As recently as 50 years ago, Women had less control over their finances

As recently as the 1970s, a bank could refuse to give a woman a credit card without her husband’s signature. It didn’t matter that he earned more than her. By law, a woman’s money was usually her husband’s money.

The battle for financial independence was not resolved in the 1920s by the right to vote. The real economic battles were fought much later, even during the lifetime of the women reading this now.

The era of “head and king”

For decades, state laws gave husbands sole control over family property. These were known as “head and king” laws. In some states, a husband could mortgage the family home or sell joint property without his wife’s consent.

This was not a relic of the 19th century. In 1974, a husband in Louisiana took out a home loan without telling his wife, then defaulted. When the bank tried to foreclose, he objected. The lawsuit reached the US Supreme Court. In the 1981 decision of Kirchberg v. Feenstra, the court eventually ruled that those laws were unconstitutional. Until that decision, a woman’s financial security in many areas depended entirely on the goodwill of her husband.

Credit card transaction

Before 1974, credit discrimination was standard banking practice. Single women had trouble getting loans because lenders assumed they would get married, have children, and quit their jobs. Married women were often told that their income was not included in the loan because it was temporary.

This changed with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. It makes it illegal for creditors to discriminate based on gender or marital status. If you got your first credit card in your name in the late 70s, you were part of the first generation of women to legally control their financial future without a male guardian.

Penalty for pregnancy

Finding a job was one thing; keeping it was another. Until the late 1970s, employers could legally fire a woman for pregnancy. It was a common practice known as the “marriage bar” or pregnancy discrimination, which forced women to leave the workforce while starting a family.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended the Human Rights Act to prevent sex discrimination based on pregnancy. This was a significant financial victory. It meant that women could no longer be stripped of their high status, retirement benefits, and earning power simply because they became mothers.

Retirement equality is finally here

Even the pension laws were restricted to women. For years, widows often found themselves in need because their husbands had signed “survivor benefits” without their knowledge in order to receive a slightly higher monthly payment while they were still alive.

The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 stopped this. It required the consent of the spouse for any waiver of survivor benefits. It also lowered the pension participation age and improved access to women taking leave from work to raise children.

From consent to power

This history is not just gossip. It sets the stage for the great transformation that is happening right now. The very generation of women who once had to have a husband’s signature to spend money is now poised to earn a large share of it.

We are currently witnessing the largest transfer of wealth in history. An estimated 84 trillion dollars is expected to change hands by 2045. As baby boomers pass on their wealth, women are expected to control nearly $30 billion in financial assets by the end of the decade.

For the first time, the gatekeepers of America’s wealth are those women who were once locked out of the bank. You have tools that your mother did not have. The rules have changed, and now, so has the balance of power.

If you and your spouse have $100,000 in savings, you both need to benefit from financial security. It may be time to get some advice from a professional. SmartAsset offers a free service that matches you with a vetted, fiduciary advisor in less than 5 minutes.