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
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.