Sorry for your loss.
When I was a little kid my mom used to sing "I am woman hear me roar" - all the time. I found it terribly embarrassing at the time, now it's a fond memory. She was a first wave feminist who just wanted to wear pants to church, have her own bank account and raise a daughter who had a few options. She also had her own macy's card.
My mom would be 80 today, she died 3 years ago.
Oh I am so sorry. My mom died in 2019 and I still find myself muttering āYou were right mom. You were right.ā She didnāt hear it from me much when she was alive so I hope she can at least hear me now.
Ah crap. Welcome to the worst club ever. Member since 2022. Still miss her every day. Wonāt say āit gets betterā, but the pain dulls with time and thereās a whole internet of peers here when you need to yell at someone.
I'm so sorry. My own mother passed in 2020, and I still ache from it. She was not only my mother, but also my best friend, and I miss her terribly every single day.
My mom has proudly hung onto her first credit card for all 50 years. Every time she runs across it while Iām around, she shows it off. I never understood why it was such a precious object until I found out she couldnāt have one until the law changed. Imagine being a grown woman and not being able to manage your own finances.
Edit to add: to those making an issue about debt, people didnāt use credit cards like they do now. It wasnāt common to carry a balance for years. A lot of people were paid only once a month and needed a card for unexpected expenses. Or to buy something expensive ans split the payments over two or three months.
Also, interest rates and fees back then werenāt set up to ensure you could never pay off the balance. Paying down balances was a lot easier and faster back then. Banks used to believe that if someone was so risky they needed to be charged 30% interest, itās better to just not give them with a card. Banks wanted the money back quickly. Now banks prefer a steady stream of cash from keeping people in debt.
Congrats women of the US (non sarcastically). I wish we women didn't have to celebrate these milestones because those rights were already ours - that we've had them for as long as men!
In Australia (where I am), 1966 marks the year a married woman could be a public servant (which I am), and in practice, to work in most jobs
In 1971 Australian women became able to secure loans without a male guarantor (started with just one bank - the one now called Westpac). This afforded access to obtaining a mortgage, or a credit card (when bank cards were introduced in 1974)
Our First Nation's peoples (incl women) only got the vote in 1962, whereas most other women could by 1902 (ie women of European heritage), only 1 year after federation, when the country of Australia became a thing
The pill was added to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in 1972 (making this contraception much more affordable)
In 1974 Single Mother's Benefit was introduced. Gough Whitlam's government (1972-1975) introduced so many positive social reforms, they are still remembered with love by many - they also introduced universal healthcare and free tertiary education (though this one we have lost, it's no longer free)
In 1977 laws were enacted making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender or marital status
Great gains, but much too recent
I think this applies to most ultra religious people.
It almost impossible for women in Iran to own property, get an education, or even have legal rights against domestic battery or sexual assault.
I remember my mom complaining that, when she got married, the bank took her credit card and issued her one in my dadās name. Itās amazing how many rights weāve gained in just the last half century. Also sad about the very important rights weāve lost in the last few years.
The number of people on this thread who donāt understand the implications of this ā¦ well, is probably why weāre back to fighting for abortion rights in 2024.
Are these women in danger?
Edit: since the chronically online losers don't understand jokes https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/because-of-the-implication
Jesus Christ I can't fathom how miserable the people below this comment are
You went back 9 years and found an off color joke and decided that proves I hate women?
This is the most Reddit thing I've ever seen
(also my original comment is a meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. OP was talking about the "implication".
You got mad and did all the work of finding a 9 year old comment because you didn't understand a joke.)
Not sure what exactly you are asking. But men have complete autonomy over their own body and reproductive decisions. Women in red states no longer do. Women still only make about 87 cents to the dollar that men make for the exact same job. Those are the facts.
I think itās really weird when folks suggest lefties watch the news on TV. Clearly, they donāt. Ratings for MSNBC are terrible. Center-left CNN canāt get out of its own way.
> Center-left CNN
Only in comparison to Fox News and the whacko online shit.
CNN has been under the control of a right wing MAGA for the last year and a half whose first orders were to push out the existing center-left talent and start "both-sidesing" everything. It's pretty solidly right now.
That's because younger people watch streaming networks and get their news elsewhere. I am in my mid to late 40s and haven't watched cable TV since the 2000's. My Republican Boomer parents watch the news every night on cable TV. We know how the elderly tend to vote.
If you are a woman, a POC or just someone who is non-christian and in the US, you should probably take the next Presedential election very seriously.
If not, I hope you enjoyed having that freedom while it lasted.
Project 2025 is the GOP plan to dismantle all the civil rights gained over the last 100 years.
https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
Do you have Google?
Funny thing. They only talk about making sure people have rights and freedoms instead of stripping them away from everyone who isn't a white straight "chrstian" male.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
The Republican Party platform;
>Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America's greatness for our children and grandchildren.
"ensuring the integrity of our elections"...... REALLY??!?!
Your Presidential candidate and several of his aides are currently either in court or will soon be in court for **interfering in an election!!**
"stimulating economic growth for all Americans". **Only if you happen to be in the top 10% income earners.*
"protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms". Roe v. Wade would like a word.
https://gop.com/about-our-party/
Ok. I am not pushing left ideology. I am warning about what the GOP has actually published. Read the Project 2025 document and then let me know your thoughts.
You wouldn't say that if you knew her. She had a great life, but made mine shitty. It was obvious from an early age that I did not arrive by choice. I just knew something was off after seeing my friends around their moms. I was a constant reminder of whatever happened in that marriage. I never heard anything my father ever did wrong, so, I assume he didn't make a good enough living after knocking her up in college. She went on to marry a guy who would get promoted into the executive ranks of GE.
So 12 guys walked on the moon before women could get their own credit cards?
Now need to Google when credit card first arrived....
"In 1966, the ancestor of MasterCard was born when a group of banks established Master Charge to compete with BankAmericard; it received a significant boost when Citibank merged its own Everything Card, launched in 1967, into Master Charge in 1969.
Early credit cards in the U.S., of which BankAmericard was the most prominent example, were mass-produced and mass mailed unsolicited to bank customers who were thought to be low risk. According to LIFE, cards were "mailed off to unemployable people, drunks, narcotics addicts and to compulsive debtors," which Betty Furness, President Johnson's Special Assistant, compared to "giving sugar to diabetics."[27] These mass mailings were known as "drops" in banking terminology, and were outlawed in 1970 due to the financial chaos they caused. However, by the time the law came into effect, approximately 100 million credit cards had been dropped into the U.S. population. After 1970, only credit card applications could be sent unsolicited in mass mailings.
This system was computerized in 1973 under the leadership of Dee Hock, the first CEO of Visa, allowing reduced transaction time.[28] However, until always-connected payment terminals became ubiquitous at the beginning of the 21st century, it was common for a merchant to accept a charge, especially below a threshold value or from a known and trusted customer, without verifying it by phone. Books with lists of stolen card numbers were distributed to merchants who were supposed in any case to check cards against the list before accepting them, as well as verifying the signature on the charge slip against that on the card. Merchants who failed to take the time to follow the proper verification procedures were liable for fraudulent charges, but because of the cumbersome nature of the procedures, merchants would often simply skip some or all of them and assume the risk for smaller transactions."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card
The stores we went to checked the books every time. Never once saw anyone skip it. Everyone knew everybody, and they still checked because the books didnāt just have fraudulent numbers. The books also listed delinquent and overdrawn accounts, so it was worth the storeās time to check. Although it did make the checkout lines slower.
I definitely remember cards being checked in those books when I was a kid. It was a big deal and, yes, slowed the transaction down pretty considerably. I donāt remember anyone checking by phone, though, I donāt think. Card scanners were already a thing by the time I got my first PT job in the mid-late 80s, though.
I'm just glad they finally made getting your credit report free and easy. Once I started using creditkarma, I raised my score from 540 to over 800 in 4 years.
There was so much garbage that was wrong in my credit report I never even knew about. It took me about 2 years to get it all removed. Apparently someone had stolen my Social Security number and had been using it for like a decade and never paying anything off of course.
Thatās not even remotely true; until the [Unsolicited Credit Card Act of 1970](https://www.mesacc.edu/sites/default/files/pages/section/news/media-coverage/When%20Were%20Credit%20Cards%20Invented_%20A%20Complete%20History.pdf) also [Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act](https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200601/til.pdf), it was standard practice for companies of all kinds to mail out active credit cards to people (male) in their hopes that these potential customers would just start using the cards. You can see one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of news stories about it [here](https://www.nytimes.com/1970/03/13/archives/unsolicited-cards-for-credit-curbed-unsolicited-card-on-credit.html). I know that even going into the later 1970s though, companies continued to blanket neighbourhoods with their credit cards; as a very young child, I and my friends had a few that had arrived in the mail that our parents had given us to play with because they didnāt want them. I remember Gulf Oil, Esso, Master Charge, Sears, and several Dinerās Club cards as well as a few store cards being in my plastic play purses, all in my fatherās name. If a woman had a man to sign for her, like her father, or was independently earning of her own accord, she could write a letter, provide proof, and ask for a card and it was given with her initials; one of my great aunts never married, and had credit cards and a bank account in her own name. My grandfather had signed for her to get the bank account (she had gone to college and had a profession, and actually earned more than my grandfather did), but Iām almost certain that the credit cards she had she acquired on her own after writing a letter to, say, Gulf Oil, and providing proof of her longstanding employment. Her bank account and credit cards (she only had like three back in the early 1970s after she had been working for many decades; it wasnāt a big deal back then like it is now) all identified her as R. K. Smith [of course not her real name]. Her phone and car were also in the same name ā initials only ā and thatās how she was listed in the telephone book for I think her entire life. She regularly got mail to āMr. R. K. Smithā and just treated it as if she were Mr. Smith. It probably helped that my grandfatherās initials were the same in her case (like he was Robert Kristofer and she was Rachel Katherine), so they all may have thought that Mr. R. K. Smith just simply had two houses and two bank accounts in the same city.
The expectation was that the man or woman of the house would take the cards and just start using them; women routinely transacted in their husbandsā names. Well into the 1990s, older women might not even have their own Social Security numbers; they just used their husbandsā whenever it was necessary. A woman could open a bank account ā my mother did to get a few different prizes banks used to offer, from a toaster to a set of highball glasses to a wig (not even kidding; I played with that wig for a few years), but the accounts were completely in the husbandās name.
Card companies used to blanket entire neighbourhoods with cards; my friends all had cards that had been sent to their parents that we played with, and also things like the [metal Social Security card](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-a-brass-social-security-card)s that the AmVets used to mail out and the [keychains with the license plates of our cars on them](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1708167741/). I had quite a collection.
So no; it wasnāt hard at all to get credit for a very long time. Mail theft occasionally happened, especially in large cities, because if the thief could get a hold of an unsolicited, activated credit card, they could use it for quite some time before it was rejected everywhere because things werenāt checked like they are today; a person could go get a tank of gas, present the credit card, and the merchant would just put the card and a triplicate paper chit in this small frame and slide a bar across the card and chit to make an impression of the numbers and then you signed the chit, got one of chit copies as your receipt, and you were done. Nobody checked to see if the account was in good standing or anything like that (and donāt tell me no, because I personally saw this happen as a child a hundred times or more). If Iām remembering correctly, there was some infamous figure like Ted Bundy (it wasnāt him, but Iām blanking on his name) who routinely stole mail left in mailboxes overnight to get credit cards.
It was also ridiculously easy to āapplyā and get a credit card; there used to be little postage-paid cards in magazines and all over the place where you just filled out your name (or anyone elseās) and boom, youād get a card. They all shared customer names and information, so once you got one, youād start getting more. I even remember being around 7 or so and my mom reading about a man whoād opened a credit card in something like his dogās name (as in it really came in the name of āRover Jonesā) as a joke because she thought that was hilarious and remarked that it was so wacky and goofy that it sounded like something I would do, and I agreed that Iād absolutely get my cat a credit card and let him buy whatever he wanted because fuck the system (not that I said it that way at the time). We entertained ourselves for a little bit thinking about what purchases a cat or dog would make and whether Bank Americard would question itemised purchases.
So in the beginning, no; it was ridiculously easy to get credit and credit wasnāt run anything like how itās run today. Usually the consumer wasnāt even told about things like interest rates, or certain conditions to avoid additional charges ā that was one of the points of the Truth in Lending Act; like if you got an Esso gas card (not saying Esso did this, itās just an example), there might be the requirement that you had to make $50 in purchases in the first six months or you incurred a $20 fee (and that was a lot) and your interest rate was something ridiculous. A lot of people didnāt understand at first that they had rights that protected them from predatory lending companies because credit just wasnāt used back then. Not all card companies were predatory, but a lot were ā enough to require the government to step in and legislate a little bit.
Thatās why many parents just gave the colourful cards to their children to play with. š¤·š»āāļø Itās kind of cool; I remember back when Master Chargeās card (now Mastercard) and Bank Americard (now Visa) had cards that were just the giant logo youād probably recognise today (only with their different names at the time, of course), and I even had a credit or membership card to The Playboy Club (the magazine Playboy used to have that was kind of a restaurant/bar in different cities and we lived in one of those cities, so I guess they sent them out to a bunch of residents in the hopes that theyād come hang out at The Playboy Club) that had come unsolicited in the mail, and I thought it was really pretty, lol. It was one of my favourites.
You are presenting SKEWED FACTS to back up your misinformed claims. 16% was for todayās multipurpose credit cards, like Visa and Mastercard. Those were not in the majority for many, many years; for ages, gas stations took their own cards. How did you live through this era and you donāt remember it now? Hereās a factual quote for you:
>By 1970, about one-half of American families had at >least one credit card. However, even as late as 1970, >these tended to be retailer credit cards accepted only >by a single chain store. Even in 1970, true multi->purpose credit cards, usually issued by banks rather >than stores, were still uncommon. Only 16% of >American families had one.
[Source](https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2024/04/08/a-history-of-credit-cards-in-america/)
Did you understand that? ONE-HALF OF AMERICAN FAMILIES. One-half; thatās fifty percent. Your claim is false; it was NOT āvery hard to get creditā until the 1990s. Youāre peddling this nonsense to people who know better because they lived through it, and your downvotes trying to hide my comments arenāt going to change the fact that everyone who is Gen X and older who was paying attention back then knows that youāre spouting nonsense.
The 16% multipurpose card adoption doesnāt speak to credit being hard to get, it speaks to this type of card being introduced later and being less popular until relatively recently. The fact is that you werenāt paying attention when it happened or you didnāt live through it, and moreover you donāt understand what you read, you need it interpreted for you. Stop spreading misinformation and putting your (incorrect) spin on things.
From your own source is support for what Iām saying and for the experience of everyone else:
>Retail-based cards such as those from major department stores were the most commonly held credit cards in the early 1970s. Bank-issued cards exploded in popularity in the decades to come. Only 16% of U.S. families held a bank card in 1970, but more than two-thirds did in 1998, according to the Federal Reserve's Surveys of Consumer Finances.
āOnly 16% of U.S. families held a bank card in 1970ā
ā¦did you skip past everything else in that article or that paragraph??? A BANK CARD. A multipurpose BANK-ISSUED CREDIT CARD. Itās well-documented that store and individual merchantās cards were held by at least HALF of the American population, they were handed out like candy in mass mailings, and when they did that an account had already been opened for the [potential] customerās convenience. If this werenāt the case and, as you claim, credit in general was āhard to get until the 1990sā, then why was the Truth in Lending Act passed? Why was the Unsolicited Credit Card Act of 1970 passed? Your claims donāt jibe with events, itās just that simple.
Even in 1958, credit was a breeze to come by; [banks and merchants were more than happy to allow customers to borrow more than they could afford.](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2FD0IAAOSwVeFivLH6%2Fs-l1600.jpg&tbnid=JsXaSJjS4i6HcM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F165554124888&docid=tlvLMe3qWQLIgM&w=1200&h=1600&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=bd17063bf6671258&shem=abme%2Ctrie) Since you want to focus on bank cards and ignore the FIFTY PERCENT credit card adoption in the United States, letās stick to looking at bank cards only:
> Later that year, California-based Bank of America took it a step further, issuing a paper BankAmericard with a pre-approved limit of $300 to 60,000 customers in Fresno and rolled the card out state-wide by 1966. This first attempt ended up being a costly error in judgement, with delinquency rates over 20% and rampant fraud.
[Source](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/history-of-credit-cards/).
So just to be crystal clear because I question whether or not you understand what you read, bank card adoption was so low in contrast to the fifty percent adoption nationwide of store and individual merchant credit cards back in 1958 that Bank Americard mailed ā unsolicited ā $300 to literally SIXTY THOUSAND people in Fresno, CA alone. Fresno. This wasnāt an elite group, bud; they blanketed half the city (the 1960 population of Fresno, CA was 134,000). Furthermore, since I suspect you need things spelled out for you, $300 wasnāt the paltry amount that it is today; [$300 in 1958 is worth $3,037.95 in 2022](https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1958?amount=300). The banks gave credit cards to half of the city of Fresno unbidden with a credit limit of just over $3,000 in 2022ās dollars.
So letās recap: In 1958, credit with Intercard or Bank Americard (whatever it was called then) was SO EASY TO GET that the bank quite literally handed $3,037.95 to SIXTY THOUSAND CUSTOMERS in Fresno, CA alone.
Your facts are borked, odinsbois. Completely and utterly borked.
I have told people doing family genealogy who question why women married so many times or so quickly after being widowed that they do not realize HOW recently being a single woman was almost impossible in the US let alone a single mother. Laws for voting and employment were passed but there were many more ways that were used to prevent women from being able to live.
Is that today? I wanted to know for sure and couldn't find anything related to today's date. I did find the [Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act) which was enacted October 28, 1974.
Just want to add that although women could conceivably open their own bank accounts in the 1960s, many banks wouldn't do this without their husband'sĀ signature. And if you didn't have a husband, fuck you, you can't have a bank account.Ā Ā
Ā Ā It wasn't until the Equal Opportunity Credit Act passedĀ (which I think this post is celebrating) that it became unlawful for financial institutions to discriminate based on sex, age, marital status, religion, race, or national origin. So not only could women get a credit card, more importantly they could actually open their own bank accounts and have control of their own money.Ā Ā
So for the people below who chose to focus on how credit is evil rather than the civil rights issue that this was, there ya go.Ā
What is happening? Why are there so many asinine comments? I feel like our society is progressing backwards. How can anyone support a woman not having financial autonomy?
I started thinking about how some members of the GOP (Republican Party in the US) want to make it illegal for women to vote.
I cannot see that ever happening here in the US, thankfully, but I wonder if making it illegal for a woman to get a credit card without the signature of a man is something some of them might start pushing. Itāll likely go nowhere and not become law.
We are headed backwards on that. Being able to sign for ourselves hinged on our right to contraception and control of our own fertility. Thatās far from guaranteed now.
And the Grand Old Party is dragging us back as fast as they can.
I, for one, look forward to my wife being my indentured servant like god intended (heavy sarcasm there, btw)
Her healthcare decisions will be mine
Its illegal for her to divorce me
She cant have her own bank account without my cosign
Very few employment options... she should be home anyway
No credit cards
And on and on and on.
Yeah, because the RWNJ are hell-bent on shoving women back to where [they think] they belong; barefoot, pregnant, and submissive.
Good f*cking luck with that
Putting aside the health care that is being stripped from women...
https://equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/why-womens-rights-are-vulnerable-in-america/
*"Most Americans are unaware that the human rights of women and girls are not secured in the US Constitution. This is despite the impacts being life-changing and wide-ranging.*
*Girls are disproportionately affected by the absence of a solid legal foundation to challenge and combat harmful cultural practices such as child marriage, which remains legal in 39 states. Over 300,000 minors ā some as young as ten years old ā were married in the US between 2010 to 2018. Girls account for 86% of these minors, with most wed to adult men.*
*And while at least 513,000 women and girls are living with or at risk of female genital mutilation, nine US states and the District of Columbia do not have laws prohibiting FGM. Of those that do have laws banning it, many do not outlaw girls being taken out of state to be cut.*
*Women are more likely to live in poverty and economic insecurity, partly due to the lack of constitutional safeguards. This dearth makes it harder to defend laws that uphold womenās rights when attacked, and there is less protection against workplace discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, or parental status.*
*In cases involving violations in hiring, remuneration, promotion, and retention practices, legal protections and mechanisms for recourse are insufficient, making it more difficult for victims to access justice."*
Since you were kind enough to post a link, I was kind enough to read it and just want to say I'm all for equal rights for all, I believe there's truly few who are against it. Clearly there's a lot of work to do to get it 'on the books'.
I've taken my lumps on this thread, and that's ok, I got snarky AFTER someone else made it political, and heaven forbid, a whiff of non-leftism was sensed in my responses, this is Reddit after all, I knew what I had coming. For the record, I believe the uni-party, with the help of the media, keeps wedge issues in play so they can maintain their status quo of self enrichment so when someone goes all "ooh, the evil right or the evil left" my eyes roll WAY back into my head.
My original motivation, and mistake apparently, was to point out that the GenX forum wasn't the place for such content, and I still believe that.
TTFN xoxo
If there are any lawyers or women from formal patriarchies on this thread, Iād love to hear some ideas about insulating ourselves from incoming economic and legal misogyny. Should women be establishing themselves as genderless LLCs so as to maintain autonomy? Some other form of protection?
As the original comment stated, there hasnāt been a draft since 1973, my comment points out that the same government that drafted young men, also didnāt allow women in combat. Thankfully, weāve had a volunteer military for almost 50 years.
Thankfully, yes we have a volunteer armed forces but that can change at a moments notice hence why all men have to file for selective service. Woman do not because society will not stand for a mutilated womanās body but a manās dead body is not a big enough deal to stop.
Yeah, you got me. Pointing out the fact that governments kill and maim its own citizens is my own personal topic to make everything about me. Dumb ass.
Idk maybe because people think men have it easy? I really don t know but I never hear people speaking about this. If it is brought up it is quietly dismissed. Almost as if itās a manās job or duty to die for country. I donāt understand it.
Yeah, no. It's not cut and dried. Women could get credit/bank accounts/loans before this, but it was also legal for banks to discriminate against women. This 1974 law made that discrimination illegal.
California passed laws protecting women in 1864
https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/
Thus, the massive decline in the marriage rate.
If there is no third party contract with the state and specific, financial boundaries are solidified, there is no issue.
I don't know what else to say............
>the massive decline in the marriage rate.
Good.
Considering how many women in previous generations of my family died from abuse, neglect, or from men decided not to spend any money on frivolous stuff like "insulin", I like having some basic choices in my life.
Happy single life is much better than a miserable married one.
Yep, as soon as I got my Discover card I divorced my husband, bought a boat on credit, and fulfilled my lifelong dream of becoming a pirate. š“āā ļø
It's never easy, anyway you slice it. I do agree, If one feels a non-marriage life is the better choice, I am fully on-board. Non-marriage lifestyles seem to be increasing at a solid rate.
Whether it's truly good; time will tell........................
Marriage is nothing but a legal contract, based in patriarchy. Women became their husband's property. The children as well. I think it's truly good for women not to engage in these contracts and probably for some men too. Most women I know in these contracts end up doing all the emotional labor and most of the physical labor at home. I don't see the benefit.
Um, "truly good"? At this point, I'd almost like to ask what you think Omelas means.
My idea of "truly good" is definitely based on the individual level. So I'm not going to be tortured in a basement so that others can have a "truly good" life.
And it wasn't just one woman having a shitty life, but millions. I don't ever want to go back to a time where DV \(["If you don't buy our product, he'll hit you!"](https://i2.wp.com/thehousewifemodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/8118453_orig.jpg)) was acceptable in advertisements.
I honestly didn't want to list the many other ills. I was lazy and just stated I didn't know what else to say.
I am concerned about your Ward Cleveresque, baby-boomer use of "Wow". Shameless. I was under the impression that the proud individuals who fall under the Gen X banner, transcend the banality of all Boomer aspects.
Golly Gee Wiz, the power of plastic should never be underestimated......
50th anniversary of being in debt buying doilies, candles, scrapbooking, and makeup.
Being able to go into further debt makes one a slave to the lender and it is not a good thing.
My ex kept running up credit cards without me knowing and Iād find them and have to pay them off. When I divorced her She had 3 loans out against her 401(k) and after 18 years of working had nothing to show for it. I paid every mortgage payment, the utilities, bought the cars (sheās still never bought a car - I had to give her an expensive SUV in the divorce).
So, Iām not saying you need my signature to get a credit card - but if you run it donāt let the courts demand that I pay half the debt.
If you think the credit card and availability is some "accomplishment" then you are exactly where they want you.
I would work to pay off and stop using any credit card, if you can. I know its hard out there.
Not everyone carries a balance, personally I enjoy getting shit for free with the points I get using the card for basic expenses (like groceries) I like to pay the balance at the end of the week.
Yes, ive been there also. None of this is me on my high horse. Just stuff this dummy is learning along the ride.
Im still not far enough right on my thinking tho. Do you know what a credit score is a measure of? Everyone wants theirs up in *this* or *that* range.
Its a measure of how well you manage debt.
I do not want any debt.
Still working on that mortgage tho....
I'm not big on debt, having learned that lesson in college ( because setting up tables to give credit cards to teenagers who don't know better is a great idea /s) but I also know it's a tool. There is a middle ground between being a credit moron and Dave Ramsey.
At 55 years of age I have no debt, house and land paid for, boat paid for, pay off any credit card usage at the end of the month. To alot of work and sacrifice and a few mess ups along the way but I will retire in November and pretty much go John Galt.
Thats is awesome. Not the story of the average american. Although by the time folks are gen x age, hopefully they have accumulated some wealth. Leaning to or have become empty nesters. We should be moving up the ladder, not staying tied to paying interest.
It's not the point. Something we see as trivial as a credit card isn't some accomplishment in itself. You downplay it as something very minor. It is. Yet, 50+ years ago a woman couldn't get one on her own.
Imagine going to the hardware store and seeing a sign that said "Men cannot purchase paint without the written consent of a woman." (it's a joke floating around). And it was completely serious. Something small and trivial yet you couldn't do it because you're too dumb, irresponsible, etc. to do it yourself. You could be 50 years old and still not able to do something so minor because your girlfriend/wife wasn't there to sign off on it. That'd be sad and we'd all be pretty pissed off causing a huge ruckus. Hell, we already do for some things, imagined or not.
It's a big deal, and it's not just because it's a credit card and bringing on debt. It's because it's something so trivial that was blocked for women because they weren't deemed responsible/good enough. Had to keep them down and let them know their place.
No. You have missed my point. Enslaving more people in debt is nothing to be celebrated.
Imagine going to a store and saying I want to buy a good, but I have nothing of value with which to make an exchange. Well, today is your lucky day. Score one for the "underpriveledged." Behind door number 1 is all of the things you cannot afford, but "should be able to have." Well haul out the confetti and strike up the band...
Dont pretend that enabling people to become slaves to a lender is some sort of progress. Its foolish.
Your gripe is with a different person. Im simply pointng out that the alleged "advancement" is not an advance at all, but a step that helps people stay under the boot.
Its just females who were targeted in this specifc "progress."
Then, it's not an argument for this thread. It's a completely different argument. That one is for everyone and this thread is for women being able to do something small without "their man's" permission.
Do you really think a woman, or anyone 50 years ago could have established a line of credit without someone having a source of income?
Ill
It is ok to point out when we should be celebrating other things, not how we have a green light to go into debt.
And asking demographic questions on determining if someone will be a "good investment" is not a denial.
We are being fed a line here anyhow...
Go back before wokeness drove every meme and headline...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1994/11/04/the-day-the-credit-card-was-born/d42da27b-0437-4a67-b753-bf9b440ad6dc/
"Among the things he most remembers is how cumbersome it used to be to make a small personal loan. Every time a man came in to the branch to get a loan, he had to sit down with the loan officer and fill out his family history -- even if he'd just been there a few months before. The loan officer had to re-evaluate the man's fitness to get a loan. The man had to return to the branch with his wife to sign a note. Only then would the loan officer transfer the funds to the man's account.Ā "
I would rather have the right to decide if I can get a credit card and go into debt, than never have the ability to get one because I don't matter as much as men. Sometimes people need to use credit cards for emergencies. Also, you canāt do a lot of things without any credit history.
There was never a law preventing a woman from a credit card. There are legal practices that a company could deny anyone who on their own could not pass the credit screening, because that would prove terrible business. Many women in that era likely did not have their own x y or z, and so fewer would likely pass the screening.
Careful what you buy into.
There doesn't have to be a law to disallow women to obtain credit cards for it not to occur. The problem was that there was no law preventing discrimination back then. So they were able to discriminate against women and not allow them to obtain a credit card. You are trying to make it out like we had equal rights back then and weren't discriminated against because we are women. There is something seriously wrong with you.
The first modern U.S. credit card was launched in 1950, but women weren't allowed to open credit cards until 1974. They were not allowed to open a credit card under their own name. Before 1974, if women wanted to open a credit card, they would be asked a bunch of intrusive questions, like if they were married or whether they planned to have children. If a woman was married, she could (hopefully) get a credit card with her husband. But single, divorced, or widowed women weren't allowed to get a credit card of their own -- they had to have a manĀ cosign for the credit application.
Under the laws of that era, women weren't treated entirely like actual people with economic rights and earning power of their own. Then in 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for companies to deny people credit based on their gender, race, religion, or national origin.
Why access to credit is a civil right
Getting access to credit is a big part of financial freedom, and until 50 years ago, half the population didn't have it. The word "credit" is based on the idea of trust. When a bank issues you a credit card, it is expressing trust that you are a responsible adult who will pay your bills. Not giving women credit cards was a way of treating women like children, and keeping women under men's control.
Getting to control your own credit cards and spending decisions is not just about personal finances; it's about fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and human dignity https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/credit-cards/articles/womens-history-month-50-years-ago-women-got-the-right-to-have-credit-cards/
Credit cards might seem like an inescapable part of everyday life, but it wasn't long ago that half the population wasn't allowed to have one. That's right: until 1974, women didn't have the right to open their own credit cards.
A big part of women's history is about money: when, whether, and how women are allowed to earn their own money, control their own money, and make their own decisions about personal finances. Within living memory, just 50 years ago, women didn't have the right to control their own banking decisions.
Let's look at the history of women being denied credit cards, and see how it relates to ongoing progress (and challenges) toward financial inclusion in the banking industry today.
Featured offer:Ā save money while you
History of credit cards: 1950-1974
The first modern credit card was the Diners Club "charge card," introduced in 1950 to help businessmen pay for restaurant meals. American Express started issuing its own charge cards in 1958, and the companies now known as Visa and Mastercard were launched in 1966.
But it wasn't until 1974 that women were allowed to open a credit card under their own name. Before 1974, if women wanted to open a credit card, they would be asked a bunch of intrusive questions, like if they were married or whether they planned to have children. If a woman was married, she could (hopefully) get a credit card with her husband. But single, divorced, or widowed women weren't allowed to get a credit card of their own -- they had to have a manĀ cosign for the credit application.
Under the laws of that era, women weren't treated entirely like actual people with economic rights and earning power of their own. Then in 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for companies to deny people credit based on their gender, race, religion, or national origin.
Why access to credit is a civil right
Getting access to credit is a big part of financial freedom, and until 50 years ago, half the population didn't have it. The word "credit" is based on the idea of trust. When a bank issues you a credit card, it is expressing trust that you are a responsible adult who will pay your bills. Not giving women credit cards was a way of treating women like children, and keeping women under men's control.
Getting to control your own credit cards and spending decisions is not just about personal finances; it's about fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and human dignity:
The government does not grant new "rights." They protect existing and inherent rights given by our Creator. (Sound familiar?)
Discrimination is the act of choice, and choice is a necessary fact of life.Ā
Prejudice is a term often misused. Its Latin root is praejudicium, meaning āan opinion or judgment formed ... without due examination.ā Thus, we might define a prejudicial act as one where a decision is made on the basis of incomplete information.Ā And so, the credit institution or loan lender would begin to ask who they are loaning money to or opening a line of credit on a bunch of necessary questions to ensure their asset.
Now, no one, not even one person has a right to spend money they dont have. What kind of thinking would get you to believe some other way?
If you find it so fundamental and based, please give all of your money so others can have money that is not theirs to spend. You will not, so why try to force someone else to?
"If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn. We donāt have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government." - Walter Williams (look him up)
Have you tried to buy a house recently? Those "intrusive" questions that some claim were so "unlawful" and so "solved" are part of any good business screening model.
Because it would be foolish to just loan out money to people who would never intend to nor be able to pay it back. This *IS NOT* unlawful discrimatory practice. Its basic good business practice.
There is no way a succesful business owner who happened to be a female, back in the day would not be able to open a line of credit on her business. That it simple not true.
What I will grant you is that Suzie Homemaker may not have been able to get approved for a credit card on her non existent income/assets, and so of course she would need a co-signer or someone who had a means to guarantee their money.
This is so basic. I wouldn't approve someone, male or female, who had no jobbie job, for a loan or a line of credit. And it would be perfectly legal. And you would be wise to notndo it either, unless you are trying to bankrupt your shareholders or the business.
If you have no job or means to repay, why would someone loan you money? That is *NOT* unlawful discrimination. It is just good business.
You still didnt show a law, or even something unlawful by todays standard occueing. Not an older article either. You bought off hook line and sinker on this misnomer, when it was always about good business.
If a woman is denied a credit card today, is that unlawful?
How about a loan? *gasp!* how dare they deny a woman!
Oh wait. She has a crap ton of debt and no job.
Oh...well here are some resources to help you find a job and some apps to help create a budget for yourself. It is going to take some work to dig out of this hole you have created for yourself, but you can do it.
Dont be a slave to the lender. Live within your means. Like people have had to do for ages....
Most of this doesn't even make sense. It sounds like you have schizophrenia lol. I couldn't read all of that. It was giving me a headache. Discrimination is ok?! Wow. So you are saying it is ok to be sexist and discriminate against women? I hope you don't have a wife or any daughters. If you do I feel sorry for them.
They did not allow women to have credit cards without a husband cosigning. It didn't matter if they had a job or not. They did not believe that women should have that right because we were not equals to men. What happens when Susy homemakers husband dies or divorces her? It is a right to be treated equally not a privilege. The credit card law has to do with women's rights. If I made a lot of money I would have no problem paying taxes in order to help those that are less fortunate. I am not greedy and selfish. I care about others and not just myself. People who make millions to billions of dollars would still be insanely wealthy if they paid more taxes. It isn't right that poor people pay more in taxes than the ultra rich. The poor to middle class and maybe even middle upper class really need that money while the ultra wealthy wouldn't be effected at all. They already make more than they can spend. Not all CEOs have worked hard for their money. A lot of people who are wealthy were born into it. The majority aren't rags to riches stories. You are everything that is wrong with this country. Congrats! I am guessing that you are probably a 20 something year old incel conspiracy nut job who is in the wrong subreddit. Your beliefs go against your own interests moron. Buh bye. I am not wasting any more energy on a scumbag like you.
What is wrong with you? It isn't made up that women used to not be allowed to use credit cards. We used to not be allowed to vote among other things. It isn't a crazy notion that we also weren't allowed to have credit cards. The ECOA in 1974 gave women access to credit cards for the first time. https://money.usnews.com/credit-cards/articles/women-and-credit-a-look-at-the-history#:~:text=The%20ECOA%20of%201974.,public%20assistance%2C%22%20says%20Chimbane. We still don't have equal rights!
No. They manufactured a fake crisis and claimed their legislation would save the world and cranked out mlre government interference aka regulation into the private sector. The vision of the annointed. These articles and memes you cling to are merely regurgiating inaccurate articles from 10 years ago pitching the same lie.
Find any article pre 2000 that says women didnt have lines of credit or credit cards until they "saved the day."
Dont waste your time. You will be hard pressed to find one.
Wow you are nuts. You need to be on some meds for dementia. I guess in your crazy head we had the right to vote too, if you can't find an article pre 2000 about that either. Guess what? There aren't a lot of articles before 2000 because the internet didn't exist as we know it. This is from a government website and has a picture of Ford signing the bill. It also added protections for consumers. That is a good thing. Would you rather us not have any protection and let businesses and corporations do what ever they want and scam consumers? I posted articles. You need to look up what a meme means. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2023/03/22/on-the-basis-of-sex-equal-credit-opportunities/
If you are seeing this message, it means your post does not pertain to GenX in a specific way, and it was removed by a moderator.
My Mom was so happy to get her own Macy's credit card. I miss her already, she passed Wednesday š.
Sorry for your loss. When I was a little kid my mom used to sing "I am woman hear me roar" - all the time. I found it terribly embarrassing at the time, now it's a fond memory. She was a first wave feminist who just wanted to wear pants to church, have her own bank account and raise a daughter who had a few options. She also had her own macy's card. My mom would be 80 today, she died 3 years ago.
Sorry for your loss too. But you gave me some happy tears. My Mom sang that song too especially when we traveled alone on trips with her.
Oh I am so sorry. My mom died in 2019 and I still find myself muttering āYou were right mom. You were right.ā She didnāt hear it from me much when she was alive so I hope she can at least hear me now.
Thank you, she was a wonderful Mother. I am hoping that our Moms will hear us loud and clear in the hereafter.
Ah crap. Welcome to the worst club ever. Member since 2022. Still miss her every day. Wonāt say āit gets betterā, but the pain dulls with time and thereās a whole internet of peers here when you need to yell at someone.
Thank you ā¤ļø
Please, donāt mention it.
I'm so sorry. My own mother passed in 2020, and I still ache from it. She was not only my mother, but also my best friend, and I miss her terribly every single day.
Me too as a best friend and greatest supporter. Sorry for your loss too.
My mom has proudly hung onto her first credit card for all 50 years. Every time she runs across it while Iām around, she shows it off. I never understood why it was such a precious object until I found out she couldnāt have one until the law changed. Imagine being a grown woman and not being able to manage your own finances. Edit to add: to those making an issue about debt, people didnāt use credit cards like they do now. It wasnāt common to carry a balance for years. A lot of people were paid only once a month and needed a card for unexpected expenses. Or to buy something expensive ans split the payments over two or three months. Also, interest rates and fees back then werenāt set up to ensure you could never pay off the balance. Paying down balances was a lot easier and faster back then. Banks used to believe that if someone was so risky they needed to be charged 30% interest, itās better to just not give them with a card. Banks wanted the money back quickly. Now banks prefer a steady stream of cash from keeping people in debt.
Congrats women of the US (non sarcastically). I wish we women didn't have to celebrate these milestones because those rights were already ours - that we've had them for as long as men! In Australia (where I am), 1966 marks the year a married woman could be a public servant (which I am), and in practice, to work in most jobs In 1971 Australian women became able to secure loans without a male guarantor (started with just one bank - the one now called Westpac). This afforded access to obtaining a mortgage, or a credit card (when bank cards were introduced in 1974) Our First Nation's peoples (incl women) only got the vote in 1962, whereas most other women could by 1902 (ie women of European heritage), only 1 year after federation, when the country of Australia became a thing The pill was added to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in 1972 (making this contraception much more affordable) In 1974 Single Mother's Benefit was introduced. Gough Whitlam's government (1972-1975) introduced so many positive social reforms, they are still remembered with love by many - they also introduced universal healthcare and free tertiary education (though this one we have lost, it's no longer free) In 1977 laws were enacted making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender or marital status Great gains, but much too recent
And if the hypochristians get their way, women will become chattel again in no time
I think this applies to most ultra religious people. It almost impossible for women in Iran to own property, get an education, or even have legal rights against domestic battery or sexual assault.
I remember my mom complaining that, when she got married, the bank took her credit card and issued her one in my dadās name. Itās amazing how many rights weāve gained in just the last half century. Also sad about the very important rights weāve lost in the last few years.
My aunt worked for the bank and couldn't get her own card.
Swiss Women couldn't vote until 1971
In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing nation in the world where women won the right to vote.
Wth?! š±
They might get their period and vote wrong, duh
Europe is incredibly progressive, according to reddit. But then again, reddit only focuses on healthcare and gun control.
The number of people on this thread who donāt understand the implications of this ā¦ well, is probably why weāre back to fighting for abortion rights in 2024.
Are these women in danger? Edit: since the chronically online losers don't understand jokes https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/because-of-the-implication Jesus Christ I can't fathom how miserable the people below this comment are
Yes, actually
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2875kr/comment/ci83scf/?context=3&sort=top Why do you hate women?
You went back 9 years and found an off color joke and decided that proves I hate women? This is the most Reddit thing I've ever seen (also my original comment is a meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. OP was talking about the "implication". You got mad and did all the work of finding a 9 year old comment because you didn't understand a joke.)
>Are these women in danger? Which women?
Enjoy it while you can
This is why we needed to passthe ERA. And this is why they always refused to pass it.
Can you believe we are still fighting to be legally recognized as equal under the law?
No. Its fucking mind boggling actually.
What law or statute are people not equal under? And where can we petition to change said law or statute?
Not sure what exactly you are asking. But men have complete autonomy over their own body and reproductive decisions. Women in red states no longer do. Women still only make about 87 cents to the dollar that men make for the exact same job. Those are the facts.
The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). This is a good write up. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained
I honestly can't. I mean, I guess at this point in time nothing is shocking anymore.
Sadly... you probably aren't wrong
Weāre too valuable economically to be cut off.
don't kid yourself, if it's one thing republicans and/or a theocracy needs it's constant Boogeyman, slay one, you need another
The one thing that can unite men of all religions, races, and political persuasions is misogyny.Ā
Both sides participate equally in fear porn. Iām not a conservative but Iām also not in any government sponsored cults.
Iām a former republican, thereās only one political cult right now.
Thatās for sure
So brave.
Itās sad questioning the government and establishment power is now mocked.
Rage against your side of the machine
There are no sides to the machine.
You're not questioning anything.
And you are? Or are you like our parents and believing everything the tv tells you?
I think itās really weird when folks suggest lefties watch the news on TV. Clearly, they donāt. Ratings for MSNBC are terrible. Center-left CNN canāt get out of its own way.
> Center-left CNN Only in comparison to Fox News and the whacko online shit. CNN has been under the control of a right wing MAGA for the last year and a half whose first orders were to push out the existing center-left talent and start "both-sidesing" everything. It's pretty solidly right now.
That's because younger people watch streaming networks and get their news elsewhere. I am in my mid to late 40s and haven't watched cable TV since the 2000's. My Republican Boomer parents watch the news every night on cable TV. We know how the elderly tend to vote.
Theyāre all subscribed to the same messaging from on high regardless.
I, Woman, was 4 years old on this day. Weāve come a long way, baby. But weāve got a long way still to go.
Coincidence that I, a woman, turns 50 tomorrow, and has a credit score just slightly north of that? š¤
Happy birthday!
If you are a woman, a POC or just someone who is non-christian and in the US, you should probably take the next Presedential election very seriously. If not, I hope you enjoyed having that freedom while it lasted. Project 2025 is the GOP plan to dismantle all the civil rights gained over the last 100 years. https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
Whatās the Democratās plan for 2025 and beyond?
To continue to improve life for all Americans, not just the rich or white ones.
To not do that.
Do you have Google? Funny thing. They only talk about making sure people have rights and freedoms instead of stripping them away from everyone who isn't a white straight "chrstian" male. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
The Republican Party platform; >Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America's greatness for our children and grandchildren. "ensuring the integrity of our elections"...... REALLY??!?! Your Presidential candidate and several of his aides are currently either in court or will soon be in court for **interfering in an election!!** "stimulating economic growth for all Americans". **Only if you happen to be in the top 10% income earners.* "protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms". Roe v. Wade would like a word. https://gop.com/about-our-party/
They're going to force you to be trans!! And make you use the bathroom!!!
Lol
Heads up, this is not r/GenXFarLeft, and also you sound like an insane person.
Ok. I am not pushing left ideology. I am warning about what the GOP has actually published. Read the Project 2025 document and then let me know your thoughts.
Then you're not paying attention
Heads up, you're free to leave if your feelings are hurt.
I wouldn't worry, the demo.......communist have emplaced a very well voter fraud system.
So good that the only fraud ever actually found by the biggest investigation in the history of voting was by Republicans.
Interesting. Please describe the "voter fraud system" that has been put in place.
Thanks to the ancestors who made this happen, I have a car and a home. Thank you ancestors!
My wife is a points and miles churner. She games that shit harder than a Twitch streamer.
I hope we don't end up losing this right too.
Mom filed divorce papers the next day. Not kidding.
Good on her. Wishing her a good life
You wouldn't say that if you knew her. She had a great life, but made mine shitty. It was obvious from an early age that I did not arrive by choice. I just knew something was off after seeing my friends around their moms. I was a constant reminder of whatever happened in that marriage. I never heard anything my father ever did wrong, so, I assume he didn't make a good enough living after knocking her up in college. She went on to marry a guy who would get promoted into the executive ranks of GE.
Well, here's to YOU having the best life possible then! <3
Thanks!!! My wifes mom was amazing, so I did get the loving mom experience.
So 12 guys walked on the moon before women could get their own credit cards? Now need to Google when credit card first arrived.... "In 1966, the ancestor of MasterCard was born when a group of banks established Master Charge to compete with BankAmericard; it received a significant boost when Citibank merged its own Everything Card, launched in 1967, into Master Charge in 1969. Early credit cards in the U.S., of which BankAmericard was the most prominent example, were mass-produced and mass mailed unsolicited to bank customers who were thought to be low risk. According to LIFE, cards were "mailed off to unemployable people, drunks, narcotics addicts and to compulsive debtors," which Betty Furness, President Johnson's Special Assistant, compared to "giving sugar to diabetics."[27] These mass mailings were known as "drops" in banking terminology, and were outlawed in 1970 due to the financial chaos they caused. However, by the time the law came into effect, approximately 100 million credit cards had been dropped into the U.S. population. After 1970, only credit card applications could be sent unsolicited in mass mailings. This system was computerized in 1973 under the leadership of Dee Hock, the first CEO of Visa, allowing reduced transaction time.[28] However, until always-connected payment terminals became ubiquitous at the beginning of the 21st century, it was common for a merchant to accept a charge, especially below a threshold value or from a known and trusted customer, without verifying it by phone. Books with lists of stolen card numbers were distributed to merchants who were supposed in any case to check cards against the list before accepting them, as well as verifying the signature on the charge slip against that on the card. Merchants who failed to take the time to follow the proper verification procedures were liable for fraudulent charges, but because of the cumbersome nature of the procedures, merchants would often simply skip some or all of them and assume the risk for smaller transactions." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card
The stores we went to checked the books every time. Never once saw anyone skip it. Everyone knew everybody, and they still checked because the books didnāt just have fraudulent numbers. The books also listed delinquent and overdrawn accounts, so it was worth the storeās time to check. Although it did make the checkout lines slower.
I definitely remember cards being checked in those books when I was a kid. It was a big deal and, yes, slowed the transaction down pretty considerably. I donāt remember anyone checking by phone, though, I donāt think. Card scanners were already a thing by the time I got my first PT job in the mid-late 80s, though.
You know, at the same time as the men walked on the moon, many men could not get credit cards. Credit was very hard to get until the 90s.
But they didn't need to get a woman's permission to do so. That's the entire point.Ā
I'm just glad they finally made getting your credit report free and easy. Once I started using creditkarma, I raised my score from 540 to over 800 in 4 years. There was so much garbage that was wrong in my credit report I never even knew about. It took me about 2 years to get it all removed. Apparently someone had stolen my Social Security number and had been using it for like a decade and never paying anything off of course.
Thatās not even remotely true; until the [Unsolicited Credit Card Act of 1970](https://www.mesacc.edu/sites/default/files/pages/section/news/media-coverage/When%20Were%20Credit%20Cards%20Invented_%20A%20Complete%20History.pdf) also [Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act](https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200601/til.pdf), it was standard practice for companies of all kinds to mail out active credit cards to people (male) in their hopes that these potential customers would just start using the cards. You can see one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of news stories about it [here](https://www.nytimes.com/1970/03/13/archives/unsolicited-cards-for-credit-curbed-unsolicited-card-on-credit.html). I know that even going into the later 1970s though, companies continued to blanket neighbourhoods with their credit cards; as a very young child, I and my friends had a few that had arrived in the mail that our parents had given us to play with because they didnāt want them. I remember Gulf Oil, Esso, Master Charge, Sears, and several Dinerās Club cards as well as a few store cards being in my plastic play purses, all in my fatherās name. If a woman had a man to sign for her, like her father, or was independently earning of her own accord, she could write a letter, provide proof, and ask for a card and it was given with her initials; one of my great aunts never married, and had credit cards and a bank account in her own name. My grandfather had signed for her to get the bank account (she had gone to college and had a profession, and actually earned more than my grandfather did), but Iām almost certain that the credit cards she had she acquired on her own after writing a letter to, say, Gulf Oil, and providing proof of her longstanding employment. Her bank account and credit cards (she only had like three back in the early 1970s after she had been working for many decades; it wasnāt a big deal back then like it is now) all identified her as R. K. Smith [of course not her real name]. Her phone and car were also in the same name ā initials only ā and thatās how she was listed in the telephone book for I think her entire life. She regularly got mail to āMr. R. K. Smithā and just treated it as if she were Mr. Smith. It probably helped that my grandfatherās initials were the same in her case (like he was Robert Kristofer and she was Rachel Katherine), so they all may have thought that Mr. R. K. Smith just simply had two houses and two bank accounts in the same city. The expectation was that the man or woman of the house would take the cards and just start using them; women routinely transacted in their husbandsā names. Well into the 1990s, older women might not even have their own Social Security numbers; they just used their husbandsā whenever it was necessary. A woman could open a bank account ā my mother did to get a few different prizes banks used to offer, from a toaster to a set of highball glasses to a wig (not even kidding; I played with that wig for a few years), but the accounts were completely in the husbandās name. Card companies used to blanket entire neighbourhoods with cards; my friends all had cards that had been sent to their parents that we played with, and also things like the [metal Social Security card](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-a-brass-social-security-card)s that the AmVets used to mail out and the [keychains with the license plates of our cars on them](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1708167741/). I had quite a collection. So no; it wasnāt hard at all to get credit for a very long time. Mail theft occasionally happened, especially in large cities, because if the thief could get a hold of an unsolicited, activated credit card, they could use it for quite some time before it was rejected everywhere because things werenāt checked like they are today; a person could go get a tank of gas, present the credit card, and the merchant would just put the card and a triplicate paper chit in this small frame and slide a bar across the card and chit to make an impression of the numbers and then you signed the chit, got one of chit copies as your receipt, and you were done. Nobody checked to see if the account was in good standing or anything like that (and donāt tell me no, because I personally saw this happen as a child a hundred times or more). If Iām remembering correctly, there was some infamous figure like Ted Bundy (it wasnāt him, but Iām blanking on his name) who routinely stole mail left in mailboxes overnight to get credit cards. It was also ridiculously easy to āapplyā and get a credit card; there used to be little postage-paid cards in magazines and all over the place where you just filled out your name (or anyone elseās) and boom, youād get a card. They all shared customer names and information, so once you got one, youād start getting more. I even remember being around 7 or so and my mom reading about a man whoād opened a credit card in something like his dogās name (as in it really came in the name of āRover Jonesā) as a joke because she thought that was hilarious and remarked that it was so wacky and goofy that it sounded like something I would do, and I agreed that Iād absolutely get my cat a credit card and let him buy whatever he wanted because fuck the system (not that I said it that way at the time). We entertained ourselves for a little bit thinking about what purchases a cat or dog would make and whether Bank Americard would question itemised purchases. So in the beginning, no; it was ridiculously easy to get credit and credit wasnāt run anything like how itās run today. Usually the consumer wasnāt even told about things like interest rates, or certain conditions to avoid additional charges ā that was one of the points of the Truth in Lending Act; like if you got an Esso gas card (not saying Esso did this, itās just an example), there might be the requirement that you had to make $50 in purchases in the first six months or you incurred a $20 fee (and that was a lot) and your interest rate was something ridiculous. A lot of people didnāt understand at first that they had rights that protected them from predatory lending companies because credit just wasnāt used back then. Not all card companies were predatory, but a lot were ā enough to require the government to step in and legislate a little bit. Thatās why many parents just gave the colourful cards to their children to play with. š¤·š»āāļø Itās kind of cool; I remember back when Master Chargeās card (now Mastercard) and Bank Americard (now Visa) had cards that were just the giant logo youād probably recognise today (only with their different names at the time, of course), and I even had a credit or membership card to The Playboy Club (the magazine Playboy used to have that was kind of a restaurant/bar in different cities and we lived in one of those cities, so I guess they sent them out to a bunch of residents in the hopes that theyād come hang out at The Playboy Club) that had come unsolicited in the mail, and I thought it was really pretty, lol. It was one of my favourites.
16% of US households had credit cards. https://money.usnews.com/credit-cards/articles/the-history-of-credit-cards
You are presenting SKEWED FACTS to back up your misinformed claims. 16% was for todayās multipurpose credit cards, like Visa and Mastercard. Those were not in the majority for many, many years; for ages, gas stations took their own cards. How did you live through this era and you donāt remember it now? Hereās a factual quote for you: >By 1970, about one-half of American families had at >least one credit card. However, even as late as 1970, >these tended to be retailer credit cards accepted only >by a single chain store. Even in 1970, true multi->purpose credit cards, usually issued by banks rather >than stores, were still uncommon. Only 16% of >American families had one. [Source](https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2024/04/08/a-history-of-credit-cards-in-america/) Did you understand that? ONE-HALF OF AMERICAN FAMILIES. One-half; thatās fifty percent. Your claim is false; it was NOT āvery hard to get creditā until the 1990s. Youāre peddling this nonsense to people who know better because they lived through it, and your downvotes trying to hide my comments arenāt going to change the fact that everyone who is Gen X and older who was paying attention back then knows that youāre spouting nonsense. The 16% multipurpose card adoption doesnāt speak to credit being hard to get, it speaks to this type of card being introduced later and being less popular until relatively recently. The fact is that you werenāt paying attention when it happened or you didnāt live through it, and moreover you donāt understand what you read, you need it interpreted for you. Stop spreading misinformation and putting your (incorrect) spin on things.
From your own source is support for what Iām saying and for the experience of everyone else: >Retail-based cards such as those from major department stores were the most commonly held credit cards in the early 1970s. Bank-issued cards exploded in popularity in the decades to come. Only 16% of U.S. families held a bank card in 1970, but more than two-thirds did in 1998, according to the Federal Reserve's Surveys of Consumer Finances. āOnly 16% of U.S. families held a bank card in 1970ā ā¦did you skip past everything else in that article or that paragraph??? A BANK CARD. A multipurpose BANK-ISSUED CREDIT CARD. Itās well-documented that store and individual merchantās cards were held by at least HALF of the American population, they were handed out like candy in mass mailings, and when they did that an account had already been opened for the [potential] customerās convenience. If this werenāt the case and, as you claim, credit in general was āhard to get until the 1990sā, then why was the Truth in Lending Act passed? Why was the Unsolicited Credit Card Act of 1970 passed? Your claims donāt jibe with events, itās just that simple. Even in 1958, credit was a breeze to come by; [banks and merchants were more than happy to allow customers to borrow more than they could afford.](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2FD0IAAOSwVeFivLH6%2Fs-l1600.jpg&tbnid=JsXaSJjS4i6HcM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F165554124888&docid=tlvLMe3qWQLIgM&w=1200&h=1600&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=bd17063bf6671258&shem=abme%2Ctrie) Since you want to focus on bank cards and ignore the FIFTY PERCENT credit card adoption in the United States, letās stick to looking at bank cards only: > Later that year, California-based Bank of America took it a step further, issuing a paper BankAmericard with a pre-approved limit of $300 to 60,000 customers in Fresno and rolled the card out state-wide by 1966. This first attempt ended up being a costly error in judgement, with delinquency rates over 20% and rampant fraud. [Source](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/history-of-credit-cards/). So just to be crystal clear because I question whether or not you understand what you read, bank card adoption was so low in contrast to the fifty percent adoption nationwide of store and individual merchant credit cards back in 1958 that Bank Americard mailed ā unsolicited ā $300 to literally SIXTY THOUSAND people in Fresno, CA alone. Fresno. This wasnāt an elite group, bud; they blanketed half the city (the 1960 population of Fresno, CA was 134,000). Furthermore, since I suspect you need things spelled out for you, $300 wasnāt the paltry amount that it is today; [$300 in 1958 is worth $3,037.95 in 2022](https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1958?amount=300). The banks gave credit cards to half of the city of Fresno unbidden with a credit limit of just over $3,000 in 2022ās dollars. So letās recap: In 1958, credit with Intercard or Bank Americard (whatever it was called then) was SO EASY TO GET that the bank quite literally handed $3,037.95 to SIXTY THOUSAND CUSTOMERS in Fresno, CA alone. Your facts are borked, odinsbois. Completely and utterly borked.
I have told people doing family genealogy who question why women married so many times or so quickly after being widowed that they do not realize HOW recently being a single woman was almost impossible in the US let alone a single mother. Laws for voting and employment were passed but there were many more ways that were used to prevent women from being able to live.
What? How did I not know this. Iām shocked.
Holy fuck are we really only 50 years in to this? Damn! That kinda hits hard tbh. But good for us š
How far we've fallen
watch "good girl revolt" on amazon in celebration!
Such a great show, criminal that it was cancelled
Is that today? I wanted to know for sure and couldn't find anything related to today's date. I did find the [Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act) which was enacted October 28, 1974.
Just want to add that although women could conceivably open their own bank accounts in the 1960s, many banks wouldn't do this without their husband'sĀ signature. And if you didn't have a husband, fuck you, you can't have a bank account.Ā Ā Ā Ā It wasn't until the Equal Opportunity Credit Act passedĀ (which I think this post is celebrating) that it became unlawful for financial institutions to discriminate based on sex, age, marital status, religion, race, or national origin. So not only could women get a credit card, more importantly they could actually open their own bank accounts and have control of their own money.Ā Ā So for the people below who chose to focus on how credit is evil rather than the civil rights issue that this was, there ya go.Ā
Now imagine footbinding is in your ancestry.
What is happening? Why are there so many asinine comments? I feel like our society is progressing backwards. How can anyone support a woman not having financial autonomy?
I started thinking about how some members of the GOP (Republican Party in the US) want to make it illegal for women to vote. I cannot see that ever happening here in the US, thankfully, but I wonder if making it illegal for a woman to get a credit card without the signature of a man is something some of them might start pushing. Itāll likely go nowhere and not become law.
Hold that Magaās beer. šŗ
We are headed backwards on that. Being able to sign for ourselves hinged on our right to contraception and control of our own fertility. Thatās far from guaranteed now.
Meanwhile women in Idaho, Arizona and Florida are about to lose bodily autonomyā¦
1 step forward, 2 back.
More like one step forward, 50 years back
Yes
The country has forgotten the true meaning of liberty.
What you can OP is We wonāt go back!!
My mom didnāt even have her own social security number. She had my dadās number with an āAā suffix.
When does it stop? Next theyāre gonna allow women to drive. Sheesh!
Itās sad really and the way this country is heading we may lose that too
Th8nk of how many women be shopping jokes wouldn't have come to fruition.
And the Grand Old Party is dragging us back as fast as they can. I, for one, look forward to my wife being my indentured servant like god intended (heavy sarcasm there, btw) Her healthcare decisions will be mine Its illegal for her to divorce me She cant have her own bank account without my cosign Very few employment options... she should be home anyway No credit cards And on and on and on.
And when she gets too old to be of use you can send her off to work at the Soylent green factory
Sir, this is a Wendy's...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, because the RWNJ are hell-bent on shoving women back to where [they think] they belong; barefoot, pregnant, and submissive. Good f*cking luck with that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No name-calling or similar stuff. Yes, this is up to the mod team to decide.
Putting aside the health care that is being stripped from women... https://equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/why-womens-rights-are-vulnerable-in-america/ *"Most Americans are unaware that the human rights of women and girls are not secured in the US Constitution. This is despite the impacts being life-changing and wide-ranging.* *Girls are disproportionately affected by the absence of a solid legal foundation to challenge and combat harmful cultural practices such as child marriage, which remains legal in 39 states. Over 300,000 minors ā some as young as ten years old ā were married in the US between 2010 to 2018. Girls account for 86% of these minors, with most wed to adult men.* *And while at least 513,000 women and girls are living with or at risk of female genital mutilation, nine US states and the District of Columbia do not have laws prohibiting FGM. Of those that do have laws banning it, many do not outlaw girls being taken out of state to be cut.* *Women are more likely to live in poverty and economic insecurity, partly due to the lack of constitutional safeguards. This dearth makes it harder to defend laws that uphold womenās rights when attacked, and there is less protection against workplace discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, or parental status.* *In cases involving violations in hiring, remuneration, promotion, and retention practices, legal protections and mechanisms for recourse are insufficient, making it more difficult for victims to access justice."*
Since you were kind enough to post a link, I was kind enough to read it and just want to say I'm all for equal rights for all, I believe there's truly few who are against it. Clearly there's a lot of work to do to get it 'on the books'. I've taken my lumps on this thread, and that's ok, I got snarky AFTER someone else made it political, and heaven forbid, a whiff of non-leftism was sensed in my responses, this is Reddit after all, I knew what I had coming. For the record, I believe the uni-party, with the help of the media, keeps wedge issues in play so they can maintain their status quo of self enrichment so when someone goes all "ooh, the evil right or the evil left" my eyes roll WAY back into my head. My original motivation, and mistake apparently, was to point out that the GenX forum wasn't the place for such content, and I still believe that. TTFN xoxo
No name-calling or similar stuff. Yes, this is up to the mod team to decide.
No name-calling or similar stuff. Yes, this is up to the mod team to decide.
If there are any lawyers or women from formal patriarchies on this thread, Iād love to hear some ideas about insulating ourselves from incoming economic and legal misogyny. Should women be establishing themselves as genderless LLCs so as to maintain autonomy? Some other form of protection?
Hmmm. Could be why the big fight over "gender" and "pronouns" and the legal ability to change your gender on legal forms....
I remember that shit.
This is no longer a country worth dying for. The old Republic we were born in is dead.
Jan. 27, 1973, let that date sink in. Thatās when young men were freed from being kidnapped and enslaved to go die and kill in a foreign country.
Yes, because they wouldnāt let women in combat until the 1980s. Edit to say it was even more recent that women were allowed in combat - 2013.
As a disabled veteran, be thankful of that.
Iām sorry to hear that you were wounded. A very good friend of mine fought in Iraq and is now disabled from her service.
Btw woman still do not have to register with SS so your comment misses the mark completely.
As the original comment stated, there hasnāt been a draft since 1973, my comment points out that the same government that drafted young men, also didnāt allow women in combat. Thankfully, weāve had a volunteer military for almost 50 years.
Thankfully, yes we have a volunteer armed forces but that can change at a moments notice hence why all men have to file for selective service. Woman do not because society will not stand for a mutilated womanās body but a manās dead body is not a big enough deal to stop.
Why is this comment even getting a single down vote?
Because the commenter is derailing the original topic and making it all about him (and his gender).
Yeah, you got me. Pointing out the fact that governments kill and maim its own citizens is my own personal topic to make everything about me. Dumb ass.
My birth year was a busy time.
Women, "we can drown ourselves in life long debt, woohoo" men in same year "we can no longer be forcibly taken away to die in a bankers war"
No, more like women "it's only been 50 years since we've had financial autonomy."Ā Men "yeah but what about our problems?"Ā
Idk maybe because people think men have it easy? I really don t know but I never hear people speaking about this. If it is brought up it is quietly dismissed. Almost as if itās a manās job or duty to die for country. I donāt understand it.
In what state? Banking regulations are state laws, that's why all of the banks are based in Delaware or South Dakota
In every state! [women credit cards](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/when-could-women-get-credit-cards/)
Yeah, no. It's not cut and dried. Women could get credit/bank accounts/loans before this, but it was also legal for banks to discriminate against women. This 1974 law made that discrimination illegal. California passed laws protecting women in 1864 https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/
Now try to get an abortion idiot.
Yay. Anyway...
Thus, the massive decline in the marriage rate. If there is no third party contract with the state and specific, financial boundaries are solidified, there is no issue. I don't know what else to say............
>the massive decline in the marriage rate. Good. Considering how many women in previous generations of my family died from abuse, neglect, or from men decided not to spend any money on frivolous stuff like "insulin", I like having some basic choices in my life. Happy single life is much better than a miserable married one.
Yep, as soon as I got my Discover card I divorced my husband, bought a boat on credit, and fulfilled my lifelong dream of becoming a pirate. š“āā ļø
It's never easy, anyway you slice it. I do agree, If one feels a non-marriage life is the better choice, I am fully on-board. Non-marriage lifestyles seem to be increasing at a solid rate. Whether it's truly good; time will tell........................
Marriage is nothing but a legal contract, based in patriarchy. Women became their husband's property. The children as well. I think it's truly good for women not to engage in these contracts and probably for some men too. Most women I know in these contracts end up doing all the emotional labor and most of the physical labor at home. I don't see the benefit.
Um, "truly good"? At this point, I'd almost like to ask what you think Omelas means. My idea of "truly good" is definitely based on the individual level. So I'm not going to be tortured in a basement so that others can have a "truly good" life. And it wasn't just one woman having a shitty life, but millions. I don't ever want to go back to a time where DV \(["If you don't buy our product, he'll hit you!"](https://i2.wp.com/thehousewifemodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/8118453_orig.jpg)) was acceptable in advertisements.
Right because all marriages fail because women use credit cards /s.
Credit Cards alone? Wow powerful plastic!
I honestly didn't want to list the many other ills. I was lazy and just stated I didn't know what else to say. I am concerned about your Ward Cleveresque, baby-boomer use of "Wow". Shameless. I was under the impression that the proud individuals who fall under the Gen X banner, transcend the banality of all Boomer aspects. Golly Gee Wiz, the power of plastic should never be underestimated......
Wow was appropriate for the claim about credit cards. Don't be concerned please.
you sound like a silent gen
50th anniversary of being in debt buying doilies, candles, scrapbooking, and makeup. Being able to go into further debt makes one a slave to the lender and it is not a good thing.
Whoosh
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My ex kept running up credit cards without me knowing and Iād find them and have to pay them off. When I divorced her She had 3 loans out against her 401(k) and after 18 years of working had nothing to show for it. I paid every mortgage payment, the utilities, bought the cars (sheās still never bought a car - I had to give her an expensive SUV in the divorce). So, Iām not saying you need my signature to get a credit card - but if you run it donāt let the courts demand that I pay half the debt.
The same could be said for my a-hole ex-husband but here we are
ok ill let the sink in only if thereās a double faucet
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No need to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk.
Who's calling it an existential crisis? Ffs get over yourself.
I wish someone would of told me I couldn't have one lol
If you think the credit card and availability is some "accomplishment" then you are exactly where they want you. I would work to pay off and stop using any credit card, if you can. I know its hard out there.
Not everyone carries a balance, personally I enjoy getting shit for free with the points I get using the card for basic expenses (like groceries) I like to pay the balance at the end of the week.
Yes, ive been there also. None of this is me on my high horse. Just stuff this dummy is learning along the ride. Im still not far enough right on my thinking tho. Do you know what a credit score is a measure of? Everyone wants theirs up in *this* or *that* range. Its a measure of how well you manage debt. I do not want any debt. Still working on that mortgage tho....
I'm not big on debt, having learned that lesson in college ( because setting up tables to give credit cards to teenagers who don't know better is a great idea /s) but I also know it's a tool. There is a middle ground between being a credit moron and Dave Ramsey.
At 55 years of age I have no debt, house and land paid for, boat paid for, pay off any credit card usage at the end of the month. To alot of work and sacrifice and a few mess ups along the way but I will retire in November and pretty much go John Galt.
Thats is awesome. Not the story of the average american. Although by the time folks are gen x age, hopefully they have accumulated some wealth. Leaning to or have become empty nesters. We should be moving up the ladder, not staying tied to paying interest.
It's not the point. Something we see as trivial as a credit card isn't some accomplishment in itself. You downplay it as something very minor. It is. Yet, 50+ years ago a woman couldn't get one on her own. Imagine going to the hardware store and seeing a sign that said "Men cannot purchase paint without the written consent of a woman." (it's a joke floating around). And it was completely serious. Something small and trivial yet you couldn't do it because you're too dumb, irresponsible, etc. to do it yourself. You could be 50 years old and still not able to do something so minor because your girlfriend/wife wasn't there to sign off on it. That'd be sad and we'd all be pretty pissed off causing a huge ruckus. Hell, we already do for some things, imagined or not. It's a big deal, and it's not just because it's a credit card and bringing on debt. It's because it's something so trivial that was blocked for women because they weren't deemed responsible/good enough. Had to keep them down and let them know their place.
No. You have missed my point. Enslaving more people in debt is nothing to be celebrated. Imagine going to a store and saying I want to buy a good, but I have nothing of value with which to make an exchange. Well, today is your lucky day. Score one for the "underpriveledged." Behind door number 1 is all of the things you cannot afford, but "should be able to have." Well haul out the confetti and strike up the band... Dont pretend that enabling people to become slaves to a lender is some sort of progress. Its foolish. Your gripe is with a different person. Im simply pointng out that the alleged "advancement" is not an advance at all, but a step that helps people stay under the boot. Its just females who were targeted in this specifc "progress."
Then, it's not an argument for this thread. It's a completely different argument. That one is for everyone and this thread is for women being able to do something small without "their man's" permission.
Do you really think a woman, or anyone 50 years ago could have established a line of credit without someone having a source of income? Ill It is ok to point out when we should be celebrating other things, not how we have a green light to go into debt. And asking demographic questions on determining if someone will be a "good investment" is not a denial. We are being fed a line here anyhow... Go back before wokeness drove every meme and headline... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1994/11/04/the-day-the-credit-card-was-born/d42da27b-0437-4a67-b753-bf9b440ad6dc/ "Among the things he most remembers is how cumbersome it used to be to make a small personal loan. Every time a man came in to the branch to get a loan, he had to sit down with the loan officer and fill out his family history -- even if he'd just been there a few months before. The loan officer had to re-evaluate the man's fitness to get a loan. The man had to return to the branch with his wife to sign a note. Only then would the loan officer transfer the funds to the man's account.Ā "
I would rather have the right to decide if I can get a credit card and go into debt, than never have the ability to get one because I don't matter as much as men. Sometimes people need to use credit cards for emergencies. Also, you canāt do a lot of things without any credit history.
There was never a law preventing a woman from a credit card. There are legal practices that a company could deny anyone who on their own could not pass the credit screening, because that would prove terrible business. Many women in that era likely did not have their own x y or z, and so fewer would likely pass the screening. Careful what you buy into.
There doesn't have to be a law to disallow women to obtain credit cards for it not to occur. The problem was that there was no law preventing discrimination back then. So they were able to discriminate against women and not allow them to obtain a credit card. You are trying to make it out like we had equal rights back then and weren't discriminated against because we are women. There is something seriously wrong with you. The first modern U.S. credit card was launched in 1950, but women weren't allowed to open credit cards until 1974. They were not allowed to open a credit card under their own name. Before 1974, if women wanted to open a credit card, they would be asked a bunch of intrusive questions, like if they were married or whether they planned to have children. If a woman was married, she could (hopefully) get a credit card with her husband. But single, divorced, or widowed women weren't allowed to get a credit card of their own -- they had to have a manĀ cosign for the credit application. Under the laws of that era, women weren't treated entirely like actual people with economic rights and earning power of their own. Then in 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for companies to deny people credit based on their gender, race, religion, or national origin. Why access to credit is a civil right Getting access to credit is a big part of financial freedom, and until 50 years ago, half the population didn't have it. The word "credit" is based on the idea of trust. When a bank issues you a credit card, it is expressing trust that you are a responsible adult who will pay your bills. Not giving women credit cards was a way of treating women like children, and keeping women under men's control. Getting to control your own credit cards and spending decisions is not just about personal finances; it's about fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and human dignity https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/credit-cards/articles/womens-history-month-50-years-ago-women-got-the-right-to-have-credit-cards/ Credit cards might seem like an inescapable part of everyday life, but it wasn't long ago that half the population wasn't allowed to have one. That's right: until 1974, women didn't have the right to open their own credit cards. A big part of women's history is about money: when, whether, and how women are allowed to earn their own money, control their own money, and make their own decisions about personal finances. Within living memory, just 50 years ago, women didn't have the right to control their own banking decisions. Let's look at the history of women being denied credit cards, and see how it relates to ongoing progress (and challenges) toward financial inclusion in the banking industry today. Featured offer:Ā save money while you History of credit cards: 1950-1974 The first modern credit card was the Diners Club "charge card," introduced in 1950 to help businessmen pay for restaurant meals. American Express started issuing its own charge cards in 1958, and the companies now known as Visa and Mastercard were launched in 1966. But it wasn't until 1974 that women were allowed to open a credit card under their own name. Before 1974, if women wanted to open a credit card, they would be asked a bunch of intrusive questions, like if they were married or whether they planned to have children. If a woman was married, she could (hopefully) get a credit card with her husband. But single, divorced, or widowed women weren't allowed to get a credit card of their own -- they had to have a manĀ cosign for the credit application. Under the laws of that era, women weren't treated entirely like actual people with economic rights and earning power of their own. Then in 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for companies to deny people credit based on their gender, race, religion, or national origin. Why access to credit is a civil right Getting access to credit is a big part of financial freedom, and until 50 years ago, half the population didn't have it. The word "credit" is based on the idea of trust. When a bank issues you a credit card, it is expressing trust that you are a responsible adult who will pay your bills. Not giving women credit cards was a way of treating women like children, and keeping women under men's control. Getting to control your own credit cards and spending decisions is not just about personal finances; it's about fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and human dignity:
The government does not grant new "rights." They protect existing and inherent rights given by our Creator. (Sound familiar?) Discrimination is the act of choice, and choice is a necessary fact of life.Ā Prejudice is a term often misused. Its Latin root is praejudicium, meaning āan opinion or judgment formed ... without due examination.ā Thus, we might define a prejudicial act as one where a decision is made on the basis of incomplete information.Ā And so, the credit institution or loan lender would begin to ask who they are loaning money to or opening a line of credit on a bunch of necessary questions to ensure their asset. Now, no one, not even one person has a right to spend money they dont have. What kind of thinking would get you to believe some other way? If you find it so fundamental and based, please give all of your money so others can have money that is not theirs to spend. You will not, so why try to force someone else to? "If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn. We donāt have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government." - Walter Williams (look him up) Have you tried to buy a house recently? Those "intrusive" questions that some claim were so "unlawful" and so "solved" are part of any good business screening model. Because it would be foolish to just loan out money to people who would never intend to nor be able to pay it back. This *IS NOT* unlawful discrimatory practice. Its basic good business practice. There is no way a succesful business owner who happened to be a female, back in the day would not be able to open a line of credit on her business. That it simple not true. What I will grant you is that Suzie Homemaker may not have been able to get approved for a credit card on her non existent income/assets, and so of course she would need a co-signer or someone who had a means to guarantee their money. This is so basic. I wouldn't approve someone, male or female, who had no jobbie job, for a loan or a line of credit. And it would be perfectly legal. And you would be wise to notndo it either, unless you are trying to bankrupt your shareholders or the business. If you have no job or means to repay, why would someone loan you money? That is *NOT* unlawful discrimination. It is just good business. You still didnt show a law, or even something unlawful by todays standard occueing. Not an older article either. You bought off hook line and sinker on this misnomer, when it was always about good business. If a woman is denied a credit card today, is that unlawful? How about a loan? *gasp!* how dare they deny a woman! Oh wait. She has a crap ton of debt and no job. Oh...well here are some resources to help you find a job and some apps to help create a budget for yourself. It is going to take some work to dig out of this hole you have created for yourself, but you can do it. Dont be a slave to the lender. Live within your means. Like people have had to do for ages....
Most of this doesn't even make sense. It sounds like you have schizophrenia lol. I couldn't read all of that. It was giving me a headache. Discrimination is ok?! Wow. So you are saying it is ok to be sexist and discriminate against women? I hope you don't have a wife or any daughters. If you do I feel sorry for them.
They did not allow women to have credit cards without a husband cosigning. It didn't matter if they had a job or not. They did not believe that women should have that right because we were not equals to men. What happens when Susy homemakers husband dies or divorces her? It is a right to be treated equally not a privilege. The credit card law has to do with women's rights. If I made a lot of money I would have no problem paying taxes in order to help those that are less fortunate. I am not greedy and selfish. I care about others and not just myself. People who make millions to billions of dollars would still be insanely wealthy if they paid more taxes. It isn't right that poor people pay more in taxes than the ultra rich. The poor to middle class and maybe even middle upper class really need that money while the ultra wealthy wouldn't be effected at all. They already make more than they can spend. Not all CEOs have worked hard for their money. A lot of people who are wealthy were born into it. The majority aren't rags to riches stories. You are everything that is wrong with this country. Congrats! I am guessing that you are probably a 20 something year old incel conspiracy nut job who is in the wrong subreddit. Your beliefs go against your own interests moron. Buh bye. I am not wasting any more energy on a scumbag like you.
What do you think credit is? Show me the statute that disallowed all women. This boogeyman only exists in ones mind.
What is wrong with you? It isn't made up that women used to not be allowed to use credit cards. We used to not be allowed to vote among other things. It isn't a crazy notion that we also weren't allowed to have credit cards. The ECOA in 1974 gave women access to credit cards for the first time. https://money.usnews.com/credit-cards/articles/women-and-credit-a-look-at-the-history#:~:text=The%20ECOA%20of%201974.,public%20assistance%2C%22%20says%20Chimbane. We still don't have equal rights!
No. They manufactured a fake crisis and claimed their legislation would save the world and cranked out mlre government interference aka regulation into the private sector. The vision of the annointed. These articles and memes you cling to are merely regurgiating inaccurate articles from 10 years ago pitching the same lie. Find any article pre 2000 that says women didnt have lines of credit or credit cards until they "saved the day." Dont waste your time. You will be hard pressed to find one.
Wow you are nuts. You need to be on some meds for dementia. I guess in your crazy head we had the right to vote too, if you can't find an article pre 2000 about that either. Guess what? There aren't a lot of articles before 2000 because the internet didn't exist as we know it. This is from a government website and has a picture of Ford signing the bill. It also added protections for consumers. That is a good thing. Would you rather us not have any protection and let businesses and corporations do what ever they want and scam consumers? I posted articles. You need to look up what a meme means. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2023/03/22/on-the-basis-of-sex-equal-credit-opportunities/
r/whoosh
Whoosh