--- title: "Women's Rights Progressed Slowly Across America" url: https://newscentral.site/women-s-rights-progressed-slowly-across-america/ language: en publisher: "News Central Site" section: "Lifestyle" published: 2026-11-15T02:00:00.000Z updated: 2026-11-15T06:48:29.928Z id: 7ea3fafd-52e5-46ff-83ef-6ec92eeb433b source: "Mental Floss https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/law/things-women-couldn-t-legally-do-america-1960s?utm_source=RSS" attribution: "Link to https://newscentral.site/women-s-rights-progressed-slowly-across-america/ and name News Central Site when you quote or summarize this story." --- # Women's Rights Progressed Slowly Across America In the 1960s, women faced significant barriers to financial independence and equal opportunities in the workforce. It's remarkable how far American society has come in just six decades. The rights and freedoms that women enjoy today were not always a given. Many everyday activities that are now taken for granted by women were once off-limits or required the approval of men. Obtaining credit was one such activity, with many financial institutions refusing to issue credit cards to women without a male co-signer. Women's participation in civic duties was also severely limited. In some states, women were barred from serving on juries, while others faced discriminatory hiring practices that made it difficult for them to secure employment. Progress toward equality was uneven across the country, with some states and workplaces moving faster than others to grant women their rights. In the 1960s, obtaining a loan from a bank was a daunting task for many American women. Financial institutions often turned them away unless a male relative or husband was present to co-sign the application. This practice was particularly common among unmarried women who struggled to secure credit without a man's support. Even married women required their husbands' signatures to access loans and mortgages. The refusal of credit services had far-reaching consequences for women, limiting their ability to purchase homes, start businesses, or even cover basic living expenses. It was not uncommon for women to be denied loans unless they had a male co-signer, who often took on the responsibility of repaying the debt if the woman defaulted. This effectively tied women's financial freedom to their relationships with men. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 would eventually change this reality, but in the 1960s, pregnant women faced significant barriers in the workforce. Employers could terminate their contracts or demand they resign if they requested time off to care for their newborn child. This was a major obstacle for working mothers who struggled to balance their professional and family responsibilities. The lack of protection for pregnant workers was just one aspect of a broader pattern of sex-based discrimination that pervaded American society in the 1960s. Women's employment, education, and financial opportunities were all severely limited by laws and social norms that reinforced patriarchal power structures. The struggle for women's rights during this period would ultimately lead to significant legislative gains, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. The refusal to grant credit to women was a symptom of deeper societal attitudes towards gender roles and economic participation. By limiting women's access to financial services, banks reinforced the notion that they were dependent on men for economic support and decision-making authority. This restrictive environment would take decades to dismantle, but the progress made in the 1960s laid the groundwork for future feminist activism and legislative reforms. In the 1960s, pregnant women who requested time off to care for their newborns often faced severe consequences at work, including being fired or forced to resign from their jobs. The passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 marked a significant turning point, as it mandated that pregnant women be treated equally to other employees. As a result, pregnancy and childbirth were classified as short-term disabilities, granting women access to similar benefits and leave. However, despite this progress, many institutions continued to discriminate against women. Ivy League colleges, for instance, had a long history of exclusionary policies towards female applicants. The University of Pennsylvania and Cornell were among the earliest exceptions, accepting female students on a case-by-case basis as far back as the 1870s. However, it wasn't until several decades later that other prestigious institutions began to follow suit. Princeton was one such institution, admitting its first female student in 1969, while Brown and Dartmouth took another two years to do so, followed closely by Harvard in 1977 and Columbia in 1981. The passage of Title IX in 1972 marked a significant turning point for women's education, paving the way for institutions like Harvard and Columbia to admit female students alongside men. The merging of these prestigious universities with their all-women counterparts, Radcliffe and Barnard, had previously hindered their progress towards coeducation. However, even as more women were gaining access to higher education, they still faced significant barriers in other areas of life. Women's participation on juries was one such area where progress was slow. The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution had granted white women the right to vote, but this did not automatically extend to their inclusion on juries. State governments bore the responsibility for legalizing women's jury service, with Wyoming and Utah being among the first states to allow it in the late 1800s. Other states followed suit over time, but it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states allowed women to serve on juries. The slow pace of change is perhaps surprising given the significant advancements made during this period. However, the underlying attitudes towards women's roles in society played a crucial role in shaping these developments. Women were often viewed as primary caregivers at home and seen as being too "fragile" and "sympathetic" to remain objective in court proceedings, according to CNN. Women were considered too delicate for jury duty due to their supposed fragility and emotional nature, which was seen as a liability in court proceedings. The lack of maternity leave until the late 1970s meant that women's careers often took a backseat to family responsibilities. This made it difficult for them to enter or remain in the workforce, particularly in male-dominated fields. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to level the playing field by outlawing discrimination based on sex, among other criteria. However, its enforcement was patchy at best, allowing many women to continue facing barriers in their professional lives. Women were largely excluded from careers like law, medicine, engineering, and architecture due to entrenched biases and lack of opportunities. It took further legislation, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, to chip away at these obstacles. More recent laws have continued to build on this foundation, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which was enacted just four years ago and aims to provide greater protections for expectant mothers in the workplace. The availability of birth control pills was initially restricted in the US, despite being approved by the FDA in 1957. Initially, these pills were prescribed for severe menstrual distress rather than as a contraceptive method. It wasn't until 1960 that the pill became widely available as a form of birth control, but its use remained prohibited in some states and was often limited to married women seeking family planning purposes. The landmark Griswold v. Connecticut case in 1965 paved the way for more widespread access to birth control pills. However, even with this progress, many pharmacies chose not to stock these products due to their perceived immorality. According to CNN, some pharmacies considered it inappropriate to sell birth control and therefore did not carry it. Pharmacies that refused to stock birth control were likely influenced by societal attitudes towards the pill at the time. The idea of unmarried couples using contraceptives was often viewed as taboo, reflecting broader cultural norms. It would take several years for these restrictions to be challenged in court, ultimately leading to greater access to birth control. The Eisenstadt v. Baird case in 1972 marked a significant turning point in the fight for reproductive rights in the US. The ruling effectively allowed unmarried couples to use contraceptives legally, expanding access to this essential form of family planning. --- Source: [Mental Floss](https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/law/things-women-couldn-t-legally-do-america-1960s?utm_source=RSS) Published by News Central Site: https://newscentral.site/women-s-rights-progressed-slowly-across-america/