Just saw this today. How true was this?

Reddit View
December 12, 2019
post image

Post Information
Title Just saw this today. How true was this?
Author username2136
Upvotes 197
Comments 30
Date 12 December 2019 05:33 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/710303
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/e9qp2w/just_saw_this_today_how_true_was_this/
Similar Posts

[–]AbstruseMurmurings87 points88 points  (0 children) | Copy

Untrue. First, personal banking is very recent in human history; throughout most of history, wealth was owned property, generally land and goods, and banks did not exist. Second, women have always been merchants, have always conducted business and wealth, even before recorded history in archaeological finds. Feminist history is fiction.

[–]baronmad67 points68 points  (16 children) | Copy

Its actually very false, women were allowed to have bank accounts if their husband vouched for them, or if a landlord vouched for them.

It was a different time before we had voting for everyone and so on, it wasnt that they were denied it was just the case they couldnt provide a security for their loan.

[–]BlatantNapping-1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy

Married women were not allowed to open bank accounts without their husbands' permission until the 1960s in the US and 1975 in the UK.

I don't think it's accurate to assert that they were allowed bank accounts when there was such a major caveat before that time.

Unmarried women could not apply for credit on their own (without a male cosigner) until 1975 in the US.

Women could not own their homes outright until 1976 in Ireland.


[–]machevil3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Those may be true, but women wanting/loving shiny/colorful shit (jewelry, trinkets etc) predates any kind of banking system we had by a couple thousand years, and that is as far as we know currently, it is probably longer than that.

[–]LaMaquinaDePinguinos1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy

Take my upvote, I don’t know why you don’t have more.

[–]DevilishRogue0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

Because what has been posted is untrue.

[–]BlatantNapping0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

I posted my source, where is yours? Or are you taking the Trump route and just calling anything you don't like untrue?

[–]DevilishRogue-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

You haven't posted a source, you've posted someone saying so publicly and then added bits that also aren't correct like women not being allowed to open bank accounts in the UK until 1975.

[–]BlatantNapping0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I posted a link to an article by the guardian, which itself includes sources, in addition to the information about women opening accounts and houses. You do know the little blue text at the end of my comment was a link right? To all the information I stated? While you're just wildly yelling 'false' like that means anything.

[–]DevilishRogue0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

"False" means it is untrue. As in "What you are claiming is not so." There is lots in that Guardian link that is untrue but I was specifically referring to what you wrote in your comment, as I pointed out above.

[–]BlatantNapping0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Ah so you do live in that version of reality where facts researched and presented by reputable sources are "untrue" if they don't fit your narrative. I bet you think the world is flat and climate change isn't real also.

As you're not able to give any equally reputable evidence to back up your rebuttal, you've lost your argument by any intelligent understanding of debate.

[–]DevilishRogue0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I am specifically referring to the claim that women supposedly were not able to open bank accounts in the UK until 1975 without a husbands permission. I know for a fact that this is untrue. But as well as being an arrogant simpleton with delusions of superiority you seem to not realise that you are asking me to prove a negative in refuting this utterly ridiculous and preposterous claim.

[–]baronmad0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They were perfectly free to open a bank account if they held land.

[–]manumiss1on0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I call bullshit on all of these claims. Note the linked article only contains two of these statements, and neither are sourced. The guardian has a habit of reporting feminist propaganda without fact-checking it. https://b0yp0wer.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/132/

[–]snatfaks0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Husband's permission isn't a "major" caveat.

[–]MegaMindxXx14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women now vote for the party that has suppressed them for over a century. Even now all the Democrat campaigns pay women less than men. Obama did it, so did Hillary. So if women want to be taken seriously about these issues. They need to stop supporting their suppressors.


[–]sum_muthafuckn_where8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not true. In most societies a woman would be entitled to a dower worth a portion of her husband's estate (at least equal in value to the dowry money given at their marriage) if he died or refused to provide for her. Also, gifts of jewelry for men and women go back far earlier than any kind of finance does.

[–]Faqir_Indahbat6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Full of shit. They were status symbols.

[–]SunnyGay736 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

i’m p sure women want jewelry bc we are frivolous magpies

[–]enteralterego3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

This has multiple facets.

Yes - people always looked for easily movable collateral throughout history. Jewelry, made of precious metals fits the bill.

Secondly - if you're familiar with the "handicap principle" in evolution, jewelry is similar to the peacocks tail. Meaning : a male that can afford to spend resources on a "pretty ornament" is desirable. So its not just women asking for jewelry to secure finances - it is also men racing to providing these to secure access to the best mates. The male that can afford to spend money on jewelry, is essentially applying the same principal of the peacock male (species - not individuals) to grow a very heavy tail that will make it easier to catch to predators. They're both trading survival fitness for themselves to gain access to better mates.

Also you have to think of this in terms of evolution - the first items exchanged that falls within the handicap principal was not pretty ornaments but most probably food. In fact there are studies that show macaque monkeys figured that they can give out food to get sex in exchange. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347207003119

As human societies develop - men displaying value and engaging in practices that are costly to them to secure the best mate available, evolved alongside outright paying for sex (prostitution).

Coming back to her comment about banking -I'm not sure if first official banks in the modern senses allowed women to open bank accts or not is true - but it is certainly true that they werent mostly allowed to own property and property rights were transferred from the father of the bride to the groom, and then to his sons etc.

Which on surface seems unfair - however you need to consider the fact that women did not have to wait for their father to die to get their share of the family money. They would get their dowry when they married. Also the dowry of the bride - which is economic resources earned and managed by the men in the family was a direct indicator on how well of a mate they would have access to. Back then it was a 2 way street.

[–]Ferretninja0071 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Even if this was true this isn’t true today so the claim holds no value

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

True or false, it was BEFORE. Before feminism. Before emancipation. Now, there are no reasons anymore to give a woman any expensive shinny things to "seal a deal" she can brake anytime, in a blink, just because. What Olivia wants it seems, alongside with almost 10000 other "traditionalist-when-it-fits-my-purpose", is having her cake and eat it too. Nope. Doesn't work that way. Freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want comes with a price. No expectations to receive gold and diamonds for a fluctuating loyalty should be part of the new deal.

[–]LaMaquinaDePinguinos1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I can understand the idea that (IN THE PAST) having something of value that you own when you personally can’t own an awful lot else.

BUT NOT IN 2019. This is now having cake and eating it too.

[–]machevil1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Completely wrong. People, especially women, hoarding jewelry predates the banking system by a couple thousand years. Banking took off in late-medieval/renaissance era. The jewelry thing is much older than that. Ancient Egyptian kings and queens were buried with a shit ton of jewelry.

Case closed.

[–]InformalCriticism1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is just factually wrong.

[–]OnlyHanzo2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, precious metals is the most stable saving strategy. A bar of gold is a bar of gold, even in Venezuela.

But she isnt fooling anyone. They dont think about such things when demanding jewelry. They just want to "look expensive" as their world does not go beyond physical.

[–]ulgulanoth0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ignoring historical facts and taking this at face value, it's actually a good argument to never buy her any jewellery, because you know they have bank accounts and jobs now

[–]RichardJLyon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A woman’s husband died years sooner than her from occupational injury, disease, or accident, and she continued to require money long after he stopped providing it.

[–]megytron-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That actually sounds pretty accurate

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter