@DapperDomo posted his hot take in response to this question about the reason why “women feel like they don’t even need men anymore”. Basically, it’s because a lot of men just aren’t likeable and women literally don’t need men anymore. Only two generations ago women couldn’t even have bank accounts, etc. The patriarchy made sure that women needed men. So the answer is obvious, women feel like they don’t need men anymore because women don’t need men anymore. The question itself was a ridiculous one to begin with, lol. But I’m sure this will be a hard pill to swallow for some angry dudes. Read his thread expanding on this:
Source: @DapperDomo
Just waiting for the Not-All-Man Superhero to show up in the comments below! 😉
Your seriously trying to say women could not open bank accounts in the 80s? Fake news
Women in the US could not have their own account until the 60’s, and not until 1975 in the UK ((both dates being in the brackets of a couple of generations ago)). And in 1974 the US had to pass a law so women could feasibly get a loan.
So yeah, there was a lot of basic stuff that was full on blocked if you didn’t have a dude to sign the legal papers for you. If you’re married to said dude you at least had some legal protections and it was less risky than the other options.
A lot of the cool independent women from long ago we like to talk about did have to have a secretary or lawyer or someone who opened bank accounts on her behalf and she had to watch him like a hawk since that scenario is ripe for abuse. Who knows how many women tried to make it on their own and hired an accountant or something only for them to later go ‘What, I don’t recall you giving me money. Oh, that account? Well your names not on it, can you prove it’s yours?’
By the 80s they could. In the early 70s they could not. Nor could they have credit card accounts. Entirely real news.
The History of Women and Banking Thanks To RBG
https://www.flagshipbanks.com/blog/the-history-of-women-and-banking-thanks-to-rbg
It says “two generations removed” from women not being able to open their own bank account. The 80s were not 2 generations ago. There’s the current generation and then the millennials. That’s the 80s.
OK, cool… Now assuming we swap out ‘2 generations’ for ‘3 generations’ in the posts, does that actually change anything about the main point here?
Two generations from whom? That’s correctly two generations from me, and I’m still alive. We are all ‘current’.
There always has to be the one incel that says something ridiculously stupid in an attempt at either attacking women or defending shitty men. I guess it’s your turn to be that incel.
Imagine being both that wrong AND dogshit at math. Holy shit lmfao.
He said 2 generations past which would put us in the 60s maybe 70s
They couldn’t 50 years ago. Don’t forget a generation is usually considered to be 25 years. That would put it at the end of the sixties beginning of the 70’s
Given that Gen-X was the first generation where, due to the lack of big wars where young men were sent off to be slaughtered and improvements in safety of traditionally male jobs, there have been as many or more men than women. (I believe the ratio is currently around 103 men to 100 women in Europe and the US), how ever did all those women who couldn’t get a man survive. Not all will have had a brother or other male relative who they could use as described in the thread to take responsibility for their finances?
What’s not discussed in the article is that if the woman incurred debts then it was the responsibility of the man who countersigned on her finances to repay them, there’s many recorded cases of an older brother ruined by a spendthrift younger sister. This is also the rationale behind what was known as a Wardrobe Wedding, where the bride was naked standing inside a wardrobe with a small hole cut in the side for her to speak through then put her hand through so her husband could put the wedding ring on her finger. This symbolised that all she brought to the marriage was herself, any debts remained with the man who had formerly been responsible for them. Without this any debts she had run up before marrying him would transfer to her new husband. As I recall it was only in the late 1980s that this changed in the UK but even now the debts become community responsibility for the couple.
And what exactly does that have to do with not letting women have the right to open their own bank accounts, to have the same freedoms and rights as a, man, as A Human Being to make their own life choices? Yes some women are shitty people and some men are shitty people. You know what that means? That some People are just shitty people. Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of Women not being allowed by men to have the same rights and freedoms as men, to have the right to live as they wish without needing a man to gain permission to be allowed or denied those rights. Therefore creating a society where a huge percentage of women need a man simply to survive. And now things are starting to change and it’s relatively new in the scheme of human history. So those women who previously couldn’t have survived without a man/husband or allowed to pursue their own dreams and aspirations can now do so. Themselves. No permission needed. So men are no longer needed, and to be desired and wanted, so developing an interesting and likeable personality is a good start as is actually liking women, real human women, as people, not just as pretty possessions for men but as actual interesting individual humans. Its becoming increasingly apparent that is something many men are finding very difficult to do. So you deflect and bring up something negative about women, that really is just you saying well yeah I’m a shitty person but look a woman was shitty too so I’m allowed. 🙄
The point, as best I recall 18 months later, was that due to the gender imbalance due to men going off to war there were a lot of women who never married, were widowed or at the least were separated from their husband for long periods. The assertions made in the article, not able to earn money or carry out the transactions necessary to maintain a home, would be a logical fallacy in the reality of that history.
I don’t see the logic that gets you from the legal requirement for a man to assume responsibility for debts incurred by a woman before their marriage to “something shitty about women”. Odds are, it wasn’t a woman who created that law.
The women who never married still needed a man to sign for things, hence brothers/fathers doing it. Widowed women had their husband already, so their home had been purchased, a bank account opened, etc.
During the wars, women worked to fill the gap left by men. Things had to change because of the number of women in the workplace, the majority of whom were ousted from the jobs when the men came back from war. In America, women couldn’t do anything without a male signatory right up till the back half of the twentieth century.
You need to read some history. It happened. There was no logical fallacy in the way things were done by the patriarchal societies.
The “something shitty about women” was the bit about them running up debts that was then passed to their husband, or which their male signatory had to shoulder. Oh dear. It happened a few times, and wasn’t the norm, so that’s why it was a shitty comment. Yes, men made those laws, but they probably turned around and said that the men should have been keeping better control of their daughters/sisters.
We had *centuries* where we were shackled to the requirement of a male presence in our lives, and now men are finding out what it’s like to be unnecessary for a woman. Men are now a luxury that we can have if we want, but we don’t need to have a man about the house. If you can’t step up as a gender and make yourselves more attractive as a partner rather than a requirement, then that’s not our fault.
A special thanks to the comments section…
The suggestion that women could not work 3-4 generations ago is utter bollocks. Most women have worked throughout history. There were certain places and classes in which women were discouraged from working, but they were exceptional. Most women had no choice but to work.
In the 1911 census my grandmothers were a mill-worker and a live in maid. After getting married one became a dressmaker working from home and the other was a farmer’s wife For most of the first four years of her married life the former was on her own as her husband was fighting in WW1.
One of the houses at my School was called Lees, as a member of the Lees family provided money to help refound the school. The Lees family fortune came from the iron works run by Hannah Lees & Sons. It was Hannah Lees’ husband who founded the works, but after he died leaving her with four young children she took over and expanded the business.