Like Ann Coulter said, with the left, the truth is always the same but the lies are always different, meaning, it takes a lot of fuckin’ research to figure out precisely HOW they are lying.
These days you don't need income to get a credit card anyway. The bank sends my wife pre-approved offers every other week despite her not working in 6 years.
Credit cards weren't commonly used until the early 90's. The first Discover credit card purchase wasnt until 1985. But you are right on the income factor. Thats still true today for men and women.
Why should a woman be forced to be a nurse or teacher because she's "fugly" and didn't get married? Women should be able to exist without being dependent on having a husband at 18 or younger. Marrying off underage girls was a typical practice then in order to have a man "take care of them." That's certainly despicable behavior. It's good that a woman can work and support herself rather than being handed off to one of her father's acquaintances for a goat. It's good that a woman can work and escape abusive relationships while having financial independence. And I for one think it's a good thing that there are requirements for nurses and teachers. Whether you think today's versions are quality ones or not, an untrained nurse or uneducated teacher shouldn't be doing such jobs. And it doesn't matter if there's more competition in nursing or teaching when literally every other type of job is open for women to do. And women do as good of work as men.
I think it's supposed to be ironic. Household debt skyrocketed as soon as they allowed the women to have the credit card. But they measured it as a ratio instead of as an absolute, which confuses the women so they don't see the irony.
Back in the late 1970’s early 1980’s, I went to my local Chevrolet dealership to buy a car. The salesman told me to come back with my husband. Several years later, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, thinking it was the particular salesman. All. 4 salesmen ignored me, so I left. Several years later they sent me advertisements in the mail. After the 2nd one I placed it in the mailbox asking them to remove me from their mailing list and why.
There's plenty of people on this site who want your experience to be the constant in life, that the husband should be in control and the source of everything for the family, and thinking that the wife isn't cut out for things like finances outside of groceries that you'll cook every meal of every day for the family. There was a comment above describing fond feelings for a time when if a woman was "fugly" and couldn't land a husband of her own to take care of her, then she had no choice but to be a teacher or nurse. I'm surprised you got 5 upvotes and no down votes for such a story around here honestly...
That is all well and good, but what if it turns out your husband is lazy or drops dead? Who will support the family? Men are more often then not lazy oafs these days, content to let the wife raise the children, cook, clean, take care of the house and yard, and work full time. This leads one to wonder, why marry at all because they don’t have a helpmate? Back in the 1960’s and 1980’s most occupations available to women were nurses, teachers or secretaries. Society has worked to tell men they are not needed.
Sorry but the "income" part is not necessarily true. One of my mom's biggest bitches is after she graduated from high school, she got a job and got a Sears credit card. Once she got married and wanted to change her name on the card, they told her no, now that you are married, the card must be in your husband's name and you can be added to the account but your husband is now the primary card holder. She was working and had income.
And so the husband became primarily responsible for the debt incurred by the wife.
It was nothing more than the collateralization of her purchases against his income, legally laying claim to obligate fulfilment of debt from his resources.
Strictly a numbers game, if you want to talk about real liability, a man is expected to lay down his life, paying the ultimate price in defense of wife and child, and I think it's a obligation most willingly embrace.
To think there is some great inequality between the sexes you would be correct, but when you cherry pick your causes, you may miss the real picture.
Her world is a world of opportunity, bounded by his obligation.
Her world is a world of rights, paid for by his blood.
That's all awesome when that is the character of the man you marry. Unfortunately not all men live up to that in RL - some of us wee women end up the protectors, the defenders, the bread winners. So losing your hard won financial independence merely because you marry is still not just. My female self has given blood sweat and tears providing for and defending my family.
Why would you marry any other kind of man, and are they truly men?
Courage, Conviction and Honor is much deeper than the skin.
I believe one can never truly appreciate, or realize the fullest of potential they may possess with,
Opportunities without obligations,
Nor rights without responsibilities,
I'm certainly not arguing against anyone's autonomy and or right of self determination, nor do I have any desire to defend the policies of the money changers, just pointing out that this injustice you perceive may not be a burden placed upon you after all.
You cry victim because someone else is forced to wear your yoke?
Options and Obligations are two distinctively different things.
A "wee weak Woman" I seriously doubt, a Woman Warrior worthy of love, respect, admiration and protection only a real man can offer.
Love has always been a gift, wrapped in "blood, sweat, and tears" :-)
Miss Scotch is badly misinformed. Women who worked could get credit cards. My wife got one years before we met. The card is so old, that just keeping it open improves our credit score. We have no other cards now.
I'd like to think at the end of the day, a wise woman and a wise man will find the same truths, but the reality shows a real and distinct difference in the way our brains are wired and hence where our priority differ.
I wouldn't say better or worst, just more suited to certain tasks than others. Are there occasional cross overs, of course, but in general a real and distinctive difference.
I think the greatest tragedy often over looked is the welfare state issued in with the female voter.
While I have difficulties finding malicious intend in her desires, just a real misunderstanding of economic and human nature.
Her empathy and sympathy coupled with her desire to act, has lead to lost of private property and wealth redistribution in such destructive ways, it is only eclipsed by the lost of freedom and self determination that suffers in the establishment of any communist state.
What she fails to realize, is you can't have just a little communism.
Except even in this thread, there's a story about a woman with her own income and her own credit card, yet once she got married the card literally had to be in her husband's name now, and she could only be an authorized user on the account going forward. So even though she had a job, an income, a source of money to pay the card, and had even had the card for a while, once she was married she no longer had control over her finances.
The names have nothing to do with it. Today if the names change from marriage you just have to provide a copy of the marriage certificate and any other name change legal documents and that would be the end of that. That's very different from having to add the husband as the primary account holder while the woman, precious owner of the account, has to be an authorized user instead.
it may have been that married females needed their husbands buy in. after working in car sales, finance and finally mental health--
they were wise to say NO.
Most women didn't have jobs back then, most of them were housewives. It would be stupid to give someone a credit card who didn't have a job to pay for it. Duh.
A man and a woman are meant to be one flesh and to create one family, putting aside their differences and becoming a united entity. A family. Marriage isn't just two separate people living together with their own separated aspirations, incomes, debt, and other separations.
Voting? Income? Credit? These were household concerns, not men's concerns. Men were simply the heads of household. Women lived with their parents until they married into man's family. It wasn't sexism, it was human life. And it seems to have led to far greater unity, joy, and social success on the balance than what we have now. Bitterness, opposition, entitlement, and an intentional disregard for truth and science by social influencers.
I love how these feminists declare that everything that happened at the country's founding that doesn't meet today's "cultural definitions" is misogynistic or sexist or whatever.
Seems to be no real understanding or acknowledgement of what life looked like back then, or, that many of the things they take issue with have been corrected or changed.
Time to simmer down girls. You have everything you say you want. Beating up the men you chose for things they didn't do won't get you anywhere.
More manipulative feminist BS. No income, no credit card. Had nothing to do with "male signature", it had to do with wage earner signature.
Like Ann Coulter said, with the left, the truth is always the same but the lies are always different, meaning, it takes a lot of fuckin’ research to figure out precisely HOW they are lying.
Beat me to it, your on point.
These days you don't need income to get a credit card anyway. The bank sends my wife pre-approved offers every other week despite her not working in 6 years.
Now the entrapment attempts are just more brazen.
Credit cards weren't commonly used until the early 90's. The first Discover credit card purchase wasnt until 1985. But you are right on the income factor. Thats still true today for men and women.
Because SOOOOO many credit cards were used before the 1970s, right?
Exactly, credit cards weren't commonly used until the early 90's. The first Discover credit card purchase wasnt until 1985.
Nursing was a majority male profession before the civil war. The civil war was so damn bloody we needed more hands on help.
Why should a woman be forced to be a nurse or teacher because she's "fugly" and didn't get married? Women should be able to exist without being dependent on having a husband at 18 or younger. Marrying off underage girls was a typical practice then in order to have a man "take care of them." That's certainly despicable behavior. It's good that a woman can work and support herself rather than being handed off to one of her father's acquaintances for a goat. It's good that a woman can work and escape abusive relationships while having financial independence. And I for one think it's a good thing that there are requirements for nurses and teachers. Whether you think today's versions are quality ones or not, an untrained nurse or uneducated teacher shouldn't be doing such jobs. And it doesn't matter if there's more competition in nursing or teaching when literally every other type of job is open for women to do. And women do as good of work as men.
Yeah, the impact of my ex is clearly indicated...just sayin...😣
I think it's supposed to be ironic. Household debt skyrocketed as soon as they allowed the women to have the credit card. But they measured it as a ratio instead of as an absolute, which confuses the women so they don't see the irony.
😉
It's supposed to be a ratio, X dollars of debt to pay over Y dollars coming in during some time period.
Yeah... I know. Few comments about women running up debt like the graph indicates.
Netflix didn't allow minorities to stream content until 2007
Back in the late 1970’s early 1980’s, I went to my local Chevrolet dealership to buy a car. The salesman told me to come back with my husband. Several years later, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, thinking it was the particular salesman. All. 4 salesmen ignored me, so I left. Several years later they sent me advertisements in the mail. After the 2nd one I placed it in the mailbox asking them to remove me from their mailing list and why.
There's plenty of people on this site who want your experience to be the constant in life, that the husband should be in control and the source of everything for the family, and thinking that the wife isn't cut out for things like finances outside of groceries that you'll cook every meal of every day for the family. There was a comment above describing fond feelings for a time when if a woman was "fugly" and couldn't land a husband of her own to take care of her, then she had no choice but to be a teacher or nurse. I'm surprised you got 5 upvotes and no down votes for such a story around here honestly...
That is all well and good, but what if it turns out your husband is lazy or drops dead? Who will support the family? Men are more often then not lazy oafs these days, content to let the wife raise the children, cook, clean, take care of the house and yard, and work full time. This leads one to wonder, why marry at all because they don’t have a helpmate? Back in the 1960’s and 1980’s most occupations available to women were nurses, teachers or secretaries. Society has worked to tell men they are not needed.
Sorry but the "income" part is not necessarily true. One of my mom's biggest bitches is after she graduated from high school, she got a job and got a Sears credit card. Once she got married and wanted to change her name on the card, they told her no, now that you are married, the card must be in your husband's name and you can be added to the account but your husband is now the primary card holder. She was working and had income.
And so the husband became primarily responsible for the debt incurred by the wife. It was nothing more than the collateralization of her purchases against his income, legally laying claim to obligate fulfilment of debt from his resources.
Strictly a numbers game, if you want to talk about real liability, a man is expected to lay down his life, paying the ultimate price in defense of wife and child, and I think it's a obligation most willingly embrace.
To think there is some great inequality between the sexes you would be correct, but when you cherry pick your causes, you may miss the real picture.
Her world is a world of opportunity, bounded by his obligation.
Her world is a world of rights, paid for by his blood.
ALL these things I give freely, to my beloved.
That's all awesome when that is the character of the man you marry. Unfortunately not all men live up to that in RL - some of us wee women end up the protectors, the defenders, the bread winners. So losing your hard won financial independence merely because you marry is still not just. My female self has given blood sweat and tears providing for and defending my family.
Why would you marry any other kind of man, and are they truly men?
Courage, Conviction and Honor is much deeper than the skin.
I believe one can never truly appreciate, or realize the fullest of potential they may possess with,
Opportunities without obligations,
Nor rights without responsibilities,
I'm certainly not arguing against anyone's autonomy and or right of self determination, nor do I have any desire to defend the policies of the money changers, just pointing out that this injustice you perceive may not be a burden placed upon you after all.
You cry victim because someone else is forced to wear your yoke?
Options and Obligations are two distinctively different things.
A "wee weak Woman" I seriously doubt, a Woman Warrior worthy of love, respect, admiration and protection only a real man can offer.
Love has always been a gift, wrapped in "blood, sweat, and tears" :-)
Miss Scotch is badly misinformed. Women who worked could get credit cards. My wife got one years before we met. The card is so old, that just keeping it open improves our credit score. We have no other cards now.
I wrote checks in the seventies.
I filled diapers with poop in the last year of the 70's
I'd like to think at the end of the day, a wise woman and a wise man will find the same truths, but the reality shows a real and distinct difference in the way our brains are wired and hence where our priority differ.
I wouldn't say better or worst, just more suited to certain tasks than others. Are there occasional cross overs, of course, but in general a real and distinctive difference.
I think the greatest tragedy often over looked is the welfare state issued in with the female voter. While I have difficulties finding malicious intend in her desires, just a real misunderstanding of economic and human nature.
Her empathy and sympathy coupled with her desire to act, has lead to lost of private property and wealth redistribution in such destructive ways, it is only eclipsed by the lost of freedom and self determination that suffers in the establishment of any communist state.
What she fails to realize, is you can't have just a little communism.
I mean lets think about it today... if you don't have a job and can pay it back, do you get a credit card?
The answer is no. Just like it was then. Nothing male only about it.
Except even in this thread, there's a story about a woman with her own income and her own credit card, yet once she got married the card literally had to be in her husband's name now, and she could only be an authorized user on the account going forward. So even though she had a job, an income, a source of money to pay the card, and had even had the card for a while, once she was married she no longer had control over her finances.
Because when she got married she legally changed her name so the old name on the old credit card was now invalid?
The names have nothing to do with it. Today if the names change from marriage you just have to provide a copy of the marriage certificate and any other name change legal documents and that would be the end of that. That's very different from having to add the husband as the primary account holder while the woman, precious owner of the account, has to be an authorized user instead.
The Trouble with Women
The Rifftrax version is much funnier.
in 1974, women expected to be able to stay home and raise their children with the support of a responsible husband-father. oh the misogyny!
it may have been that married females needed their husbands buy in. after working in car sales, finance and finally mental health-- they were wise to say NO.
Most women didn't have jobs back then, most of them were housewives. It would be stupid to give someone a credit card who didn't have a job to pay for it. Duh.
A man and a woman are meant to be one flesh and to create one family, putting aside their differences and becoming a united entity. A family. Marriage isn't just two separate people living together with their own separated aspirations, incomes, debt, and other separations.
Voting? Income? Credit? These were household concerns, not men's concerns. Men were simply the heads of household. Women lived with their parents until they married into man's family. It wasn't sexism, it was human life. And it seems to have led to far greater unity, joy, and social success on the balance than what we have now. Bitterness, opposition, entitlement, and an intentional disregard for truth and science by social influencers.
I love how these feminists declare that everything that happened at the country's founding that doesn't meet today's "cultural definitions" is misogynistic or sexist or whatever.
Seems to be no real understanding or acknowledgement of what life looked like back then, or, that many of the things they take issue with have been corrected or changed.
Time to simmer down girls. You have everything you say you want. Beating up the men you chose for things they didn't do won't get you anywhere.
Just have my dinner ready when I get home from work.
Feminism is a weapon that also weaponizes its victims. That Feminists don't realize this, is testimony to its terrible efficacy.