• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      A better historical note would be to say … to have a bank account

      I think up until the 50s women couldn’t have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn’t have any money in their name in a recognized bank.

      For common women that is … if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules … but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn’t have a regular bank account of your own.

      • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re right except for the year. That wasn’t until 1974 that women could open back accounts in their own name.

        • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s when legislation was passed ensuring banks couldn’t block a woman getting an account on her own. Before that it was dependant on the bank.

    • blitzen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Between annual fees or interest, most people do directly pay for using a credit cards.

      And even if there’s no AF, and you don’t carry a balance so there’s no interest, we all indirectly pay by way of processing fees.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Paying isn’t buying though.
        Buying is paying for ownership of a thing.

        You don’t “own” a credit card. Credit cards own you. (Unless you’re careful)