this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
242 points (84.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3199 readers
115 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What on Earth?
Yes. American women could open a bank account well before anyone ever went to space.
Maybe English isn't your first language. But, if I said, women cannot run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds, it would be obviously false because many can.
If you're demanding some percentage of women, well that's a different claim and frankly I'd imagine the number of female cosmonauts was also seriously restricted (they and their partners better not have said anything naughty about the party.)
This doesn't seem that confusing.
Yes, and some black people voted in the Jim Crow South. Like, I hope you can understand how ridiculous it would be for someone to argue about black people's voting rights being uninhibited because of exceptions. But that is fundamentally what you are doing with women's rights.
Dude. I don't know how else to explain this to you except through analogy. You seem to have a literal mental block when it comes to understanding patriarchy.
This isn't about a "certain percentage". You are fundamentally looking at "the exceptions that prove the rule" and instead saying "no, actually these exceptions were not exceptions at all. They were the norm".
Or you're just being a "technically Andy" and you aren't actually interested in having a discussion. You're just interested in being "technically right". If that's all you want. Sure mate. You are right that some women had individual bank accounts in the 1700s. Is that all you want? Like, wtf, are you that incapable of actually discussing historical structures on a level beyond individual anecdotes? I never said that this was wrong. Your use of exceptions to reach a generalized conclusion on women's rights for banking pre 1974 is was is wrong. It's what is wrong with the article you linked.
You are just proving your ignorance of having any understanding of patriarchy with every response. You won't actually be able to understand what my initial comment was talking about until you just admit your own ignorance to yourself.
Good luck mate. I hope you do some reading or something. I can't help you understand through Internet comments alone.
You can apply some common sense though. Women opening bank accounts was not some fringe thing only available to a few in 1975. It was the norm. In a city, the vast majority of banks would be open to women. Maybe there was one old fuddy duddy bank that refused to do it. But the vast majority would.
This is how anti-discrimination laws always work. The only way an anti-discrimination law can pass is if the vast majority of the population is already onboard with it. Laws tend to be passed banning discrimination when the tolerant majority gets tired of putting up with the bullshit of a bigoted minority. Until that threshold is reached, the standard is always "let people and companies decide on their own."
Jim Crow was defeated when the vast majority of the US population had come to the point where they believed racial discrimination was wrong. It was the rest of the society collectively telling white people in south "we're tired of your shit."
If most women in the US could not open a bank account in 1975, then the vast, vast majority of banks must not have been offering them accounts. The only way that would happen is if the vast majority of the population opposed women having bank accounts. And if that was the case, there would have never been the political will necessary to pass an anti-discrimination law. Anti-discrimination laws tend to only be passed when they're banning forms of discrimination the majority already opposes.
Your comment is significantly more intelligent than the dude I was responding to. I first thought it was them responding again but quickly realized it wasn't after a few coherent sentences. So, thank you for the reply.
I would say the flaw of my analogy in comparison to the Jim Crow south is a fundamental part of patriarchy that is different than that of race based discrimination. That is, that patriarchy punishes women for going outside of the established norms. And, since most women are indoctrinated into filling a specific role (house wife) a lot them are not directly subjected to the discrimination directly. Meaning, they maintain the position that society expects of them (being submissive and subjugated) and are allowed privileges for maintaining that role.
So with banking, for example, women can be in different situations that obscure the patriarchal structures. It's why trying to analyze this hierarchy based on historical laws is insufficient. Women in the past could be
Fulfilling their expected role as a house wife. Have all finances dependent on their husband. But, maintain their role in patriarchy. This is the vast majority of cases in the past. Most women never even considered having a form of financial independence.
Fulfill their expected role as a house wife as above. But, have some form of income of their own. Many of which would submit that income to their husbands control - but in some cases may have individual banking. As long as these women were not attempting to push too far outside of the patriarchal structures they would easily be allowed independent banking (especially if they were white and in higher class position).
Women not fulfilling their role as a house wife. This is a much more complex situation. Most of these women remained under their father's financial dependence for banking. Or just existed in society purely on a cash based structure. Banking and credit were not like they are today as they were in the past. An unmarried women seeking banking or credit in the past would be doing so to place herself independently as a member of the business (capitalist) class. This was very simply just not going to be allowed by patriarchal structures. Again, this doesn't need to exist as some law written down. We can look at the history of business in this country. It is a structure only allowed to be accessed by white men for most of its history.
And your last paragraph is just incorrect because of these structures of patriarchy that keep women passively accepting their roles. The VAST majority of women seeking independent banking were absolutely being denied access. It's just that the vast majority of women were not even attempting to gain access as they remained (happily but more often not) within their expected role. The idea that laws are only passed when the majority of the public agrees is just historical inaccurate.
Patriarchy is a complex subject very often overlooked and not well understood by many on the left. It is intermixed with race and class based structures of our society and is often obscured by the benefits white women obtain from "falling in line" and maintaining their expected roles. They are given more freedom within white supremacy and patriarchy by being submissive to it.
From your comment I can tell you have a lot more capability of understanding it than the other commenter. I'd suggest reading more on the history of patriarchy and understanding how intersectionality plays a role within it.
I literally cannot make it any more simple; women can run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Even though many women cannot actually do so, the statement is true.
No, the implication of this statement is that all women can do this. It's not true.
That's not how English works...
Game this out a bit for me, why in the meme, does this part refer to a very small subset of women:
And this one has to refer to all women:
Well, for me it's basic knowledge of space travel, and the seemingly obvious fact that the USSR didn't send all of their women into space?
Context matters. That is how English works (for better or worse)
Ok. You're just a "technically true" guy. God, it's fucking exhausting. You're just telling me you're incapable of discussing/understanding what my original comment, and your linked article, were even talking about.
I made the mistake of reading the article you linked and responded to it as if you actually understood it or held that position. You don't even understand the subject enough to even argue from the position of what you linked to in the first place.
I responded to the meme and pointed out the inaccuracy.
That inaccuracy does not mean I think women had equal access to banking, nor does the article. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue a point neither my comment nor the article I linked is trying to make.
No, you're literally just being a bad faith reductionist mate. At least I hope so. I really hope you're not arguing such an inconsequential point this far into a thread.
And that article is a purposely written essay meant to reduce a complex system of patriarchy and intersectionality into simply a list of laws and generalizations. That's my criticism of you AND that article. But you're not even responding to that criticism. You just keep repeating your bad faith reduction over and over without addressing anything from my initial comment.
I'm allowed to criticize you and the article beyond some artificial restrictions you want to add through your bad faith reductionism.
Sure, it's the internet. You can do what you want.
It just seems bizzare to keep trying to argue against a point no one was making...
It'd be like if I wouldn't stop responding to people in this thread going "yeah, but what about the Gulags? And could women who weren't members of the Party be Cosmonauts? Why won't you respond beyond your artificial limitations!?!"
It's just kinda weird.
You're incapable of responding to criticism mate. You literally just keep picking a single thing to respond to that isn't even being contested. What was my last comment about? Seriously. Your response doesn't even address what I was critizing you for. You might as well be responding to my criticism with "nuh uh" like you're a child.