Your comment is significantly more intelligent than the dude I was responding to. I first thought it was them responding again but quickly realized it wasn't after a few coherent sentences. So, thank you for the reply.

I would say the flaw of my analogy in comparison to the Jim Crow south is a fundamental part of patriarchy that is different than that of race based discrimination. That is, that patriarchy punishes women for going outside of the established norms. And, since most women are indoctrinated into filling a specific role (house wife) a lot them are not directly subjected to the discrimination directly. Meaning, they maintain the position that society expects of them (being submissive and subjugated) and are allowed privileges for maintaining that role.

So with banking, for example, women can be in different situations that obscure the patriarchal structures. It's why trying to analyze this hierarchy based on historical laws is insufficient. Women in the past could be

• Fulfilling their expected role as a house wife. Have all finances dependent on their husband. But, maintain their role in patriarchy. This is the vast majority of cases in the past. Most women never even considered having a form of financial independence.

• Fulfill their expected role as a house wife as above. But, have some form of income of their own. Many of which would submit that income to their husbands control - but in some cases may have individual banking. As long as these women were not attempting to push too far outside of the patriarchal structures they would easily be allowed independent banking (especially if they were white and in higher class position).

• Women not fulfilling their role as a house wife. This is a much more complex situation. Most of these women remained under their father's financial dependence for banking. Or just existed in society purely on a cash based structure. Banking and credit were not like they are today as they were in the past. An unmarried women seeking banking or credit in the past would be doing so to place herself independently as a member of the business (capitalist) class. This was very simply just not going to be allowed by patriarchal structures. Again, this doesn't need to exist as some law written down. We can look at the history of business in this country. It is a structure only allowed to be accessed by white men for most of its history.

And your last paragraph is just incorrect because of these structures of patriarchy that keep women passively accepting their roles. The VAST majority of women seeking independent banking were absolutely being denied access. It's just that the vast majority of women were not even attempting to gain access as they remained (happily but more often not) within their expected role. The idea that laws are only passed when the majority of the public agrees is just historical inaccurate.

Patriarchy is a complex subject very often overlooked and not well understood by many on the left. It is intermixed with race and class based structures of our society and is often obscured by the benefits white women obtain from "falling in line" and maintaining their expected roles. They are given more freedom within white supremacy and patriarchy by being submissive to it.

From your comment I can tell you have a lot more capability of understanding it than the other commenter. I'd suggest reading more on the history of patriarchy and understanding how intersectionality plays a role within it.

women can run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Even though many women cannot actually do so, the statement is true.

No, the implication of this statement is that all women can do this. It's not true.

Ok. You're just a "technically true" guy. God, it's fucking exhausting. You're just telling me you're incapable of discussing/understanding what my original comment, and your linked article, were even talking about.

I made the mistake of reading the article you linked and responded to it as if you actually understood it or held that position. You don't even understand the subject enough to even argue from the position of what you linked to in the first place.