Woops, this aint Lemmy.ml so you cant ban all the replies fact checking your misinfo
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
3 points (100.0% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3323 readers
1451 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
No one has fact checked anything. Just spewed emotional based scripted propaganda responses
You are getting fact checked on every comment. the cope is unreal
Okay. And how was life living under the thumb of the USSR? 😂
lot of people say it was fine, they had a home, food, work etc. does that mean it was roses and glitter, most certainly not but then go walk through a homeless encampment in the US.
https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/
It's a funny myth but not true. Women were doing their own banking in America as far back as the 1700sm I'm not super up on my Soviet space programs but I think that's a few years earlier.
Yes, and black Americans became fully equal citizens in 1868. /s
You can't judge history and civil rights off of the exceptions or the ideas written on paper. I'm sorry. Acting like this is what the meme is talking about is just denying centuries of patriarchy in America.
The article literally says
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed (1974), which, among other things, required banks to consider credit applications in a woman’s own name regardless of marital status
Gee, I wonder why a very specific act had to be passed to deal with this "non existent" issue that was solved in the 1700s. Gee. Weird.
Though, again, depending on where you lived, you may have already been protected from that discrimination by state law for deposit accounts in technicality if not practice.
Just an absolute garbage article you linked. Seriously. Reconsider your ability to think critically if you can't understand how much this article is trying to downplay patriarchy from this quote alone.
Women were still largely dependent on being married and dependent on their husband to have any form of banking well into the timeline the meme is referring to. That article is like saying "I couldn't find a law specific to race in the Jim Crow South related to voting".
I don't mean to overuse the analogy of racial discrimination. But I feel like people don't actually understand how discrimination and laws actually work in reality when it comes to patriarchy. So, I'm hoping you at least understand it for other historical contexts.
Laws aren't written to be "X identity group can't do Y". And trying to analyze the actual material outcomes by only looking for laws like that is going to give you the results the article you linked came to.
Laws of discrimination are written to be vague enough that the powers of white supremacy and patriarchy are allowed to be enacted at individual levels on mass scale - without directly writing them down.
Edit: this was originally just the /s comment. But holy shit that article they linked was so bad and ahistorical I couldn't stop editing. Seriously. Please learn to think about what you're reading. Don't just upvote a comment because they had a "source".
Bless your heart.
The article explicitly says that many women faced barriers.
Similarly, many Soviet women were not astronauts.
Sometimes I wonder if people don't read comments they reply to; or if more and more people seem entirely incapable of comprehending what they are reading.
You can't say "Bless your heart" and then follow it up with not actually arguing anything. Nothing you stated is in contradiction to my comment.
My comment and the original comment (and article) are not even discussing the USSR. It's irrelevant to what is being discussed. Bless your heart, you really tried to put words together. You tried. At least your username is fitting.
Maybe you forgot what post you're in?
The meme, to which the original comment was responding:
Women in the USSR were in space before American women could open a bank account
Was my comment or even your original one debating the validity of when the USSR had women in space? June 16, 1963. No ones debating that.
The original article you linked and comment you made is what is being discussed by me mate. Why are you talking about the USSR in response to my comment that mentioned nothing of the sort. I'm disagreeing with your statement on women's rights in America and the arguments made in the article. Do you think major legislation was passed in 1974 just for fun? To fix a problem that was fixed in the 1700s?
I know your brain hurts. You seem to be incapable of even understanding what you're disagreeing with. Just stop mate. You're embarrassing yourself.
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.
Just one random counter example: wiki/First Women's Bank (New York):
It opened in 1975 and was part of a broader movement to address the financial needs of women who faced barriers in obtaining credit and financial services from traditional banks.
There was enough of a need for this 50 years ago that it made literal capitalist financial interest to make it happen.
Financial freedom in a modern word can be privileged (but absolutely essential for actual survival) and groups (like women, ie half of humanity) can be denied the necessities. If a women needs a man's signature to get a loan, have a credit card, or even open a banking account, they are not free from that man. And that (one aspect) really changed only in the 80s (slowly & with newer gens).
Saying some women had bank amounts in the 1700s is like saying "land of the free" in reference to USA (at any point in history actually).
Or saying how racism in USA ended with a (any) specific law.
The "meme" is still funny in comparing a basic necessity for a majority vs bcs ofc not a notable % of any human groups have been to space (even including billionaires).
If a women needs a man’s signature to get a loan, have a credit card, or even open a banking account, they are not free from that man. And that (one aspect) really changed only in the 80s (slowly & with newer gens).
If you read the article, you'd know that in general this was usually the case way farther back than the 70s.
Yes, there were more gaps but it's far from what the meme implies.
The meme also implies that USSR women had access to space. Both ends of the meme are not a strictly accurate comparison, just a "funny" way of saying that women in USA didn't have universal access to banking guaranteed by a country-wide law up until the space race.
To each their own.
I would also point out that it's incredibly unlikely any women critical of the Party, or with husbands who were critical of the Party, were allowed to be astronauts.
So, I felt some context to demonstrate that American women had been banking for a hundred+ years by the time there were Soviet astronauts.
Exactly.
A bit like saying North Koreans have nuclear weapons while black ppl in USA are discriminated against.
While it is a fact, it's also clear that the situation in USA is a bit better than 200 years ago whilst the average DPRKean does in fact not have access to a nuclear weapon.
I don't think ppl on Lemmy would think no woman in USA had a bank account prior to the (19)70s. Just as they wouldn't think USSR shipped millions of female tourists to space.
I don’t think ppl on Lemmy would think no woman in USA had a bank account prior to the (19)70s.
You have more faith than I do. Right now, someone is explaining to me in another thread how donald trump is actually part of a deep conspiracy with the Dems to keep elections electronic so they can both rig them...
People are really dumb.
And the link I posted does not at any point say that all women had access to all banking forever, simply that there is a lot of context that's missed by claims like this, that come up reasonably frequently.
It's a good link, busting the myth clearly and with good sources.
However:
1862: First state (California) allows women to open bank accounts regardless of marital status.
But that's still a century before female cosmonauts, so I'm just being pernicketty really.
I love and encourage persnicketiness!
I also feel that technically, at least according to the source, my comment is correct.
As the piece notes:
Women could participate in the economy — including banking — in Colonial America.
To me, this meets the "American women could open a bank account" criteria but that's just my opinion and one with which reasonable people can disagree.
Though, the piece's source gets delightfully snarky about it:
Though a small percentage of all bank customers, women held accounts in many northeastern banks in the early national period, a fact that apparently has eluded business and women's historians alike.
Your are indeed technically correct (but I maintain that as the worst kind of correct, who trusts bureaucrats?), but the added information that that section details as once/if women married, their finances, assets, bank accounts became their husbands.
So while unmarried and widowed women could do banking, meaning that women could - social pressure and expectations made it difficult to impossible for the majority of most women's lives.
You are correct in the bar of "a certain subset of >1 women could open bank accounts" was true for, potentially the entire history of banking in the US/thirteen colonies. (When was the first settler bank set up in N. America? Probably a Spanish one in the Caribbean, but British people probably didn't use that one.)
We are mostly in agreement, just drawing the line either when first crossed (fair and valid) or when all could cross (racial discrimination aside (and that's a big aside)).
Salutations and respect to a fellow lover and encourager of persnicketiness.
but I maintain that as the worst kind of correct, who trusts bureaucrats?
Love it!
Yup, you make great points. I just think that if the comparator on the other side is "women in space" we're not talking about a large percentage of the population. (Though, an admittedly fair perspective is the number of women as a share of the total people in space.)
I'd foolishly overlooked the considerations of what kind of line was drawn on the space side. That's a really good point.
Thanks for the polite, pernicketty, chat.
Thanks for the polite, pernicketty, chat.
Likewise!
Honestly, for what it's worth, folks like you are what give me hope for the Fediverse. So, thank you.