4 ms·

Don't be surprised, it is simply a lie!

• kennywinker 4y ago
  Not a lie, but it was a simplification of a nuanced fact that I used for the sake of brevity and quippyness. So, for actual factual nuanced details, it depends on where you are and what you're specifically talking about. E.g. in canada it was 1964 when women became legally entitled to open a bank account without their husband’s signature. I can't find a specific date that women were able to access basic non-credit banking services without a cosigner everywhere in the US. It happened in California in the 1800s, but there seem to have been significant obstacles for women accessing banking tools up until some time in the 1960s - without a legal requirement, it's up to the individual banks, some would have been easier than others. The 1970s bit was a reference to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, passed in 1974 - “Prior to the law, for car loans or financial transactions, a woman was expected to have someone — a father or husband, typically a male — co-sign for that transaction,” So yes, what I said was only true about access to credit-baring accounts, not all accounts. But before you dismiss how that would have impacted the presence of women on corporate boards - it was 1988 when the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 passed and put an end to state laws that required women to have male relatives sign business loans. So yeah, the reality is both better than what I said, and worse than what I said.
  • DaveExeter 4y ago
    I did not mean to pick on you, but I have heard this "women not being able to have their own bank account" trope many times. You have to qualify it with married. A single woman could open a bank account without anyone's permission! A married women was considered a part of a partnership with her husband.
    • danuker 4y ago
      Could a husband open an account without his wife's permission?