• @Thteven
    link
    1221 month ago

    Abusive husbands also used to “go missing” a lot more too.

    • @ch00f
      link
      821 month ago

      Yeah though towns used to rule together to beat the shit out of bankers forclosing on widow’s homes, so that’s something we could start doing again.

      • @Eheran
        link
        191 month ago

        So you have a source for that? Sounds plausible but also too good to be true.

        • @baldingpudenda
          link
          371 month ago

          local asshole gets shot by town, no witnesses the sheriff also conveniently left town after telling the group to not confront the guy and just form a neighborhood watch.

          I also remember reading an article about communities going to a widow’s home, armed, to tell the bank rep to fuck off. It included a picture of 6 to 8 men with rifles at a homestead with a sign saying not to harass the widow. I can’t find anything right now though.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            191 month ago

            I mean penny auctions were a well documented thing. Americans used to be metal. Wonder what happened?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              91 month ago

              Things were improving for quite awhile and folks got complacent, combone that with death of the community, the hard right switch of most churches, and talk radio and well make a fucken guess.

        • @DerArzt
          link
          141 month ago

          Not a banker, but there is the case of the town where most everyone was present for the murder, but nobody saw it happen Link

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            61 month ago

            Imagine being such a piece of shit that absolutely everyone that saw you die and heard you died won’t snitch. That is a feat at this point

        • @ch00f
          link
          English
          13
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          NYTimes, July 12, 1952

          They ultimately got her, but they put up a hell of a fight.

    • @LovableSidekick
      link
      English
      131 month ago

      In a recent thread somebody said their great grandmother killed her abusive husband and took their daughter from Texas up to Alaska to live. Another person said their grandmother just made stabbing motions and said something like, “took care of him.”

      • @DillyDaily
        link
        151 month ago

        My grandmother’s aunt fled to Australia after half her family died of dysentery. It was a very sad story for a very long time in the family and the town. Her husband moved the whole family across the Atlantic Ocean to Canada away from her immediate relatives in England because of a good job and land prospects. But their household was stricken with a bloody flux a few months later and sadly only the women survived, alone in a foreign country with nothing. It was just a sad and dark part of our family history growing up, we were taught to respect our great great aunt because she’d “been through a lot and faced it bravely” with watching her family die. As a teenager I could tell there was more going on by the way the older adults glanced at each other, but never knew what.

        I was 30 when mum told me that my great great uncle was an abusive pick who moved his wife overseas to isolate her so he could get away with more, and it wasn’t a coincidence that he and his “apple that never fell off the tree” son both shit themselves to death after eating a family dinner, but his wife was fine.

        • @LovableSidekick
          link
          English
          8
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Sometimes a pot roast only goes bad on one side. Any cook’ll tell ya that,

          My family skeleton has nothing to do with abuse. My great grandmother got addicted to Laudanum, an old-timey pain killer opiate. To support her habit her husband Barney eventually mortgaged the family farm - which already had a mortgage on it that he didn’t tell the second bank about. He got found out and the sheriff came out to arrest him. Barney asked to go in the house and collect some clothes to take along. He then went into his den, poured himself a shot of whiskey, took a pipe he had smoked for years and scraped the glaze out of the bowl - a powerful storehouse of concentrated nicotine - which he dissolved in the whiskey. He downed this shot and gave himself a quick heart attack. Apparently this was a fairly well known method of suicide back then.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 month ago

            Dieing from too much nicotine must be a hell of a way to die.
            Also imagine just being able to kill yourself at any moment by knawing on some gunk in your pipe. My ADHD ass would be dead within a week cause I HAVE to know what it tastes like 😭

            • @LovableSidekick
              link
              English
              51 month ago

              Dunno how much nicotine it would take to kill you but dissolving it in a shot was probably a lot more pleasant than gnawing on it lol. I imagine your heart just gets cranking like a drum machine until it seizes up, probably in a couple minutes - might feel a lot longer. Less messy than a gunshot tho.

          • @DillyDaily
            link
            129 days ago

            She was my grandmother’s aunt so I think that makes her my great great aunt, because my great aunt is my grandma’s sister. I think that’s how it works? There are several 25+ year age gaps between siblings in our family so everyone is “aunty, uncle, cousin” based on age not relationship, my dad is called “uncle” even by me at family events.

              • @DillyDaily
                link
                227 days ago

                This is super helpful! The legend in question is my great grand aunt (that term is so much less of a mouthful!)

                Most of the people I call “Aunty” are my cousins, and the people I call “Cousin” appear to be my 1st cousin once removed, 1st cousin twice removed, and 2nd cousins once removed. (we’ve definitely been using “removed” wrong in my family, we would say “removed” for the lateral move across the tree, not the vertical parent child line. Eg I would say “she’s my 2nd cousin” but I’d mean 1st cousin once removed, or I’d say “he’s my cousin twice removed” but what I’d mean is, he’s my 3rd cousin)

                We’re definitely still going to stick with our age based language in our family. No point getting clinical when the language we use is about the dynamics we hold. if you’re 20+ years older you’re my aunty/uncle, if you’re the same age you’re a cousin, if you’re younger than me you’re my nibbling. It’s all vibes based relationship terminology.

  • Doug Holland
    link
    English
    841 month ago

    I used to work for an insurance company (life, not health), and when business was sluggish my duties included tidying and auditing very, very old policies. 99% of policies from the 1930s-50s were for men, and the few women’s policies all had LETTERS FROM THEIR HUSBANDS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 month ago

      What’s the point of auditing something that old? Wouldn’t it just be digitizing and archiving at that point?

      • Doug Holland
        link
        English
        181 month ago

        Doublechecking numbers, like @phdepressed said, while also making sure that all the pertinent pages had been legibly scanned before incinerating the originals.

    • @Dadifer
      link
      111 month ago

      What do you think “Make America Great Again” means?

      • @LovableSidekick
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It means “Our useful idiot will make us even richer!”

        • @Dadifer
          link
          51 month ago

          I seriously believe they want him to tank the economy again so the ownership class can take even more from the working class.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -15
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Big fan.

      Amazing job making the Christians believe they’re serving God while doing your bidding.

      As you know, we don’t live for very long and are really dumb. We’re naturally having a hard time figuring out if Revelation is when you show up or God and if that’s happening sooner or later.

      Would you mind shedding some dark on the subject?

  • @LovableSidekick
    link
    English
    32
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t think American elementary school teachers were allowed to be married until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at least in some states.

    • @IMALlama
      link
      211 month ago

      Holy hell, TIL

      Looks like it only applied to females though, because reasons.

      • @wetsoggybread
        link
        31 month ago

        Well you can’t have those teachers leaving in the middle of the school year for something stupid like giving birth, teachers are supposed to be the paragon of innocence

    • @LouNeko
      link
      11 month ago

      To be fair when we were in elementary school we thought that our teachers live inside the school and don’t have a life outside of it. Seeing you teacher outside of school was nuts.

  • @Sarmyth
    link
    141 month ago

    It’s true in some states but also not relevant in many ways. It was a largely cash based society. My grandmother had a bank account prior to WW2 as a young adult in Idaho. Usually the stores kept a leger or tab and you would come pay that off in person with cash in hand at the end of the month. Your bank wasn’t needed unless you were getting a loan or had such large assets it would be dangerous to travel with it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

      Also if memory serves right you also didnt need an account to do stuff related to chequeing so long as you werent the one giving out the cheques. For example cadhing one in, or even getting traveller cheques.

  • @TankovayaDiviziya
    link
    71 month ago

    Precisely why I think the counterculture that is “manosphere”, whatever that means, is yearning to go back to the days when patriarchy was more dominant.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Yeah, that “bit” of nuance is that it’s not true.

    Some banks forbade women from opening bank accounts in states where the right wasn’t already guaranteed until the 1974 federal passing of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act guaranteed the right to all citizens.

    It sucks. But, don’t lie. We don’t manipulate. We teach.

      • jwiggler
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 month ago

        All the more reason to just be accurate and say “banks were still allowed to deny opening accounts for a woman” rather than say “women couldn’t hold bank accounts until 1974,” which just isn’t true. The truth is still plenty bad, we don’t need to pull a Vance card.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -22
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Everyone from lemme.ee converses in bad faith because Bronzebeard makes hasty generalizations, just like the OP.

        Thanks for the teaching opportunity.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 month ago

          The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -191 month ago

            The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.

            You’re not making sense anymore. If you explain to me how you’ve made a hasty generalization then I’ll continue to engage. If not that’s also OK.

        • Tar_Alcaran
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          I don’t think people understood the joke of the hasty generalization you made there…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -81 month ago

            You underestimate “people”. Better to overestimate them and invest into those that rise to the occasion.

    • @NocturnalMorning
      link
      151 month ago

      If it happened in some states, then it happened, nothing misleading about saying it happened.

      • @PapaStevesy
        link
        121 month ago

        I disagree entirely, I understood it as “no women were allowed to have a bank account anywhere in America before 1974” and I guarantee I’m not the only one. The very existence of this discussion thread proves your statement wrong.

      • @Stovetop
        link
        9
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t think that’s the point in dispute, but that’s not what the quoted post is saying.

        “Women weren’t allowed to open a bank account in the USA until 1974” implies that, until the year 1974, there were no women in the US who had opened bank accounts.

        The more accurate statement would be “The right for women in the US to open bank accounts wasn’t nationally established until 1974,” which aligns with the reality wherein many American women were still able to open bank accounts before then.

      • @chiliedogg
        link
        31 month ago

        That’s not what was said, though. “Some banks weren’t legally required to let women open bank accounts” is a very different statement than “women couldn’t open bank accounts.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -91 month ago

        You’re wrong about this. Therefore you’re wrong about everything.

        I also can make hasty generalizations.

        Thanks for the teaching opportunity.

        • @NocturnalMorning
          link
          81 month ago

          Are you a bot? You just keep repeating the same statement over and over.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -111 month ago

            When one logical fallacy doesn’t succeed, the next is almost always ad-hominem.

            Once again, thank you for the teaching opportunity.

            I took a look at your post history. You’d benefit quite a bit from learning your logical fallacies. If you’re committing them then you’re being deceived by them. Specifically I recommend a Phil 100 logic course. Should be free.

            • @EndlessApollo
              link
              English
              41 month ago

              Why are you spending so much time (and yet so little effort cx) to deny that women had fewer rights back then?

    • @rockSlayer
      link
      51 month ago

      What would you call it when the ability to deny accounts to women was present and practiced?

        • @rockSlayer
          link
          3
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Right, but because it occurred, that means it’s true that women were denied the ability to open accounts. Black people did submit ballots before the voting rights act, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue to say that black people weren’t allowed to vote.

          • @TheDoozer
            link
            31 month ago

            But the statement “women weren’t allowed to get a bank account in the USA until 1974” is false. Women were allowed to. And banks, depending on the area, were allowed to deny them service merely for being women. That was the bad thing that got rectified in 1974.

            The “women weren’t allowed” is hyperbole at best, and lying at worst, to try to overemphasize what is already an injustice, and makes it easy for those that would argue with the general point being made by dismissing something that is clearly and demonstrably false. It hurts the argument.

            And if the idea you are professing is that if even two women were denied access to bank accounts, then “women were not allowed to have bank accounts” was still true and accurate, then you (and the OP) are being deliberately misleading.

            The reality is, it was shitty that it was legal and acceptable in the past to discriminate based on race, gender, or any of the other protected classes of today. It’s bad enough as it was without suggesting “women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts” or “black people weren’t allowed to buy samdwiches” (because it was legal for a restaurant to deny service based on race).

            • @rockSlayer
              link
              01 month ago

              Are you aware of why 1974 is significant?

              • @TheDoozer
                link
                11 month ago

                That’s when Abba won the Eurovision song contest with Waterloo. I mean, that’s the important thing here.

                Oh, and also the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, which made it illegal to discriminate based on gender, race, and a number of other things, which is exactly what I was talking about when I said that in my previous comment. “That’s what got rectified in 1974.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -81 month ago

            What’s true for one is true for all! My God, how could I be so stupid? Thank you so much. Without your brilliant insight I might never have reasoned this out for myself.

            • @rockSlayer
              link
              21 month ago

              Why do you feel that they’re incomparable?

    • @BetaBlake
      link
      25
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It is sadly.

      They also couldn’t get a credit card

      They also couldn’t guarantee they wouldn’t be fired for being pregnant.

      They also couldn’t take legal action against workplace sexual harassment.

      They also couldn’t decide to NOT have sex if their husband wanted to.

      • @DillyDaily
        link
        101 month ago

        You also couldn’t get a divorce for incompatible differences, you had to prove your husband was at fault for some kind of marital crime like adultery or physical abuse. He could leave you with a single penny to your name, lock you out of your shared bank account, and go live with his mistress in another state, but if you couldn’t prove he’d put his dick in her, no divorce for you. Which means you can’t re-marry someone who will let you have access to a bank account, and depending on the exact year you couldn’t even travel alone to chase him down.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
        link
        3
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Since you have a list going, add jury service to it. Even after women were allowed to be summoned, lawyers would strike them for cause on the grounds that they were too temperamental or could not focus enough. And then after that wasn’t allowed, lawyers would strike them all with peremptory challenges, until finally in like 1980 or something the Supreme Court had to step in and say “if you start striking women and it seems like you’re just striking women, the judge should ask you why, and if you can’t give reasons, your challenges will be denied.”

        A lot of people like to shit on jury service, likes it’s no big deal, but I think it’s one of two or three of the most patriotic and freedom loving things people can do for their country, up there with joining the service and voting. Like anyone that wants to talk to me at all using words like liberty or justice, better turn up when it’s time to talk about jury service, or else they expose themselves as full of shit.

        Sometimes it wasn’t that grandma couldn’t have a bank account and suffered financial dependence, it was that even if she needed a jury to sort through some bullshit, men could make sure it was men that judged her conduct.

        A prosecutor once told me that the worst juror to have when trying to convict a rapist is a woman whose never been raped, because to convict they must first admit the fact it could happen to them; that’s a hard fact to force on soneone. With that same logic, think of how men might judge a woman who leaves or defends herself from an abusive husband, or takes her kids somewhere safe, etc.

      • @captainlezbian
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        Last one there was recent enough that some millennials were made via rape made legal because tha perpetrator and victim were married

    • @captainlezbian
      link
      English
      11 month ago

      It is. Fortunately it was around the time grandpa died so grandma was only very screwed instead of extremely screwed.

      On the other side great grandpa went crazy in the 30s and great grandma couldn’t open a bank account despite having a kid and her husband being in and out of the nut house. Thankfully she was tough

    • @LovableSidekick
      link
      English
      11 month ago

      Almost like “obviously” isn’t a solid argument for anything.

  • IngeniousRocks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 month ago

    Totally didn’t expect to see a vana__nz post here, she does some sick metalcore

    • @alphanerd4OP
      link
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I mean, if there was a male relative who wanted it or a jilted ex or just somebody who clocked it, yeah, that was a real possibility. Also - Conservatorship, Garden Variety Elder Abuse. You can find enough anecdotes of this happening just in the last 18 months to drive yourself insane.

      Like, yeah. Yeah. Horrific absolutely terrible abuses are happening all the time and have been this entire time. That is that is the context like like have you never heard the phrase your regulations are written in blood??

      I mean frankly if you’re asking me, I would say the only reason you don’t get drowned by horrific anecdotes exactly like situations like widows losing all their money 24 seven every day of the week isn’t because it’s not happening. It’s the only reason we get horrific anecdotes 24 seven in the first place at all is because if you do that for criminal shit it makes it really really comfortable and easy for society to justify continuing as is and also the racism