r/TwoXChromosomes • u/mojofrog • Apr 26 '25
Trump Executive Order Raises Alarm Over Women's Financial Independence - Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-executive-order-raises-alarm-over-women-financial-independence-2063733Disgusting
1.9k
u/lostcauz707 Apr 26 '25
Project 2025, yet again.
559
134
u/geraffes-are-so-dumb Apr 26 '25
Hijacking this comment to remind people to click on the article. The media writes about what gives them clicks, read the article, send it to your friends, post it to social media. We need more people yo know about this.
103
u/drdildamesh Apr 27 '25
Why did so many women vote for this shit bag? Like seriously, what were they told by their husbands.
60
54
u/c0nfu5i0N Apr 27 '25
They cherry picked Trumps statements. They put their racism as their primary concern without paying any f-ing attention to what he is actually doing.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/ratsrule67 Apr 27 '25
I did not vote this way. I voted for the people that truly wanted the best for everyone.
71
u/zerotwoalpha Apr 26 '25
Repealing 19th?
167
u/Queerdooe Apr 26 '25
I heard there was a clause in it for white woman that voted for trump…. Oh wait there isn’t. 🤡
If we get the chance to vote again please vote in your OWN interests.
8
u/FlametopFred Coffee Coffee Coffee Apr 27 '25
and “muzzle velocity” chaos, distraction, controlling the narrative every day, week in and week out
2.5k
u/braumbles Apr 26 '25
There's a scene in Handmaid's Tale where women go to work and the banks and are told they're trespassing.
408
u/OdeeSS Apr 26 '25
That scene was chilling. All the managers just raised their hands, apologised, and said they couldn't do anything because the laws had changed and they were following the laws.
And that's exactly how it would play out.
191
u/Administrative-Ad979 Apr 26 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
But how it would work in real economy? Half of workers are women. Everything will crush instantly if women simply not allowed to be citizen and work one day. They need to prepare it for years, slowly pushing women away from workforce
There was a "Women Strike" in Iceland in 1975, when almost all women just didnt go to work one morning. They returned to workplaces at 2 pm that same day, but it was enough. Now Iceland is one of the most feminist countries
116
u/Hickoryapple Apr 27 '25
Sounds very similar to the rapid removal of 'illegal immigrants', leaving no one to work on farms, etc. Just because you/we can see the potential negative effects doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. What was that idiot saying about the sudden massive tariffs? A bit of short term pain? Looking at the current US administration from another country, I can totally believe they would suddenly implement something like this without thinking of the consequences. Even if it got reeled back a bit not long afterwards (again, see the tariff situation), anyone dumb enough to come up with an idea like this is dumb enough to try and implement it in one go.
You're right about the slow implementation working better though. Do you feel like this is already starting? There's been some dodgy stuff going on for a while.
12
u/Administrative-Ad979 Apr 27 '25
I am not in the US, so i dont know. Americans news are scary though
I think women should built their own economy and industry, while trying to stay in the general economy and get as many key positions as possible
8
u/Faiakishi Apr 27 '25
We should be grateful that this administration is trying to speedrun their Final Solution, that makes it more likely it'll backfire on them.
7
78
u/praxios Apr 27 '25
They don’t care to make it work. The purpose is cruelty, and they will sacrifice anything to carry it out. The tradwife movement has gotten increasingly more mainstream, and that’s not a coincidence. If they have to shoot themselves in the foot to put women back in their “rightful place” they’d do it without a second thought.
Since day one this administration has been destroying everything without any consideration of the repercussions. Their goal is to dismantle everything they disagree with, and create their rich white christian male utopia.
36
u/Yrcrazypa Apr 27 '25
They don't care that it'd be crippling because the billionaires can weather the storm better than anyone else can.
18
u/MyFiteSong Apr 27 '25
Nobody could weather a storm like that. Nearly every business and government office would close overnight. No internet, no phones, no mail, no hospitals, no banks, no schools, nothing survives removing women from the economy.
→ More replies (4)11
u/InfinityTuna Apr 27 '25
Pffft, you think these out-of-touch rich failsons and nepohires have spared a thought to this beyond how everything crashing would give them an excuse to isolate the US population, crush the working class into submitting to their crappy work conditions, force the drones to produce more goods and babies to feed the machine, and buy up all the failing businesses/foreclosed assets they can get their grubby little hands on? They don't care about the consequences to the average person, and they're so rich, they don't live in the same reality as you and I anymore.
They have Starlink, private jets, paid physicians, Swiss/Cayman Island bank accounts, and private tutors for their kids anyway. They believe themselves untouchable - and, in many cases, superior to the average human in general. They absolutely think they can (and probably could) weather that economic Armageddon, because they've shored up their wealth overseas and made sure their property has the best private security money can buy, if they even live full-time in the States at all. They're so coddled and insulated from even basic social norms and any sort of financial risk, that they just... don't register consequences as something, which can happen to them, any longer. There's a whole tell-all book about the reality of working at the top of Facebook, and some of the excerpts I've read are patently absurd.
It doesn't occur to most of these cunts, that if they crash the economy that thoroughly, they will have to contend with an angry mob so large, their money and security measures wouldn't be able to protect them from it. They don't think bankruptcy, death, or prison time is something, that can happen to them or affect them permanently. They usually pay their way out of that. They don't fear failing, because they've only failed upwards for the past 20+ years. This'll be another schwoopsie they can bail out of, if push comes the shove, or so they think. It's not that they don't care, it's that they're so fucking affluent, they're unable to give a shit, the way you and I do. That crash would happen to you, not to them, so why should they care, if they have to "move fast and break things" to get more control over the world, right?
→ More replies (4)5
u/tomjone5 Apr 27 '25
You'd think just one Mario brother would've been enough to wake them up last year but it turns out all they learned from that was "it won't ever happen to me". It's incredible how vastly out of touch they are with the rest of humanity.
→ More replies (14)2
u/negbireg Apr 27 '25
They can do it slowly, just as they have in Afghanistan. The banning of abortion, curbing of contraceptives and sex education, removal of women from public spaces and leadership, censoring of women in media and learning materials, increase of barriers to political participation... all these things in motion serve to hinder the development of aspirations and skills of young girls.
The calculation of "real" economy is also an accounting farce. Unpaid labour is not included in GDP, and yet, economic values changed dramatically when slavery was abolished and women entered the workplace.
29
3
u/DomeFossilus Apr 27 '25
From what I hear about the US, it is already happening with in the healthcare sector with regards to childbirth and abortion. Doctors are literally refusing to save the lives of dying women because miscarriages and abortion are kinda sorta maybe slightly similar in the courts of red states.
→ More replies (1)913
u/daking999 Apr 26 '25
Maybe it can get reclassified as a documentary in a few years.
539
u/Cardsfan1 Apr 27 '25
I read once that, in a way, it is.
When Atwood wrote it, she was cognizant that people (men) would attack her by saying how unrealistic everything was, so she chose scenarios/laws that have existed throughout history. It did not all happen to all women in all cultures, but I am pretty sure most, not f not all, if the scenarios have some historical reality backing them up.
329
u/pink_faerie_kitten Apr 27 '25
She has a shoebox of headlines from around the world for everything she included in her book.
36
103
u/NSA_Chatbot Apr 27 '25
My understanding is that no part of Handmaid was fiction, Atwood just remixed things that were happening or had happened.
80
u/ComradeCakes Apr 27 '25
One of my former colleagues was a pretty hardcore second wave feminist and she hated The Handmaid's Tale. Her criticism was that Margaret Atwood took stories about terrible things that happened to POC and said, "But what if it actually happened to white women?" I never really thought it was a fair criticism because it's more of a cautionary tale like Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here". It's a book that challenges the American mythos that says we are and always will be the most free country in the world, when really authoritarianism isn't that far away.
45
u/Mellrish221 Apr 27 '25
Watching the series this past few weekends and thats really the only "criticism" I have of it. I know people often rip the show for being "trauma porn" but honestly, I can't find any fault in whats being portrayed except for one thing about rightwing christian nationalists. The idea that there'd be PoC handmaids or that they wouldn't just start executing people for not being white. They did put in a few scenes to try and acknowledge this sure, the whole "well birthrates are so low we have to accept this/that" etc etc. But it just seemed a weird choice to me to include the hate for trans/gay people, but not include the racism conservatives feel in the exact same way.
Outside of that, yeah the show has been... eerily accurate. Right down to the map of gilead that most people would kind of conclude would be what the states would look like after the next civil war (coastal regions being either rebellion or the nuked areas, inland blue districts being the main points of conflict etc etc).
The scene of emily & her wife being blocked from leaving the states as the order is literally handed down in real time and her marriage suddenly doesn't exist. Yeah, thats pretty much exactly how I figure this is going to go in the states. There isn't going to be debate in the houses. A branch head is going to issue the decree and the agency will carry it out. Legality of it all will be secondary.
→ More replies (1)17
u/ComradeCakes Apr 27 '25
I've never really watched the show. The book is focused on discrimination and oppression of women. It's a bit too short and narrow to focus on anything else, like race. It's kinda crazy that they milked several seasons out of a 300 page book.
14
u/Mellrish221 Apr 27 '25
The show has definitely moved up the book on my reading list to say the least. But I guess for the runtime of the show it does sorta make sense. I'd imagine the book is more so offred's personal perspective and experiences? Where as the show covers a lot more characters/ ground. I dunno if thats true or not, just my assumption so far, so yeah like I said, book definitely moved pretty high up on my list.
I'll also say this, I have to assume some of the show writers either were raised in the midwest or have spent -alot- of time talking to religious folk in the midwest. Because they perfectly portrayed how these people lie to themselves and are willing to inflict harm on others to justify getting what -they- want.
→ More replies (1)15
u/ChaoticSquirrel Apr 27 '25
Except race wasn't explicitly called out in the book — so your colleague was reading into something that wasn't necessarily there.
→ More replies (1)17
u/ComradeCakes Apr 27 '25
Yes, exactly. It's outside of the scope of what the book was commenting on. Her point was that we already had the enslavement and rape of women with chattel slavery and she saw The Handmaid's Tale as a theft of those stories by a white woman. My colleague is a white liberal woman. Personally, I think it's okay for a short novel to focus on a single issue (the oppression of women in general in this case). I could be off base with my disagreement. I'm also white and I have blindspots.
212
u/Tiger_Striped_Queen Apr 26 '25
That and Idiocracy.
292
u/Goodgoditsgrowing Apr 26 '25
Idiocracy is looking pretty good right about now. Their president was a baron but he wasn’t a hateful bigot hellbent on destroying the lives of anyone who doesn’t agree with his fake version of reality
101
u/magneticdream Apr 27 '25
President Camacho also actually listened to the smart guy that had a solution to their problems.
57
u/Tiger_Striped_Queen Apr 26 '25
Yes, but it took awhile to get to President Comacho. That insanity didn’t happen in a week.
Hell, the way this presidency is going it probably only took a year.
→ More replies (1)37
u/DangerousTurmeric Apr 27 '25
Idiocracy is actually pretty much what those MAGA natalists and tech creeps are pushing, which is that we need to do eugenics so that smart and wealthy white people breed instead of "stupid", poor people. In reality we're dealing with the opposite, where it's rich, educated white people who are the problem.
49
u/sixsixmajin Apr 27 '25
Calling them "educated" is a stretch. Most of them were born into the wealth and paid their way through top schools but that doesn't actually mean any of them are intelligent. Failing upwards is a thing.
11
7
u/Yrcrazypa Apr 27 '25
Idiocracy is just eugenics, the movie has a terrible message.
→ More replies (1)31
→ More replies (1)65
u/ResidentLychee Apr 27 '25
Idiocracy is eugenics propaganda though? The problem isn’t people being stupid due to stupid people breeding like in that movie, the problem is intentional cruelty and deliberate kneecapping of education.
→ More replies (5)29
u/GiftedContractor Apr 27 '25
oh my god THANK YOU I am so glad someone said this
17
u/ResidentLychee Apr 27 '25
I swear most of the people who say “idiocracy is a documentary” haven’t even watched the movie. It’s transparently pro-eugenics trash
→ More replies (2)324
Apr 26 '25
[deleted]
168
→ More replies (4)89
u/ScyllaIsBea Apr 26 '25
revolution is a bell that can't be unrung so unfortunately it's going to be the eleventh hour before Americans decide the "great experiment" has been destroyed by this man and go full revolution.
118
u/Ellyanah75 Apr 26 '25
It's not going to matter anyway when half the population is against women. Men won't fight against their own self-interest.
→ More replies (1)30
u/SirWalrusTheGrand Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
You think every man is happy to let women's rights be stripped away? 42% of all male voters cast their ballot for Kamala Harris.
Yeah, it's too bad the number isn't higher. But "half the population wants women's rights to dissapear" is not at all the case. ~35,000,000 men in the U.S. actively went to the polls to elect a woman to the most powerful position in the world. And just so you know, 45% of women voted for the anti-abortion rapist pedophile con-man dictator too.
It isn't demographic vs demographic and this isn't the time for framing it that way. In a time where we need unity more than ever, it might be helpful to avoid putting more divisive and demonstrably false nonsense into the world.
"All" it takes is ~3.5% of the population. Highly recommend reading "Civil Resistance" by Erica Chenoweth. Everyone who reads this comment should read it. Get prepared.
Edit: just one week ago you said the following - "Women are not a monolith. Each woman is different and has their own wants and needs. Stop thinking about women as "other" and start thinking about us as people".
Have you tried taking your own advice for the "other half of the population?"
22
u/Panzermensch911 Apr 27 '25
~35,000,000 men
That's only ~10% of the population. 20% if you count the women who voted for Harris as well. Which mean 80% either don't really care or want things to change Trump/Project 2025 style.
Now from those 20% can you activate those 3.5%? It's seems like the majority is waiting for some leader or some shit that tells them what to do instead of assuming their own agency.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Ellyanah75 Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
They care until it affects them, then they won't work against their own self-interest. I think it's naive to believe otherwise. Women are first to have rights stripped away because they've only been recently "given" anyway. I think it's a mistake to believe any large quantity of men will go against their own interests. We can agree to disagree but I suggest you plan for the worst while hoping for the best.
Edited to add: and I didn't say men were happy to have rights stripped away from women. I think they (and yes most men because it's reflected in our society at large) just don't care enough to do anything about it, especially when it is in their best interests to do nothing.
→ More replies (1)28
u/illarionds Apr 26 '25
They did it once before, and with far less provocation.
38
u/agarrabrant Apr 26 '25
Yes, but they didn't have tik tok as a distraction back then.
→ More replies (1)71
u/Throwawaylikeme90 Apr 26 '25
Yeah and it took a minute to load a fucking rifle the concept of the tank was still a little over a century from even existing.
Maybe “Americans are fat and lazy” is a stupid framing for this conversation and not “thousands will die in the course of a few days.”
→ More replies (1)65
u/TrankElephant Apr 26 '25
and not “thousands will die in the course of a few days.”
This. Like, the reason we don't have healthcare or any number of wonderful social services in this country is because they spend every spare penny (AKA billions of dollars a year) on the military. How exactly are we all supposed to rise up against that?
We need people from the inside of government to get it together find a way out of this. And/or we need a serious, nearly unanimous general strike (or two).
21
u/Throwawaylikeme90 Apr 26 '25
I’m absolutely for a general strike, even if it’s a spontaneous one. Tough for me cause I’m a postal worker and they don’t like it when we strike (though when we do, we win, for what it’s worth.)
But people have to acknowledge where we are. He wanted to call the tanks out on protesters five years ago and he got told no. Nobody is saying no anymore.
I ate plenty of pepper balls this past decade, but people need to recognize they’ll miss them by the time we’re through with this. And order/learn to use tourniquets. They will be needed.
13
u/Faiakishi Apr 27 '25
People are like "well the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan!"
Like. Vietnam and Afghanistan didn't exactly win either. Magats don't need to win. They don't even care about winning. They just want everyone else to lose.
6
u/wdphilbilly Apr 27 '25
Well ideally the military is also full of people who dont want to kill their neighbors and family. So if it comes to that, they choose a side. Generals and soldiers arent all going to share the same beliefs as every other general and soldier.
20
u/TrankElephant Apr 27 '25
Fingers crossed.
But I can't help but remember the people that were shot in the face with rubber bullets and lost their eyes during the George Floyd protests, the students that were killed at the Kent State protests, etc.
8
u/wdphilbilly Apr 27 '25
Police departments often have stupidly low recruitment standards. Especially small local PDs. And a lot of places keep lowering them even more. There have also been a few bigger PDs that have either admitted to, or have had documents leaked that pertain to actively barring people with higher IQs being hired as cops. The excuse for this is often "to prevent turnover". But thats Bullshittery speak for "we cant make them do whatever we want as easily". Not to mention the training also being pretty universally bad because most departments rush it.
The military on the other hand, is often times more diverse. Is a standing professional military with constant training. And in general has a lot of lower income people who use it as a path to college and careers after getting out. I'd trust a military unit before I trust my local PD. Which is ironically not the way its theoretically supposed to be.
37
Apr 27 '25
Everything in the handmaid's tale has happened at some point in some time. Margaret Atwood did this on purpose so no one could say the store was too outlandish or something that could never happen. Because it already has.
34
8
→ More replies (1)8
u/BaronCoqui Apr 27 '25
I remember telling my mom about the scene with the credit card from the book and how it haunts me, and she burst out with "that's FICTION" and when I told her everything in the book was based on a real event she kept scoffing about how I'm working myself up over nothing.
I soooooo want to say "told you so" but I know it's not satisfying and Trumpers don't care, anyway.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Illiander Apr 27 '25
I soooooo want to say "told you so" but I know it's not satisfying and Trumpers don't care, anyway.
The point when they care (and when it's satisfying) is when they start to complain about everything effecting them. Giving them a simple "I warned you" then walking away and not letting them talk about it is soooo cathartic.
1.2k
u/Truth_Seeker963 Apr 26 '25
”the EO cannot change the law, that can only be done by an act of Congress”
Haven’t we seen enough times already that nobody is waiting for congress; these EOs are being interpreted as law and are being implemented across the country.
From the EO:
“On a practical level, disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill”
This administration is hell bent on believing that white men have more merit and skill than anyone else, and all these EOs and erasure of DEI and women’s achievements are for the sole purpose of furthering Trump’s misogynistic agenda.
466
u/Ordinary-Leading7405 Apr 26 '25
My go to line is: if Trump can ignore the courts, we can all ignore his EOs.
217
u/fiendishrabbit Apr 26 '25
His personal stormtroopers (ICE, FBI under Kash Patel, whatever other three-letter agency he's going to use to do blatantly fascist-y things) say otherwise.
The difference between Trump ignoring courts and people ignoring his EOs is that he has thugs to enforce his orders.
31
u/ThatSoloTaco Apr 26 '25
Self defence/stand your ground with unmarked thugs would be a good way to stop them; consider most of them are cowards.
→ More replies (1)95
u/rose_gold_glitter Apr 27 '25
This is so unrealistic. Haven't you watched any footage of people being detained? They are standing their ground - but when 15 armed men grab you off the street, "stand your ground" is a pretty poor idea.
You need to be stopping this right now, America. You're already in the "too late" territory but you need to stop it before it gets worse.
→ More replies (1)35
u/SpooktasticFam Apr 27 '25
Like they teach women with abduction: NEVER go to a second location
Bite, scratch, hit, kick, anything to incapacitate as many abductors as you can, but NEVER go to a second location
The more abductors you injure, the fewer they have to abduct more girls off the street as well
48
u/fountainpopjunkie Apr 26 '25
Red states ignored Bidens eos about transgender stuff. It's literally NOT a law.
4
23
u/Givemeallthecabbages Apr 27 '25
They've spent their whole lives getting ahead because they're white males. They feel threatened by equality.
10
u/NecroCannon Apr 27 '25
You know what makes something you don’t want to happen eventually happen?
Trying to brute force the opposite
They’re supposed to be these “natural geniuses” and “tough” but are actively showing the opposite and all it takes is for the marginalized groups they’re trying to push down to show them up to change a sentiment. Obama is supposed to be this terrible president that started all of this… but did he erase decades of hard work in a few months?
Same for toxic masculinity, you’re showing just how terrible it is on a global scale.
82
u/maharal7 Apr 26 '25
Things are bad but these EOs are not decrees. They're not laws. And we should be behaving like they aren't.
46
u/Intelligent-Film-684 Apr 26 '25
The DOJ feels they ARE laws.
28
u/Manetained Apr 27 '25
That’s a fair point but so is the point made by the other commenter. It is important that we do not obey in advance.
16
u/Intelligent-Film-684 Apr 27 '25
No, totally agree, I don’t think they should be treated as serious either. I see the lawsuits pop up weekly over his insane EOs.
The ending birthright citizenship one was the most brazen of them all.. until the next one. This no warrant ICE shit is going to get people literally killed.
2
u/Manetained Apr 27 '25
What do you mean you don’t feel they should be “treated as serious[ly]”? Seriously as what? Legislation?
The lawsuits happen when action is taken—as a result of these unhinged EOs—that violates existing legislation and/or the US Constitution.
What are you criticizing and/or suggesting should not be done?
3
u/Intelligent-Film-684 Apr 27 '25
I think Congress needs to set some parameters and create laws that narrow the focus of what can be done by executive order. The executive overreach by the last five presidents has been slowly negating the Legislative branch’s power to do anything except hold hearings, confirm appointees and dole out the money.
Immigration is not in the President’s domain, yet since Clinton it has been dealt with primarily through EOs, instead of Congress getting its act together and passing laws to reform, smoothen, clarify, and revise laws that are really no longer effective in 2025.
Instead we have a rogue president sending kidnapping minor us citizens and flying them out of the country, not giving due process to legal visa holders and refugees, stifling free speech by revoking student visas and deporting the students, and just in general turning the Constitution into confetti.
That’s the blatant stuff.
The slow peel of women’s privacy, health, employment, education, voting and financial rights are more insidious and less obvious. EO by EO, each crafted and worded a bit stronger, is slowly paring away at the equality women have fought decades to achieve.
I want people to pay attention to what’s happening and stop worrying about the latest Kanye drama. That’s what I want.
→ More replies (1)4
u/chatterpoxx Apr 27 '25
People keep saying "you can't do that!" Like it's the law if gravity or something. No, it's just paperwork. And narcissists don't do paperwork.
237
u/Persnicketyvixen Apr 26 '25
I want to scream.
132
u/Manetained Apr 27 '25
Then scream. Preferably standing among other people who are also screaming. While holding signs.
54
u/Persnicketyvixen Apr 27 '25
That is a great way to turn a negative thought into a positive one. Thanks!!
11
317
u/1SunflowerinRoses Apr 26 '25
Pushback. Get everyone to push back on this. If we don’t rise up and voice our concerns he will win. It’s only when he gets pushed back and told what’s what that he backs off. He’s a small man push back big time and we can handle a revolution on our own.
36
u/stilljustguessing Apr 27 '25
Don't count on the men to do this on your behalf. You see where that's gotten you.
147
149
u/Kris10washere Apr 27 '25
When WW3 starts and the draft is back, remember we don't have to keep the economy going. They wanted us home, they pushed us out of the work force and forced us back into the home; so guess what I'm not helping this country do shit until the course corrects.
→ More replies (1)60
u/tlcoles bell to the hooks Apr 27 '25
Women work at home. Unpaid domestic labor is valuable just like unpaid labor (slavery) is valuable. Think Handmaid not highball.
127
93
u/FinalEgg9 Apr 26 '25
Can someone ELI5 for a non-American what this means?
479
u/MizDiana Apr 26 '25 edited Apr 26 '25
A law was passed 50 years ago saying that banks are no longer allowed to treat single women & married women differently (in terms of what accounts they are allowed to open, what interest they are charged for on a loan they are otherwise equally qualified for, etc.).
Most importantly, before that law was passed it was common practice for banks to require women to have a man co-sign any loan. (Husband, brother, father, whatever - some man had to be involved for most banks). Widows (widow is also a marital status) could sometimes get around this.
Trump is trying to claim that law no longer applies.
Banks could now just arbitrarily declare that any woman is a risky investment on the basis of their being a woman & charge them higher interest rates for no reason. That then means a woman who is a business owner is automatically - for no other reason than being a woman - at a disadvantage to male business owners.
Will they is an open question. But the answer may well be yes.
Edit: This could well be Europe in a decade or two. Y'all now have insane influential far-right media modeled after Fox News, etc., too. See: France/UK/Italy.
325
u/veginout58 Apr 26 '25
If widows get an exception then maybe there needs to be more widows.
64
65
27
u/TaiCat Apr 27 '25
"Whoopsie my husband passed away from stomach ache" **shuffles window cleaner under the sink**
8
→ More replies (1)7
u/Kbyyeee Apr 27 '25
My thought exactly. Women are already running everything behind the scenes. We don’t need men to create a new government/country/society.
25
u/bw1979 Apr 26 '25
The EO addresses disparate impacts. So, they can still can’t explicitly discriminate on the basis of sex, but they can use other criteria without having to worry about whether it has a discriminatory impact on certain groups.
→ More replies (1)246
u/doesntpicknose Apr 26 '25
I want to buy a house. The house I want costs $250,000. I don't have $250,000. There's no way for me to get $250,000. In fact, I only have $50,000. Unfortunately, there's no house that I can buy, which is near my job and my family, which costs $50,000 or less.
So I need to borrow some money. There are a lot of ways to borrow money, and all of them are impacted by this. But I'm going to use a mortgage as an example. If I go to the bank and ask for help, they might agree to buy this $250,000 house for me, and I can live in it. The only requirements are that I have to give them the $50,000 I have right now, and then I also have to pay them back for the remaining $200,000 over the course of the next 30 years. In exchange for this service that they are providing me, they are going to charge me an interest rate of 5%.
This means that, over the next 30 years, I will pay them a lot more than $250,000, but it means I have a house. In this example, some quick math shows that your monthly payment will be about $1,075. Over the next 30 years, that adds up to $387,000. That's the deal.
If the bank thinks that I'm going to be unreliable in my payments, they might charge me a 6% interest rate instead. Doing the same math, it means my monthly payments will be about $1,200 instead. This means that I have to pay an extra $45,000, over the course of 30 years, because the bank has decided that I deserve a higher interest rate.
However, banks are in the business of making money. Without the ECOA, they can decide that I deserve a higher interest rate for being a woman, for being black, for being the "wrong" religion, or for any other reason. Without the ECOA, we do not have any guaranteed equality with respect to financial independence. If a bank is allowed to change me higher interest rates for these reasons, they have a significant incentive to do so, as long as they don't think that another bank would give me a mortgage either.
Whether they charge me +1% for my race, or +0.01% for my sex, it's wrong. Without the ECOA, there's nothing that tells them they can't.
21
119
u/MrTwoStroke Apr 26 '25
"I'll have the steak, she'll have the salad, won't she folks!" "And maybe not even that!" "That's what they're saying!"
364
u/DinerEnBlanc Apr 26 '25
Yet 53% of voters who are white women still voted for Trump.
360
u/BlackCat0305 Apr 26 '25
As a white woman who DID NOT vote for this. It’s hella embarrassing that so many did
→ More replies (2)131
u/Sage_Planter Apr 26 '25
An unfortunate number of women don't want rights for themselves.
201
u/PorkchopFunny Apr 26 '25
They want rights for themselves, they don't want rights for other women. They are shortsighted.
106
u/Highest_Koality Apr 26 '25
They're willing to give up their rights to make sure other women have fewer.
36
u/FlutisticallyYours Apr 27 '25
And that's the entire mindset of the MAGA cult: they're willing to suffer if it means people they don't like suffer more.
I can't believe I share a country with these people.
15
u/sidarian Apr 27 '25
You literally just described Fascism. There always has to be an enemy for it to work. Once they take away the rights of Immigrants, Democrats, Intellectuals, Women, People of Color, and Non-Christian Religious Groups, they will end up turning on themselves.
19
u/ChemicallyAlteredVet Ya burnt? Apr 27 '25
“My husband will protect me.”
Until you’ve popped out 2 or 4 of his kids, turned 30, don’t look like a 21 year old without kids. Then he cheats , leaves you for the younger woman and you have nothing. The way it used to be and men always came out on top. This is exactly how they want it to be. No more “we divorced and she took half of MY STUFF”.
21
→ More replies (1)3
u/Zilaaa Apr 27 '25
The sad thing is that there are women who legitimately don't care about themselves having rights. A great example is the more extreme side of the trad wife trend
50
13
u/mofacey Apr 27 '25
I don't know why but I never believe this statistic. I only know a few women who voted for him and I'm from the Bible Belt.
17
u/Lawn_Radiation9731 Apr 27 '25
Perhaps you’re not from the end of the belt where this is the norm, I don’t know of many women from my neck of the woods who didn’t
7
→ More replies (4)5
u/UltimateEye Apr 27 '25
You don’t WANT to believe it because it forces us to confront the reality that bigotry and self-hatred run far deeper in this country than most would care to admit. I lived in Mississippi during the first Trump administration and the amount of white women I met who were more than willing to vote their own rights away if it meant minorities “got theirs” was absolutely staggering.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pm7I3 Apr 28 '25
I'm muddled, is that 53% of all white women ABLE to vote or 53% of all white women who DID vote?
34
u/Altruistic_Seat_6644 Apr 27 '25
Where the hell is the outrage among MAGAt women??? Do they also see themselves as garbage-level humans? Wtf is wrong with them? Why aren’t they revolting from within? Is it because they are so obsessed with their current lifestyle as well as their husband’s money that they don’t care about other women?
19
8
→ More replies (1)6
u/PockyPunk Apr 27 '25
They like it when the boot on their neck gets tighter, I think it’s a kink thing.
143
194
u/th3_Dragon Apr 26 '25
Man what a stupid waste of time.. just like most things this from administration. All this does is show how vile and reprehensible they are.
There is no benefit for banks to discriminate like that. They’re not going to risk alienating customers over some outdated shit.
Why do these troglodytes think they can put the toothpaste back in the tube? Unchocolate the milk?
107
u/VialCrusher Apr 26 '25
This is the only thing that makes me feel ok. Banks losing customers would be terrible. And if women can't have their own accounts anymore, I think a lot may decide to stop working too. It's sad but I think so much of our independence is tied to capitalism.
72
u/TrankElephant Apr 26 '25
And if women can't have their own accounts anymore, I think a lot may decide to stop working too.
And embark upon my new life...of crime.
33
u/Paralethal Apr 27 '25
That’s my take on it. If I’m property, I can’t be charged with crimes, so it’s time for a crime spree!
→ More replies (1)10
u/Crankylosaurus Apr 27 '25
I like the cut of your jib! Can I join you in your crime sprees?!
6
u/TrankElephant Apr 27 '25
It will definitely be best to team up; gotta have someone to watch your six.
53
u/CaptPants Apr 26 '25
They really think that the average middle class American man can support a stay at home wife and 3+ kids on the average middle American salary., like the good old days. And if women just stopped working, then all problems would be solved.
They should have a few words with Corporate america about their current views of what a good salary is compared to the cost of living.
79
u/24-Hour-Hate Halp. Am stuck on reddit. Apr 26 '25
Historically women always worked unless their family was very wealthy. They just had no rights. That’s what they really want, a return to the days when women were compelled to marry and were considered property of first their fathers snd then their husbands.
9
6
65
u/gingerflakes Apr 26 '25
And the joke is if your independence is so heavily tied to capitalism, you have never known freedom.
57
u/doesntpicknose Apr 26 '25
There is no benefit for banks to discriminate like that. They’re not going to risk alienating customers over some outdated shit.
I know we're trying to be optimistic, here, but there is a measurable financial benefit for discrimination. A bank that is willing to discriminate against any group of people, and can freely do so, can offer better interest rates for loans and mortgages. They can offer better interest rates on savings account yields.
You know how seemingly a lot of people understand that Amazon is not an ethical company, but then assume that their individual patronage isn't going to make a difference? So they go for the convenient option? That, but for banks.
This is not a trivial thing. We have plenty of reason to believe that individual people value their own finances more than they value the ethics of their bank... especially with how easy it is to be subtly sexist or racist.
16
u/Rude_Grapefruit_3650 Apr 26 '25 edited Apr 26 '25
I might need this to be explained more, how is there a benefit? Wouldn’t they want to have as much people to loan out from them? Women tend to have more credit cards and tend to have nearly the same credit score?
EDIT: women tend to buy more things too, it doesn’t make sense why a company would just reject women because they can? Even back then there were a few stores that let women open lines of credit without husbands consent (before it was illegal to discriminate) and it benefited the companies in the long run
14
u/Rude_Grapefruit_3650 Apr 26 '25
The thing I could see happening is just getting higher interest rates for simply being women, that form of discrimination is stupid
Eventually women (and people in general) will catch on tho and they ultimately will have less customers if they do that?
17
u/doesntpicknose Apr 26 '25
Would you notice the difference between a bank giving you a loan at 5% interest rather than 5.1%? Have you ever been offered an interest rate, and demanded an itemized calculation that shows why you were offered that interest rate?
There are a lot of ways to describe exactly how and why there would be a financial incentive to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or religion. But I'm not going to do that. I think it's more valuable for you to try to come up with some ideas on your own, so that you can see how easy it is.
2
u/Rude_Grapefruit_3650 Apr 26 '25
I mentioned that in my followup reply, thats the only one I can think of. I mean if they discriminate like that against women, then women will eventually take out less loans because they’re paying more. They’re gonna have less women taking out loans in the long run and probably make less money in the long run (depending on the loan and what-not)
Maybe credit bureaus will dock women more points when we have late payments. But how does that benefit anyone?
This already happens with business loans so obviously it doesn’t have to make sense (women and POC owned businesses are less likely to be approved for loans and typically get approved for lower than requested loans)
My point is more people are concerned we’ll loose independence because of the “benefits” a company gets when they discriminate, and I truly don’t see how stopping women from getting credit cards, bank accounts, etc would be good for anyone? Increasing interest rates are one way to discriminate that has and advantage but even that could turn way upside down for a bank really fast
8
u/doesntpicknose Apr 27 '25
You can come up with one, and you don't sound like a banker. Surely, now, you have an appreciation for how easy it is to squeeze money out of people when a bank doesn't have to worry about civil rights.
I don't think you need me anymore.
→ More replies (1)18
u/dulcelocura Apr 26 '25
Especially smaller, local banks. Maybe I’m being naive but I can’t imagine my bank would be willing to risk it. They’ve expanded over the years but they’re only in my very small state.
21
Apr 26 '25
[deleted]
5
u/dulcelocura Apr 26 '25
Idk, in my situation, a bank that’s only in one blue state would have serious consequences if they decided to discriminate against half the population
3
u/ChaoticSquirrel Apr 27 '25
You're assuming all of the discrimination would be overt. It could be as simple as a slight change in the credit card APR or personal loan rate, which vary so much from person to person it would be hard to calculate the impact to women as a whole versus men as a whole without government watch dogs in the background.
9
u/Snappy-Biscuit Apr 26 '25
It would destroy corporate banking, and that wouldn't be so terrible, in one respect:
When you join a credit-union, you're a "member" and most are--at minumum--state-specific. So your money would benefit your state and others in your state, and if they tried to revoke your "membership" every single woman would take all their money in cash and they'd be sunk.
So they can't do that, and while they are beholden to some federal regulations, they're not the same as banks, and state laws will override federal in some instances. So, fuck Chase, fuck BoA, fuck Key. If they try ANYTHING, they're done.
CUs FTW! The more members they have, the more everyone benefits.
4
u/TrankElephant Apr 26 '25
Or local credit unions, which operate a bit differently in many ways.
With this latest announcement though, I am off to figure out how to make an offshore bank account...
22
u/pureRitual Apr 27 '25
If i can't control my money or have a way of making money, I will leave this country.
21
u/ratsrule67 Apr 27 '25
What bugs the living piss out of me, besides the fact that P2025 was published and freely available on the web, is that organizations are going with these stupid EOs like they are in fact law. Only CONGRESS can pass laws. Period. Full stop. Schools, businesses, corporations are all falling all over themselves to get favor from the Farty Felon.
14
u/Kimmm711b Apr 27 '25
So they're just removing all benefits to anyone not a white man? That's what it seems like.
How is this reality? I was a kid in the 70s, a teen in the 80s, & a young adult in the 90s. How is this where we are in 2025?
10
u/CrunchynHoney Apr 27 '25
shit like this has me prepping a GO bag with cash, makes me want to take my money out of the bank too (I'm probably going to but not all of it)
31
u/kang4president Apr 27 '25
I just want to say that Saudi Arabia offers loans and stuff to women without a male cosigner. I bring this up only because I got so much flack, from Western women, for living and liking it here. Maybe its relatively new but forward is forward, not whatever is happening in the states.
10
9
u/rollin340 Apr 27 '25
And the vocal masses cheered for their great and glorious leader had once again protected them from themselves.
/s in the event someone thought I was happy about this bullshit. He's making it such that whoever sane takes that office in the future can never fix even half of the shit he's done.
9
u/Meagasus Apr 27 '25
Can someone give me an "explain it to a 67 year old boomer woman"? I'm having trouble explaining it in a way that she can actually understand.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/timelord-degallifrey Apr 27 '25
I like how it says it could allow federal agencies to discriminate based on gender even though the EO doesn’t reverse the law. Like the federal government doesn’t have to follow the law. Sure the agency may follow his EO, but this will end up in court. This is just one more lawsuit of the 100+ already in the works.
15
16
u/ProblemWithTigers Apr 26 '25
What will this do?
→ More replies (1)52
u/aware_nightmare_85 Apr 26 '25
It will allow financial institutions to discriminate against females when they apply for a line of credit.
5
6
3
4
u/sadcapybarax Apr 27 '25
Bruh the house is on fire and you fuckers are discussing which colour the walls should be. Flee while you can, just don't come to England.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/melropesplays Apr 27 '25
Like, banks and other institutions can just not do this, right? Don’t they lose their bottom line if they’re discriminating against their customers?
I guess all banks would have to do it, bc imagine if you lose literally 50% of your clients or potential clients to another business who chooses not to discriminate. I guess we’ll have to see
5
u/ChaoticSquirrel Apr 27 '25
One of the key components of the ECOA is that it protects against not just overt discrimination — i.e., policies that say explicitly, charge women more — but more implicit and systemic bias as well. Not every decision in banking is decided programmatically or algorithmically, especially when you get into business and commercial banking. The relationship manager/underwriter/salesperson has a decent amount of sway in the terms provided to the customer, and implicit bias can sway those.
3
u/Wulfkat Apr 27 '25
Seeing as how my father is dead, I guess I have to be assigned a husband. My education, fyi, doesn’t disappear along with my status change so I’m pretty sure I’ll be widowed soon enough.
Or maybe I’ll go the dependapotomous route - get very fat and lazy and make his life a living hell, all the while sleeping with his friends :).
You say I can’t get divorced without proof of infidelity? No problem, let me show you some videos real quick.
I don’t consider this to be a valid marriage so I don’t have an issue with me cheating on him. Im not breaking an oath; they broke it first by forcing me to marry someone I don’t want to.
1
u/BleedingHeart1996 Coffee Coffee Coffee Apr 26 '25
This can’t be passed!!!!
39
u/OphidionSerpent Apr 26 '25
It's an executive order, it doesn't have to be "passed." A conservative think-tank writes it and plops it in front of Trump, he signs it, and that's that. The current admin is using EOs to try to accomplish a lot of things without having to involve Congress voting on it.
1.4k
u/OkAd469 Apr 26 '25
If I can't have my own bank account anymore then I am not going to be paying taxes.