[snakeyjake]

> For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same.

You seem to be implying that this is somewhat unlikely.

History is full of this exact thing happening.

Recent history.

Until the 1970s in the US it was legal, and common, for businesses to refuse to do business with a woman without a male's permission. There were only a precious few municipalities where this was not the norm.

Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment. Even in large cities, this wasn't limited to the stereotypical geographic regions that seem to thrive on oppressing minorities (although the large coastal cities were the first to do away with it), it was very often illegal for a woman to live alone so single women would live in boarding houses with chaperones and curfews.

There seems to be a great cultural amnesia about all of this happening-- despite there being millions of people who are still alive to which it happened.

My mother joined the Women's Army Air Force in the early 1970s because she could not rent, open a bank account, use store credit, or obtain automobile insurance without her father's permission-- which he would have given but she being who she was (and still is) wouldn't ask for in a million years. Servicemember-associated organizations had no such compunction.

There is no functional difference in "opressivenessabilityivity" between cash and cards.

There is no nameless, faceless, "them" waiting to oppress you, oppression is a function of broader civil society.

[_visgean]

> Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment.

I find this hard to believe, how would that work in large and anonymous cities where nobody knows each other? If a woman went grocery shopping they would send the bill to where exactly, just a random address she gives them? What if she gives them fake address?

I doubt that shops would refuse for example a widow if she had money from military or inheritence, also men were often away and the women did not just starve to death.

[causal]

Because it's not true. Maybe mid-1800s, but by mid-1900s women could totally use cash. Not credit cards though, 1974 is when women were allowed to get those. In other words, the exact opposite of what that comment is saying.

[snakeyjake]

Up until the invention of the self-service supermarket you could not walk into a grocery store, pick out a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, flip a dime to a cashier, and walk out with it.

The self-service grocery store did not exist until WWI.

They did not become common until some time around WWII.

They did not go extinct until the 70s.

My grandmothers could not (and did not) use cash to buy groceries because there were no cash-and-carrys near them. They needed an account, until the 60s-70s in rural Tennessee and Missouri where they lived.

Everything was paid by check. Drop off the order, pick up the order, bring home the bill, the husband sends in a check.

There was an exact and precise 0.0% chance in many parts of the United States of America of a single unwed woman getting an account at a grocery store without a male cosigner.

Like I said, cultural amnesia.

[catlikesshrimp]

Smuggling can be redeeming under oppressing conditions, and smuggling agaisnt cash is more common

[causal]

What? You've completely reversed the facts here.

Women couldn't get credit cards until 1974- they could ONLY use cash before that. The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act is what outlawed refusing credit to women, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act

If anything history supports the opposite of your chosen narrative.