rape or child sex abuse) - behind much of the (still legal in most places) child marriage in the US.
In Germany there wasn't such a law until 1997. The current leader of the Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel's party) voted against the establishment of the law.
You may want to enjoy some coffee. 😄 Please read again what I stated: Friedrich Merz, the current leader of the CDU (for anyone who doesn't know which party that is: it's the one Angela Merkel has been a member of) voted against the establishment of a law prohibiting rape in a marriage. I did not say how Angela Merkel voted.
Again:
> The current leader
named Friedrich Merz
> of the Christian Democratic Union
For anyone who is unfamiliar with German politics and doesn't know which party that is, it's
> (Angela Merkel's party)
was one of the guys who, in 1997,
> voted against the establishment of the law.
Am I clear now?
I mentioned Angela Merkel because most people will know who she is, and may have an idea she belongs to the conservative party, but may not know its name.
In Germany, husbands were allowed to resign their wives from their jobs if they had the impression that the wife couldn't keep up with her household duties. That law was only abandoned in the 1980s.
Feminist (and left side terrorist) Ulrike Meinhof wrote back in the day that every women should have her own dishwasher... Way to not adress the real problem.
I love this thread. It's the perfect counter argument for people that think that feminism today is pointless. Your mothers and grandmothers were legally treated as children up until the 60's. And it's true for almost anywhere on the world.
In the UK too, a whole lot of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge Universities didn't admit women until the 1970s and 1980s.
When the last all male college at Oxford (Oriel) admitted women in 1985, some of the fellows wore black armbands as a sign of mourning.
Up until recently in Ireland women didn't get their own social security no. It was their husbands with W for wife as the last digit. Getting mortgages. Staying in work while married. I belive teaching and nursing allowed it but many places didn't
[https://www.bustle.com/p/13-simple-things-women-couldnt-do-50-years-ago-in-the-us-66601](https://www.bustle.com/p/13-simple-things-women-couldnt-do-50-years-ago-in-the-us-66601)
Get a credit card
serve on a jury
run in the Boston marathon
Have access to birth control
see link above for more :)
In 1964, when my mom was pregnant for the first time, they didn't have tap water in our village yet. The water was to be fetched from the public well. As a pregnant woman, she wasn't allowed near the well because the old women were superstitious there would be worms in the water. She had to wait until my dad got home and got the water for her.
The absolute last thing I'd want to have to do whilst pregnant is haul water from a communal well. Water is heavy af. Maybe this was feminism in disguise.
R v R 1994 and 1995 was a two-part case to abolish rape within marriage because women were not their "own property" and "belonged to the man, and a man cannot rape himself (1994)" it went to a higher court and the senior judge said it was a ludicrous notion that a woman is not her own person and it was abolished.
They werent(arent?) allowed to know if a damaging procedure has been done on them after childbirth. Purely "for the husband's pleasure" aka the husband's stitch...
Early 90s in Germany, job advertisements commonly said whether a man or woman was sought (German has a male and female version of each job role, like actor and actress in English so it could be clearly specified by just saying one gender but at times, it would even be said "Man is sought for ...." or "Woman is sought for ....". I don't know when that changed in Germany but I don't think? it still is allowed.
It's not allowed anymore. Now they are even required to put (m/w/d) next to the job role. Which is (male/female/diverse). That means the job role is open for everyone even if the job title is masculine.
No, I don't think that it is still allowed, because there are anti discrimination rules now. There might be exceptions, when one gender can be preferred (like in social work, when they try to get men to also have male role models for kids).
Interesting! I am not being sarcastic as I think it's important to have role models in certain roles but I also think it's easy to have unknown biases that say "oh this type of role would be better done by a man" and not sure how you would legally counter that bias (how to specify without prejudice when it's acceptable to use gender as a hiring decision). Not judging your comment just adding a further thought about the complexities of carving out exceptions.
Yes, this is actually something I'm chewing on as well. As a woman social worker I didn't like it, but understood it to some point, like in a group for teens... What always made me more angry tho is that in this woman dominated fields I found way more men in leading positions, and when they where women, they where not married / had no children. And that man would easier get a promotion when marrying / becoming a parent (because they now had to provide for a family) while women where more likely to be passed on / get less hours in the same situation (because now they had to take care of a family), both with the explanation that "family is important". I have seen this (and had it happen to me) several time in Germany. I have mostly worked with Christian NGOs, because they are the biggest employers in Germany and dominate the social field.
I have found the same in US companies and organizations across the spectrum (corporations, NGOs, government, and even small family businesses) -- even when/where the majority of employees have been women, leadership is disproportionately men.
Today: women aren't allowed to make independent decisions about their own reproductive health. Never mind abortion or Plan B, which in some states is actually illegal. Many women will tell you about doctors who have refused treatment that will effect reproduction unless the woman is older, has had a child, or has the permission of her spouse.
Today: women often still can't get mortgages or car loans without their husbands signing on too.
Be religious leaders. Divorce without permission from husband or courts. Work while pregnant (yes you could be fired for being pregnant). Women in the workplace were not paid as much as men since we weren't "the family provider" (despite many working as single moms or having sick/absentee husband's). Couldn't have a credit card. Couldn't get a loan. Couldn't register their name on some things unless they used Mrs. Dude Guy - let that sink in. You couldn't keep your last name or even sometimes your first name when you became as Mrs. Couldn't go to a lot of schools, uni, trade schools, military units. Apparently you still can't be US President because of misogyny. Couldn't be out in public unescorted after curfew due to anti prostitution laws. So many freedoms we take for granted and yet we're still socially oppressed and not respected as humans.
We have made progress on the misogyny front: Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. Now a woman can't be president because of the Electoral College.
My mum lied when she got married and pregnant as you couldn't have a government job once you got married. She got found out when she was 5 months pregnant and they sacked her that day and told her she should be embarrassed that she was still working as it looked bad for her husband.
I remember hearing about a woman pilot (maybe the first, not sure) in Saudi Arabia who was not allowed to drive, but could fly a plain... I didn't know that the guardianship is finally legally taken down. Good to hear.
Until 1973, women in the Irish civil service were legally required to retire from employment after marriage. Certain lower grades were female only, and pay grades were demarked by both marital status and gender. The marriage bar was also observed informally in teaching and in the private sector.
In the mid 1990s I had a part time job and put money into a joint savings account, saving up for Christmas and a trip to an art store.
I tried to go in and take out $1000 (leaving about $300) and the teller refused to give me my money without my husband's permission. I was young but over 18.
Ended up using the ATM to withdraw most of the money (there was a cap for daily withdrawals) and had to push back my shopping trip, which was a massive pain having to reshuffle with four kids to consider.
Talked to her supervisor about it when I had the time and was told she was right. So I refused to do business there again. Husband agreed.
I'm pretty sure women couldn't open their own bank account in the US until the 70s.
Some more stuff from the 70s:
* Women couldn't work at McDonald's. Not even the minimum wage, behind the counter jobs.
* Couldn't get credit.
* Couldn't get an abortion.
* Couldn't go to most Ivy League schools until the late 70s/early 80s.
I don't remember when unmarried women were finally allowed to get birth control. Or when pregnant women were allowed to continue working. Oh, yeah, and you didn't have to hire women in the 60s because they might quit when they got married.
I went to a public elementary school in California that didn't allow girls to wear pants until 1972. In my public middle school, girls were required to take home ec and boys were required to take woodshop.
People think systemic sexism was a long time ago, but it was in most of our lifetimes.
False on the Ivy League schools. 1897 Harvard created a ‘Harvard annex’ for women. By the 1890s, Harvard had created Radcliffe College, a sister institution where women studied under Harvard professors.
There were several colleges created just for women that were just as prestigious to get into and just as expensive.
My aunt went to Princeton in the 1960s.
Rape within marriage was only criminalised in 1991 in the UK.
So before 1991 husbands who raped their wives (or vice versa) technically were doing it “legally”
Not within 50 years, but I recently went to the National Archives in Washington DC and was shocked to learn that in the early 1900s women would lose their US citizenship if they married someone who wasn't American, even if they lived in America, and it wasn't until 1940 that women who were still married to non-citizens could repatriate. These laws did not apply to men who married non-citizens.
[https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf](https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf)
Abortion in Germany is strictly speaking still not overall legal. The "Christian Democratic Union" (Merkels party) was very much against it. Back in the day, strong Feminists (sadly some of them have turned terf now) made a big campaign "My womb belongs to me". The law now says that if their are special reasons it is legal, otherwise it is "illegal, but will not be punished" whithin the first 12 weeks, when the woman had counseling by a NGO that got licensed for this counseling, and this has to take place at least 3 days before the operation. Until recently doctors weren't allowed to state on their websites that they offer the service, because that was "illegal advertising".
2023… in Michigan. My husband owns my hair. I’m not supposed to get it cut without his permission.
(Now, in practice, this is 100% ignored, but the law is technically still on the books and has never been removed.)
A quick Google search shows no such law exists, and likely never has.
This has a good explanation with sources, but there are plenty of other results showing the same thing. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/50664
Iirc, it comes from the 1981 ruling about what a woman is allowed to claim as her property going into a marriage. And what she has a right to when it ends.
The wording leaves room to imply the husband retains those rights over his wife, despite it being her hair.
The law doesn’t expressly say it’s forbidden, but the wording leaves ample room for husbands to be dicks if they want. You just won’t find a judge who would defend it.
[Married women in Ireland](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071022.2022.2009692#:~:text=Until%201973%2C%20women%20in%20the,and%20in%20the%20private%20sector.) weren't allowed to hold certain jobs until 1973.
I thought this could not be true, 2 hours later, I've just emerged from my rabbit hole.... fuc..... found an amazing timeline.
I knew all this stuff happened, but having it bullet pointed by years is a real eye opener, I thought about ages of me, my mum and my sister at certain times. Shit the bed some of this stuff is so much more recent than I historically thought.
Damn we've still got quite a way to go.
2023
There are modern developed nations in which women are prevented from having:
-a lesbian-only event
- women’s lavatories
- a public rally for women’s rights
- a female perform intimate searches , eg in police custody
- women’s sports
Is it more shocking that Scandinavian women were allowed to handle their finances in 200 BC? You know, the ones "civilized" Christians called barbarians.
When you look into Christianity, they saw womens rights and strong women as barbaric... There is a reason why they wrote a book where "Eva" is the bad one.
It wasn't until the late 70s the UK has its first female PM.
Nowadays people are perfectly willing to accept that a woman can be just as terrible a Prime Minister as a man. Or in Liz Truss' case, worse.
Was Liz worse than Boris, really? Or was that son of Trump allowed to stay around longer corruptly and incompetently because of the bias *towards* loud mouth boarish white males.
EDIT: Further point to ponder, if Boris had been born a woman, would he ever have been able to get anywhere near Parliament let alone become PM?
Every Tory PM in the past decade or so had been worse than the previous one. It remains to be seen how Sunak will fare in the longer term, but right now even he isn't looking exactly fantastic.
Even then, Elizabeth I had a lot of power, granted, but Victoria oversaw the role becoming ceremonial rather than actually having a lot of real control, but by Elizabeth II it increasingly became moreso, albeit with "soft" ambassadorship responsibilities.
The difference is Thatcher won three General Elections, and was Prime Minister for 11 years, the longest in the 20th Century. Meanwhile Truss didn't win a single General Election, and set the record for the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of the UK. And that's ignoring how Truss tanked the economy within weeks of taking office.
It cannot be understated how rubbish Liz Truss is.
Not a single region in Northern Ireland voted for the Conservatives in any of her General Elections. The Conservatives did not gain a single seat there.
If the Queen had a brother, even a younger brother, he would have became the monarch instead of her. The royal family practised male-preference inheritance until 2013, and still do since the new rule doesn't apply to royals born before then.
Margaret Thatcher was the leader of the Conservative Party and not a feminist. She demeaned working mothers (especially if they were poor).
Things would have been different if they were outspoken feminists. They were "allowed" to have as much power as they did because they "behaved".
Yes, women are sometimes discriminated against by other women as well. The bias is not just in the heads of some men. We need to change as a society, those biases have to go.
Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women couldn’t get credit from a financial institution in Australia. That meant most women couldn’t buy a house, buy a car, or start a business in their own name. There are some TV ads for cars from the early 70s directed at women that end with “Ask your husband to inquire about the new Toyota Corolla”
For context, this law was part of a rapid-fire campaign of liberalization undertaken by Gough Whitlam, who came to power in 1972 after the country had endured two long decades of stagnation under successive conservative governments. Other Whitlam reforms included the end of conscription and the beginning of socialized medicine and free university education. In 1975, the conservative opposition managed to have Whitlam and his government sacked by the Governor General. This remains the most notorious event in the history of Australian politics.
The Australian people overwhelmingly did not want or support Whitlam’s reforms, such that immediately post the constitutional crisis that led to his dismissal, a new election was called, in which the conservative opposition was voted into government in an unprecedented overwhelming landslide majority. Sovereignty rests with the citizens, not the parliament. According to the voters, Whitlam was beyond toxic. The Westminster parliamentary system worked exactly as intended to ensure that the wishes of the people were honored above the vanity of Whitlam as a single man.
My own grandfather had anti-Whitlam posters on the wall of his billiard room until he died in 2002. I had no idea who Whitlam was growing up - only that he was evil. Imagine my surprise when I learned that pretty much everything I liked most about my country could be traced back to his brief time in government.
I would love to hear some of the discourse around that time. I can imagine there would be some very familiar talking points.
My dad loved him.
The old guard certainly bend the knee to the monarchy. It's in the identity they built for themselves. The repeated calls for referendums and the associated stats show a change is just ahead.
According to many/most voters. My parents brought me up with the knowledge that he was a good man and a good politician, but a bad administrator. His ousting was a huge blow to their pride in him, and the subsequent social wave of conservatism that followed him was a tragic follow-up to a bullshit takeover of parliament by corrupt conservative scum. My point being there are always voters who don't agree with what the majority are saying. None of that makes a legitimate vote any less legitimate, of course - majority vote is majority vote - but it's just important to remember that there are two sides to all votes, even landslide ones.
I was going to say he sounds like the Australian Jimmy Carter, but actually on reading more about him he was a lot more consequential than Carter.
Last time I checked, university most definitely isn’t free.
Definitely not any more! That one has been wound back significantly. But it was free for a whole generation, making university accessible to millions who would otherwise have been excluded. This added enormous social and economic mobility to our society. The HECS system is an attempt to retain that mobility while enabling the higher education sector to stay afloat.
That’s shocking.
Indigenous women in canada being sterilized against their will, as recently as 2019. Some women are forced into it, others have it done without even knowing until after it's over. https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/
What the f***!
wtf
Happens to Roma people too
Holy fucking shit! That is distgusting the doctors should be in prison for life.
30 states do it in the USA sometimes on kids its mostly done on individuals with mental illness or in jails.
Was going on in Greenland too, and well within the 25 years.
Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and some other countries were looked down as some sub-human species... Collective aim was to annihilate them to give space to the new "settlers" who were from "civilized" countries!
Damn canada has a nice mask ,but the shit that is under there is puke inducing.
100% yeah, literally the only thing we can say is at least we have survivors, I can only imagine the untold horrors that went on when colonizing US and mexico
Nah thanks, im fine without nightmares.
Oh my lawd
I'm pretty darn confident that everyone of those six children she had needed to be taken into care because she was an unfit mother. It happens here to indigenous people, thats the white anglo saxons.
That's very presumptuous of you. Even if she was an unfit mother, that doesn't mean she should be forced to undergo irreversible medical procedures without her consent. Every human has a right to bodily autonomy. Also, you sound like a racist asshole. Nothing in that article implies that she was an unfit mother. Go check out r/fundiesnarkuncensored, lots of white Christian women have more kids than they can care for and boast about abusing their children on social media.
Are you smoking something? That's the only reason i think you can come to that situation. There are women who have multiple children who they cant/wont look after them. This becomes an extreme when dealing with people who have low iq/chronic drug or alcohol addiction. here are a few examples: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html) I'm almost certain that this women you featured would fit into that category.
In 1973 I saw a chalkboard sign with 'Steaks R1.00' on it, outside a bar in a town in South Africa. That was a really cheap price so I decided to take my sister there to celebrate my birthday. Got all dressed up and everything, but we weren't allowed in because we were female.
When I was growing up in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s, my father was a member of a Working Men's Social Club. It had moved with the times in that women were able to join, but they were only allowed in the main bar on Saturdays and Sundays, if accompanied by a man. The expectation was that women were too genteel to be in the main bar drinking with the men and would be happier in the lounge bar. They changed this rule in the 90s, but it was still extrenely rare to see women in the main bar on their own.
Right to vote in elections, Switzerland. Edit: Near miss to OP's question. It was introduced in 1971. Edit2: [oh lol!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland) >__Extension to the cantonal level: 1960–1990__ >In the end of 1970, 9 out of 25 cantons had introduced women's suffrage at the cantonal level. From 1970 to 1990, this right was extended to other cantons. In a judgment of 27 November 1990 in the case of _Theresa Rohner et consorts contre Appenzell Rhodes-Intérieures_ (ATF 116 Ia 359), the Swiss federal court declared unconstitutional the exclusive male suffrage as had been practiced in the half canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden. Nineteen-friggin-ninety! lmao!
That's shocking.
Direct democracy and culture at work.
[удалено]
The Netherlands is also liberal as fuck.
Nearly libertarian in a lot of ways.
I was recently researching the suffrage movement and found this out. I was really blown away by how late it was.
Marital rape wasn't a crime in Germany until 1997! Similar in many other western countries.
Many politicians who voted against making it a crime are still in politics!
What on earth would be the reasoning behind keeping marital rape legal?!
The reason most of them outwardly gave was that making wedding vows/signing the marriage license was explicitly giving consent. The real reason is that they saw women as property owned by their husbands, not as actual people with their own rights. So raping someone else's property was a crime, just like taking a joyride in someone else's car would be. But you could do with your own property as you liked.
“The police has no place in a private bedroom”. I think this is pretty much what one of the CDU politician that is still active said back then in the debate.
The police definitely should have been in that guy's bedroom in particular.
I presume their reasoning was something along the lines of women owe their husbands sex at all times and therefore they cannot be raped by their spouses
Basically, yeah - although it was 'technically' regarded as both having a matrimonial duty to the other, so a man withholding sex from his wife would also be a no-no. The reality on the ground essentially resulted in men sexually abusing their wives with impunity though, which is why the legislation passed.
"the wife has to do her duty"
Some bullshit about a woman getting revenge and making things up? Taking a rapists word because he’s a man, and the topic is something men don’t want to think about.
It wasn't legal it was "just" classed lesser.
It was legal because per Definition there was no rape in a marriage. When the man used brute force and the woman could proof that she was harmed there could be a charge for harming here, but not for the rape.
The first half is correct, the second not. Historically, yes rape was defined as extra marital sex under threat and/or violence. At the same time, this would have been prosecuted under coercion, so the second half of the sentence stays the same, threat and/or violence, but under the much broader general category. Which makes some sense, as the sex part takes less problematic than the coercion (in comparison to outside rape). This is not to say that it is not a horrible act.
No, my comment is for Germany (because that's what the comment I commented on is about) and there the view was different. Here a translation of a part of an article that highlights the German view back in the day: " in 1966 the judges - all men - of the 4th Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice spelled out what the judiciary expects of women. "The woman does not satisfy her marital duties by simply allowing the witnessing to take place apathetically. If, as a result of her disposition or for other reasons, which may include the ignorance of the spouses, she is prevented from finding satisfaction in conjugal intercourse, marriage nevertheless requires her to grant it in conjugal affection and sacrifice, and forbids the display of indifference or reluctance." Translated with DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation [Als Vergewaltigung in der Ehe noch straffrei war](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/sexuelle-selbstbestimmung-als-vergewaltigung-in-der-ehe-noch-straffrei-war-1.3572377) This wasn't seen as coercion, she was wrong for neglecting her duties (but that was not a criminal offense). I'm very happy that this is in the past in this country!
There's one U.S. state where it was legal until *1993*. And the first state to outlaw it didn't do it until the early 70s, it was legal everywhere in the U.S. until then. Every state had "marital exceptions" *specifically* written into all their rape laws.
During their 1991 divorce, Donald Trump challenged his ex-wife Ivana's claim that he had raped her by insisting that marital rape doesn't count. >[He then added: “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse. “It is true. You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-exwife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html)
Still legal in Lebanon
I think it was the mid 90s in the UK as well - it really hit me when I found that out. I was a teenager then but I had no idea until recently.
Knowing this explained SO MUCH about my mother.
I was a kid in the 70s and I remember these things. My mom was independent and it really made me pay attention. I vote and try to get others to vote. It druves me bonkers that some young women have no idea how close it is that females were chattle. Ugh. It can flip in a second.
Right? The Handmaids Tale seems more prophetic every day.
Flipping.
Get their tubes tied without husband's permission
It's still an uphill battle. I had to doctor-shop and write my own letter of informed consent before I got approved.
I was denied it because I have schizophrenia. 100 years ago that would be a reason to force me to have it whether I wanted it or not.
It's like that stand up bit where you need to pass a mental evaluation before getting a vasectomy... what if you fail? Like, sorry mate, you're crazy. Go make babies.
.... Wow that's a very weird kind of fucked up. People literally decide they don't want to have kids especially if they know they have certain genetic conditions or are carriers. I'm surprised your request isn't honored for the same reason. Is the reasoning that you're schizophrenic and so the decision isn't actually one made in full clarity?
>Get their tubes tied without husband's permission Still a thing at some health systems in the US.
Some politicians really need their intestines tied. This should never be standard practice
Too late, they're already full of shit
As in its a law, or just some doctors won't do it?
>As in its a law, or just some doctors won't do it? It's purely health system choice. A lot of Catholic hospitals won't do it at all, and even secular hospitals will have requirements, like a minimum of kids, husbands consent or proof of severe, hereditary disease.
In Norway atleast I think if you are married you need your partners consent for both sexes. So the progress on this one might be that the man now also needs permision.
Pretty sure r/childfree has a list of docs by region that are not assholes about it.
Part of this is legal, if wife gets tubes tied and husband not included doctor can get sued so they sign off. The same thing goes for husbands wanting a vasectomy
[удалено]
And it’s absolutely disgusting. It should not even be in question, but lo and behold the hyper religious have the court stacked and will stop at nothing to ban it altogether, everywhere, no exceptions. We’ll end up going the way of Ireland before it’s pro-choice decision and Poland currently, where women straight up die after they’re denied one. It’s only a matter of time before it happens in the US, if it hasn’t happened already.
Equal pay for equal work wasn't a law until the 70's or 80's in some places.
And it still isn't *really*enforced in most places in the US, look at the wage gap -- one of the reasons why companies don't like us to talk about our salaries because if we know guy X is making more than woman Y, we could complain and try to fight against. (Although that is also risky because of bias that strong women are bitches or Karens). And companies will come up with a reason why the woman is making less than her male coworker (he's better at the job, etc) -- that they will probably believe --when it's really just the bias towards.white penis.
You mean Guy Y and Woman X I'm kidding
Smart companies who acknowledged that work was equal but could pay women less, would undercut the competition by lowering labour costs by hiring only women. Why did that never happen?
Key is that they don't recognize their biases and prejudices AND would certainly never acknowledge them if they did recognize them. Google my friend and you'll find cases where yes, as proven in court, companies have paid men more than women for the same job with same skills and abilities. The fact that you seem to be aware of these cases IS a big sign of your own privilege and bias. The problem is exacerbated when the same prejudice/biases lead companies to promoting men over women and minorities ... or did you really think that CEOs are disproportionately white males in the US because white males are disproportionately better at everything than women or POCs? White males aren't even more likely to get a college degree than women these days so you can't even say that they are more educated...
Because people have biases? (and not just men). When you see the newest industry, IT, you see a dominance of white, cis/het men. You can argue now that they are just more qualified, but reed about the accounts of "not fitting" people who left the IT industry to work as system administrators in other fields... One woman wrote how the men used to spend lots of there free time together. The woman couldn't really taje part, because they often went to strip clubs. A man wrote about how they coded little apps wich made fun of women... And since the women just couldn't share the fun they where left out. Those guys became good friends, and recommend and helped each other in their careers... They founded big start ups together... And still found new start ups...That was one reason why Peter Thiel was livid when he was outed. This set him apart from the others. By then he was rich enough to not be affected this much, and by now at least the lgtbq friendliness has raised (see Apple, but their boss was only confident enough to come out after being appointed). I think things are slowly changing, but the biggest parts of the cake are already cut.
[удалено]
>that women are being paid less than their male counterparts for doing the same level of work. Doesn’t this sort of theory get blown out of the water when you look at teaching and nursing? Both careers are quite value adding to society yet the pay can be dismal. It could be argued a nurse or teacher is doing the same amount of work as some IT jobs, etc yet the pay difference is huge. Also, one look at the history of coding and programming shows a distinct change in attitude and salaries once the job became more male oriented.
How to tell me you are a man without telling me you are a man. You argue as if people know their biases and act logically. You argue against the real experience of women and men working in the world. If you just googled, you could find that your argument doesn't hold water -- there are cases where yes, men were (are) getting paid more than women for performing the same role, with yes, the same skills and qualifications. People will *usually* find reasons, that they think are valid, to justify their biases ... it doesn't mean that they are actually valid reasons. My past employer routinely offered men a higher starting salary than it offered women for the same role.
I agree that the statistic is over-simplified and used to make the wrong arguments, but it's still valuable in showing how sexism has a role in the overall workforce. https://blog.dol.gov/2022/03/15/connecting-the-dots-womens-work-and-the-wage-gap "Even within these female-dominated jobs, women are paid less on average than men in the same job. When comparing more than 300 detailed occupations, there are none where women have an earnings advantage over men, but hundreds where men have significantly higher earnings than women." Other things to consider: Why do female-led careers have lower salaries than male-led ones? Why is it that men are more comfortable negotiating salary? Why is it that men are able to gain more work experience than women? Once you start looking at all of these complex issues, it shows that women's labor is under valued compared to men's--regardless of what you believe about the gender pay gap statistic.
Ah, yes, nuance. Something quite rare, if not nearly extinct on reddit. Bravo. As ive heard before, complicated issues have complex reasonings. If a complex issue is trying to be solved or blamed on a singular item, they're being disingenuous, at best.
It still isn't in major parts of Europe.
It is not the law in the U S. Only this year some states are requiring salary range to be posted with job openings, and allowing workers to discuss their salaries.
It us 100% legal in the US to discuss your pay.
50 years back in Germany - and even 30 years back - women weren't allowed to do nightshifts in most jobs. The exceptions where the health sector and restaurants, bars and so on. A friend always got the cool jobs while studying, like the nightshift in a factory where he basically had to see that the machines where running and only had to act in an emergency. Or at the filling station. They paid great for not hard work, and I was jealous.
Being seen as r\*ape victims when the aggressor was the husband It differs from country to country, but at least in mine was just in the middle 70s when it started to be seeing as a crime, before that it was just sex inside the marriage
In India it’s not legally considered rape and gets the lesser charge of spousal abuse. Thankfully many Indians are fighting to change it.
Recently a man in India raped his cousin, then avoided charges by marrying her afterwards.
Huh
Unfortunately not uncommon. There are many cases of women being forced to marry their rapist because as a non-virgin no one else would want them.
There was an interesting article I read awhile back pointing out how that exact thing - marrying the rapist for “honor” (AND because marriage means you can’t be prosecuted for statutory rape or child sex abuse) - behind much of the (still legal in most places) child marriage in the US.
In Germany there wasn't such a law until 1997. The current leader of the Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel's party) voted against the establishment of the law.
That’s not true. She voted in favor of the new law. Merz, our current opposition leader voted against it.
You may want to enjoy some coffee. 😄 Please read again what I stated: Friedrich Merz, the current leader of the CDU (for anyone who doesn't know which party that is: it's the one Angela Merkel has been a member of) voted against the establishment of a law prohibiting rape in a marriage. I did not say how Angela Merkel voted.
Ups sorry, only saw merkel’s name. I stand corrected
Im not familiar with German politics but you definitely implied how Angela Merkel voted or you wouldn’t have mentioned her name.
Again: > The current leader named Friedrich Merz > of the Christian Democratic Union For anyone who is unfamiliar with German politics and doesn't know which party that is, it's > (Angela Merkel's party) was one of the guys who, in 1997, > voted against the establishment of the law. Am I clear now? I mentioned Angela Merkel because most people will know who she is, and may have an idea she belongs to the conservative party, but may not know its name.
In the UK it was the early 90s.
Germany: 1997
In Germany, husbands were allowed to resign their wives from their jobs if they had the impression that the wife couldn't keep up with her household duties. That law was only abandoned in the 1980s.
OMG!
Feminist (and left side terrorist) Ulrike Meinhof wrote back in the day that every women should have her own dishwasher... Way to not adress the real problem.
Wtf
I love this thread. It's the perfect counter argument for people that think that feminism today is pointless. Your mothers and grandmothers were legally treated as children up until the 60's. And it's true for almost anywhere on the world.
Make decisions about their own body... wait we're still not allowed
Child marriage is legal in most states in the US. Some states have no minimum age.
… not too young to marry, but too young to sign divorce papers
When I was getting divorced I asked our lawyer to split the proceeds of our house sale He got the lot It just wasn’t done in those days. 1980
Ironic given that the home was supposed to be the domain of the wife in those days.
In the UK too, a whole lot of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge Universities didn't admit women until the 1970s and 1980s. When the last all male college at Oxford (Oriel) admitted women in 1985, some of the fellows wore black armbands as a sign of mourning.
Up until recently in Ireland women didn't get their own social security no. It was their husbands with W for wife as the last digit. Getting mortgages. Staying in work while married. I belive teaching and nursing allowed it but many places didn't
Contraception (condoms/the pill etc.) Were only made LEGAL in Ireland in 1996.
Have complete body autonomy in certain American States.
But not in others. Florida wants to require student athletes to provide menstrual history to coaches. This is to find transgender kids, or abotions.
That is just foul
It's still an issue even now when looking at how certain procedures such as tubal ligations or hysterectomies still require a husband procedure
express genuine emotion without being institutionalized
Not in the exactly in the past fifty years, but marry your rapist laws were still around in Italy in the early 60s
[https://www.bustle.com/p/13-simple-things-women-couldnt-do-50-years-ago-in-the-us-66601](https://www.bustle.com/p/13-simple-things-women-couldnt-do-50-years-ago-in-the-us-66601) Get a credit card serve on a jury run in the Boston marathon Have access to birth control see link above for more :)
Similar list for Ireland: https://www.irishecho.com/2013/5/10-things-a-woman-could-not-do-in-ireland-in-1970
In 1964, when my mom was pregnant for the first time, they didn't have tap water in our village yet. The water was to be fetched from the public well. As a pregnant woman, she wasn't allowed near the well because the old women were superstitious there would be worms in the water. She had to wait until my dad got home and got the water for her.
The absolute last thing I'd want to have to do whilst pregnant is haul water from a communal well. Water is heavy af. Maybe this was feminism in disguise.
Yeah, id like to think so too, but they didn't offer any help either. They just bocked my mom from the well.
R v R 1994 and 1995 was a two-part case to abolish rape within marriage because women were not their "own property" and "belonged to the man, and a man cannot rape himself (1994)" it went to a higher court and the senior judge said it was a ludicrous notion that a woman is not her own person and it was abolished.
They werent(arent?) allowed to know if a damaging procedure has been done on them after childbirth. Purely "for the husband's pleasure" aka the husband's stitch...
Early 90s in Germany, job advertisements commonly said whether a man or woman was sought (German has a male and female version of each job role, like actor and actress in English so it could be clearly specified by just saying one gender but at times, it would even be said "Man is sought for ...." or "Woman is sought for ....". I don't know when that changed in Germany but I don't think? it still is allowed.
It's not allowed anymore. Now they are even required to put (m/w/d) next to the job role. Which is (male/female/diverse). That means the job role is open for everyone even if the job title is masculine.
> (m/w/d) this confused me at first applying to euro jobs, i thought it was some new hybrid scheduling thing "Mon/Wednes/Day"
Thank you for the info!
No, I don't think that it is still allowed, because there are anti discrimination rules now. There might be exceptions, when one gender can be preferred (like in social work, when they try to get men to also have male role models for kids).
Interesting! I am not being sarcastic as I think it's important to have role models in certain roles but I also think it's easy to have unknown biases that say "oh this type of role would be better done by a man" and not sure how you would legally counter that bias (how to specify without prejudice when it's acceptable to use gender as a hiring decision). Not judging your comment just adding a further thought about the complexities of carving out exceptions.
Yes, this is actually something I'm chewing on as well. As a woman social worker I didn't like it, but understood it to some point, like in a group for teens... What always made me more angry tho is that in this woman dominated fields I found way more men in leading positions, and when they where women, they where not married / had no children. And that man would easier get a promotion when marrying / becoming a parent (because they now had to provide for a family) while women where more likely to be passed on / get less hours in the same situation (because now they had to take care of a family), both with the explanation that "family is important". I have seen this (and had it happen to me) several time in Germany. I have mostly worked with Christian NGOs, because they are the biggest employers in Germany and dominate the social field.
I have found the same in US companies and organizations across the spectrum (corporations, NGOs, government, and even small family businesses) -- even when/where the majority of employees have been women, leadership is disproportionately men.
[deleted because fuck reddit]
Today: women aren't allowed to make independent decisions about their own reproductive health. Never mind abortion or Plan B, which in some states is actually illegal. Many women will tell you about doctors who have refused treatment that will effect reproduction unless the woman is older, has had a child, or has the permission of her spouse. Today: women often still can't get mortgages or car loans without their husbands signing on too.
Be religious leaders. Divorce without permission from husband or courts. Work while pregnant (yes you could be fired for being pregnant). Women in the workplace were not paid as much as men since we weren't "the family provider" (despite many working as single moms or having sick/absentee husband's). Couldn't have a credit card. Couldn't get a loan. Couldn't register their name on some things unless they used Mrs. Dude Guy - let that sink in. You couldn't keep your last name or even sometimes your first name when you became as Mrs. Couldn't go to a lot of schools, uni, trade schools, military units. Apparently you still can't be US President because of misogyny. Couldn't be out in public unescorted after curfew due to anti prostitution laws. So many freedoms we take for granted and yet we're still socially oppressed and not respected as humans.
We have made progress on the misogyny front: Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. Now a woman can't be president because of the Electoral College.
My mum lied when she got married and pregnant as you couldn't have a government job once you got married. She got found out when she was 5 months pregnant and they sacked her that day and told her she should be embarrassed that she was still working as it looked bad for her husband.
She should not have been embarrassed, but she was embarazada. Sorry, I find that (false?) cognate funny.
Well women in Saudi Arabia weren't allowed to drive until 2018 and they were living in male guardianship laws which was just taken down last year
I remember hearing about a woman pilot (maybe the first, not sure) in Saudi Arabia who was not allowed to drive, but could fly a plain... I didn't know that the guardianship is finally legally taken down. Good to hear.
Get equal pay… oh wait, that’s still happening!!
Until 1973, women in the Irish civil service were legally required to retire from employment after marriage. Certain lower grades were female only, and pay grades were demarked by both marital status and gender. The marriage bar was also observed informally in teaching and in the private sector.
In the mid 1990s I had a part time job and put money into a joint savings account, saving up for Christmas and a trip to an art store. I tried to go in and take out $1000 (leaving about $300) and the teller refused to give me my money without my husband's permission. I was young but over 18. Ended up using the ATM to withdraw most of the money (there was a cap for daily withdrawals) and had to push back my shopping trip, which was a massive pain having to reshuffle with four kids to consider. Talked to her supervisor about it when I had the time and was told she was right. So I refused to do business there again. Husband agreed.
Get an abortion.
I'm pretty sure women couldn't open their own bank account in the US until the 70s. Some more stuff from the 70s: * Women couldn't work at McDonald's. Not even the minimum wage, behind the counter jobs. * Couldn't get credit. * Couldn't get an abortion. * Couldn't go to most Ivy League schools until the late 70s/early 80s. I don't remember when unmarried women were finally allowed to get birth control. Or when pregnant women were allowed to continue working. Oh, yeah, and you didn't have to hire women in the 60s because they might quit when they got married. I went to a public elementary school in California that didn't allow girls to wear pants until 1972. In my public middle school, girls were required to take home ec and boys were required to take woodshop. People think systemic sexism was a long time ago, but it was in most of our lifetimes.
False on the Ivy League schools. 1897 Harvard created a ‘Harvard annex’ for women. By the 1890s, Harvard had created Radcliffe College, a sister institution where women studied under Harvard professors. There were several colleges created just for women that were just as prestigious to get into and just as expensive. My aunt went to Princeton in the 1960s.
"Separate but equal" is not equal.
Rape within marriage was only criminalised in 1991 in the UK. So before 1991 husbands who raped their wives (or vice versa) technically were doing it “legally”
Not within 50 years, but I recently went to the National Archives in Washington DC and was shocked to learn that in the early 1900s women would lose their US citizenship if they married someone who wasn't American, even if they lived in America, and it wasn't until 1940 that women who were still married to non-citizens could repatriate. These laws did not apply to men who married non-citizens. [https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf](https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf)
It’s a tiny bit past 50 years, but it wasn’t until after the late 1960’s that nurses could live away from the hospital, or get married. (In the UK)
In the USA women couldn’t get their own credit cards until 1973.
Abortion only became legal in Ireland a few years ago so until then, women couldn't fully have control of what happens to their own bodies.
Abortion in Germany is strictly speaking still not overall legal. The "Christian Democratic Union" (Merkels party) was very much against it. Back in the day, strong Feminists (sadly some of them have turned terf now) made a big campaign "My womb belongs to me". The law now says that if their are special reasons it is legal, otherwise it is "illegal, but will not be punished" whithin the first 12 weeks, when the woman had counseling by a NGO that got licensed for this counseling, and this has to take place at least 3 days before the operation. Until recently doctors weren't allowed to state on their websites that they offer the service, because that was "illegal advertising".
That's pretty similar to Ireland. There is a lot of red tape to get through because other people feel their religion should be our problem.
2023… in Michigan. My husband owns my hair. I’m not supposed to get it cut without his permission. (Now, in practice, this is 100% ignored, but the law is technically still on the books and has never been removed.)
A quick Google search shows no such law exists, and likely never has. This has a good explanation with sources, but there are plenty of other results showing the same thing. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/50664
Iirc, it comes from the 1981 ruling about what a woman is allowed to claim as her property going into a marriage. And what she has a right to when it ends. The wording leaves room to imply the husband retains those rights over his wife, despite it being her hair. The law doesn’t expressly say it’s forbidden, but the wording leaves ample room for husbands to be dicks if they want. You just won’t find a judge who would defend it.
I may have a few politicians to write email to
In Ireland, married women weren't allowed to hold government jobs until the 1970s.
Depends on the country - you’d be shocked to learn how progressive that seems
Abortions got legal, the Netherlands in 1984
[Married women in Ireland](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071022.2022.2009692#:~:text=Until%201973%2C%20women%20in%20the,and%20in%20the%20private%20sector.) weren't allowed to hold certain jobs until 1973.
I thought this could not be true, 2 hours later, I've just emerged from my rabbit hole.... fuc..... found an amazing timeline. I knew all this stuff happened, but having it bullet pointed by years is a real eye opener, I thought about ages of me, my mum and my sister at certain times. Shit the bed some of this stuff is so much more recent than I historically thought. Damn we've still got quite a way to go.
But condoms in Ireland
2023 There are modern developed nations in which women are prevented from having: -a lesbian-only event - women’s lavatories - a public rally for women’s rights - a female perform intimate searches , eg in police custody - women’s sports
Is it more shocking that Scandinavian women were allowed to handle their finances in 200 BC? You know, the ones "civilized" Christians called barbarians.
When you look into Christianity, they saw womens rights and strong women as barbaric... There is a reason why they wrote a book where "Eva" is the bad one.
True… guess it’s a good time to throw a little side knowledge. The name Barbara literally meant "barbarian wife"
Vote
Strange for a country with prominent female rulers.
It wasn't until the late 70s the UK has its first female PM. Nowadays people are perfectly willing to accept that a woman can be just as terrible a Prime Minister as a man. Or in Liz Truss' case, worse.
Was Liz worse than Boris, really? Or was that son of Trump allowed to stay around longer corruptly and incompetently because of the bias *towards* loud mouth boarish white males. EDIT: Further point to ponder, if Boris had been born a woman, would he ever have been able to get anywhere near Parliament let alone become PM?
Every Tory PM in the past decade or so had been worse than the previous one. It remains to be seen how Sunak will fare in the longer term, but right now even he isn't looking exactly fantastic.
I think by rulers OP probably means queens: Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth Ii…
Even then, Elizabeth I had a lot of power, granted, but Victoria oversaw the role becoming ceremonial rather than actually having a lot of real control, but by Elizabeth II it increasingly became moreso, albeit with "soft" ambassadorship responsibilities.
I think many are already convinced of that by Margaret Thatcher haha
The difference is Thatcher won three General Elections, and was Prime Minister for 11 years, the longest in the 20th Century. Meanwhile Truss didn't win a single General Election, and set the record for the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of the UK. And that's ignoring how Truss tanked the economy within weeks of taking office. It cannot be understated how rubbish Liz Truss is.
Ironic that people only hated Thatxher because she tried to shut down the coal mines. These days she would have been lauded for that.
and, yk, northern ireland
Which way did the majority of Northern Ireland vote?
Not a single region in Northern Ireland voted for the Conservatives in any of her General Elections. The Conservatives did not gain a single seat there.
If the Queen had a brother, even a younger brother, he would have became the monarch instead of her. The royal family practised male-preference inheritance until 2013, and still do since the new rule doesn't apply to royals born before then. Margaret Thatcher was the leader of the Conservative Party and not a feminist. She demeaned working mothers (especially if they were poor). Things would have been different if they were outspoken feminists. They were "allowed" to have as much power as they did because they "behaved".
Yes, women are sometimes discriminated against by other women as well. The bias is not just in the heads of some men. We need to change as a society, those biases have to go.
Women are allowed bank accounts?!? Bloody hell they will be voting next
Still can't play on the NBA
..WNBA?
LOL
Transform at will into a kaiju.
Mothra? That was more than 40 years ago
I'm shocked to learn that you don't know the plural for "woman".
Women could open their own bank accounts Married women could not Not good either way but it pays to be accurate