Abusive husbands also used to “go missing” a lot more too.
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.
So you have a source for that? Sounds plausible but also too good to be true.
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.
I mean penny auctions were a well documented thing. Americans used to be metal. Wonder what happened?
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.
NYTimes, July 12, 1952
They ultimately got her, but they put up a hell of a fight.
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
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
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.”
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.
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.
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 😭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.
She was really just your great aunt but you say great twice out of respect.
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.
Let me guide you through this darkness with the chart they give every first year law student.
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.
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.
What’s the point of auditing something that old? Wouldn’t it just be digitizing and archiving at that point?
Doublechecking numbers, like @phdepressed said, while also making sure that all the pertinent pages had been legibly scanned before incinerating the originals.
Making sure things have/had been paid appropriately by both sides is still important.
dont worry, were headed back in that direction with project 2025
What do you think “Make America Great Again” means?
It means “Our useful idiot will make us even richer!”
I seriously believe they want him to tank the economy again so the ownership class can take even more from the working class.
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?
Im going to sacrifice you in a Blót.
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.
Holy hell, TIL
Looks like it only applied to females though, because reasons.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totally didn’t expect to see a vana__nz post here, she does some sick metalcore
So does that mean widows lost thier money?
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
Wow didn’t think stuff like Brigitton applied to the common folk too.
This can’t be true.
EDIT: we live in a society… https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/
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.
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.
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.
Last one there was recent enough that some millennials were made via rape made legal because tha perpetrator and victim were married
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
Almost like “obviously” isn’t a solid argument for anything.
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.
So it was true in some parts of the US …
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.
Everyone from lemme.ee converses in bad faith because Bronzebeard makes hasty generalizations, just like the OP.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.
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.
I don’t think people understood the joke of the hasty generalization you made there…
You underestimate “people”. Better to overestimate them and invest into those that rise to the occasion.
If it happened in some states, then it happened, nothing misleading about saying it happened.
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.
Correct.
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.
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.”
You’re wrong about this. Therefore you’re wrong about everything.
I also can make hasty generalizations.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
Are you a bot? You just keep repeating the same statement over and over.
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.
Why are you spending so much time (and yet so little effort cx) to deny that women had fewer rights back then?
Why are you attempting strawman fallacy?
What would you call it when the ability to deny accounts to women was present and practiced?
Grave injustice.
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.
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).
Are you aware of why 1974 is significant?
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.”
It’s the year my sister was born.
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.
Why do you feel that they’re incomparable?
