Historical Studies Journal

“In Sisterhood, We Tried”: A Case Study of the Women’s Bank of Denver and the Role of Financial Institutions for Women in the Feminist Movement

By: Samantha J. Martinelli

In January 1997, the Denver press announced the name change of a bank. Buried in the business section, the announcement of the newly minted Colorado Business Bank was met with little fanfare. The story did not dominate the headlines or sell more papers. The news cycle soon moved on. However, the announcement of the Colorado Business Bank marked the end of an era. It was the end of the era of the Women’s Bank of Denver.

The Women’s Bank of Denver was a successful banking enterprise that placed educating and supporting women at the forefront of its business model. The Equal Opportunity Credit Act of 1974 created a new customer segment for banks to court, offering an opportunity for both profit and progress within the male-dominated banking space. Opened officially in 1978, the Women’s Bank sat in the Equitable Building in the middle of bustling downtown Denver, Colorado. The bank enjoyed decades of financial success all while putting women and their needs at the forefront of the bank’s practices.

However, the Women’s Bank tiptoed a fine line between supporting women and their financial interests while distancing the bank from traditional feminist narratives and striving for profit. The tension between business interests and ideological concerns grew throughout the bank’s nineteen years of operation. Though bank managers marketed the Women’s Bank as an institution for women, they also looked to distance themselves from the feminist movement and feminist organizations.

The creators of the Women’s Bank were not attempting to design a radical business meant to shake up traditional banking. The bank existed within the parameters of traditional banking, unwilling to compromise profitability for feminist interests. Women’s banks throughout the country couldn’t break centuries of banking tradition, which led these institutions to fail or be absorbed by large institutions. Despite decades of success, the Women’s Bank of Denver suffered a similar fate.

Feminist historiography discusses at length the limitations women faced when seeking equality as both customers and employees of white collar institutions. Despite women’s advancements towards equality, undercurrents of conservatism persisted. Historian Kristen Swinth argues that women could enter the workforce and have financial independence as long as there were “no tremors beneath the status quo.”^[1] There were clear constraints on how much change would be acceptable to the establishment, especially where profit was concerned. While women entering the workforce and women becoming more financially independent have been covered extensively in historical writing, there is a notable absence of scholarship on women’s banks specifically and their role in feminist history. Historian Katherine Turk argues, “white-collar women have found that the freedom to enter formerly male-dominated spheres leaves unspoken, and often unaddressed, the challenges that remain for workers who do not fit a white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied model.”^[2] While things changed for women in the wake of feminism, unspoken boundaries for women persisted that could not be surpassed. Accepting women as actors in the workplace would be tolerated but only to an extent.

Additionally, historiography on feminism and important actors in the feminist movement focus on the shifting ideologies and goals defining the movement. Leaders and significant figures fighting for equality in the feminist movement were initially considered radical by mainstream standards. As feminists achieved increasingly loftier goals and more equal opportunities, younger women began to discount the contributions of feminist leaders and feminist institutions. Historian Gail Collins discusses the shift away from prioritizing feminism and women’s rights goals to instead focusing on the goals of the individual. Collins argues that younger women took financial freedom and opportunity for granted.^[3] In general, women no longer thought of themselves as part of a large social group, preferring to focus on their individual rights and goals. The “sisterhood” aspect of feminism had given way to individualism, playing an important role in the demise of women’s banks. The rise and fall of the Women’s Bank of Denver fits into the current historiographic narrative in many ways.

The story of the Women’s Bank of Denver represented the shifting ideologies and goals that defined the larger second-wave feminist movement. The Women’s Bank, despite serving and employing women at every level (including as executives), also suffered from gendered social constraints. The Women’s Bank evolved in conjunction with the movement away from feminism as a group effort into focusing on individual customers of the bank. In this paper, I will argue that the Women’s Bank of Denver exemplified institutional usage of feminist ideals until a marked shift occurred that prioritized profit and success in place of them. This shift occurred alongside a changing female society which no longer saw people in terms of large social groups, rather as independent actors for whom the women’s bank model no longer fit.

Women Striving for Credit

In the early twentieth century, the financial resources available to women were dismal. Women were not afforded the same privileges men enjoyed when walking into a bank. Stereotypes of women either being incapable or disinterested in banking kept financial institutions male-dominated for both employees and clientele. Discrimination against women permeated throughout all banking functions, including owning bank accounts, applying for credit cards, and securing loans. Financial institutions often did not extend credit to women because of their gender. A man, such as a woman’s father or husband, would have to be present at the bank to aid in decision making. In these ways and more, financial institutions denied women the chance to control their own finances. Quite simply, women were not given credit.

In 1974, Congress passed a landmark law that fundamentally changed women’s relationships with banking institutions. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1974 made it illegal to discriminately deny credit. The decision was a stepping stone for women’s equality in credit opportunities. Bella Abzug, Democratic Representative from New York and champion of the amendment stated the law was “a victory for the women’s movement” because it would outlaw “the blatantly discriminatory practices that women encounter all over the country when they try to open a charge account, or get a loan for business or personal reasons.”^[4]

However, the law’s passage did not guarantee that discrimination against women would end. Years of biases based on gender would not disappear overnight. In the wake of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act, women still experienced discrimination when applying for loans. The New York Times reported in 1977 that bankers cited “the possibility of a default if a woman had to quit work because of pregnancy” as a reason for denying women credit.^[5] Bankers were going as far as demanding “a baby letter from her gynecologist …the letter would stipulate that the woman was using an effective method of birth control.”^[6] Bankers continued to view women as riskier candidates and deny them on the basis of gender. The law was not enough to combat the rampant sexism present in banking decisions. Women needed guidance and education in order to take advantage of their newfound privileges within banking institutions and combat discrimination. This birthed the idea of a women’s bank.

The First Women’s Bank of Manhattan, established in 1975, became the first financial institution to cater to women in the wake of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act. The bank’s opening sparked immediate controversy, with female employees of mainstream banks questioning the bank’s mission and the validity of placing ideology above business interests. Due to unclear direction and poor management, the bank suffered from financial troubles that endangered the bank within its first year of opening. Time Magazine published an article in 1976 discussing the problems plaguing the First Women’s Bank. The bank was $400,000 in debt and president of the bank, Madeline McWhinney, resigned from her position because “she had grown weary of dealing with a board whose main devotion seemed not to banking but to a cause.”^[7] The bank could not find its footing, struggling with the balance of generating profits as a business venture and the ideological concerns that inspired its founding.. This unfortunate circumstance served as a cautionary tale to the women’s banks organizing at this time. Ideology over business could mean failure.

Financial institutions for women needed to find a middle ground between ideology and business practices to achieve financial success. Decisions on credit and loan approval would have to be financially sound instead of ideologically driven. In an article titled “Women’s Banks Try to Shed Soft-Touch Image,” the author highlighted difficulties early women’s banks encountered in balancing the idea of putting women first while running a financially sound business. The article concluded: “Losses on bad loans, amateurish management and resentment by men plagued the liberal women’s banks, until business-savvy finally overtook ideology. Feminism, the cornerstone of women’s banking, was soft-pedaled. Now, professionalism is touted.”^[8] To succeed, women’s banks needed to sideline the more extreme aspects of feminist ideology, including serving women who were perceived as unideal candidates for loans or credit and facing discrimination from mainstream institutions.

The president of the Women’s Bank in Richmond, Sally S. Buck, agreed with the hard stance on permissive loan practices fueled by ideology. Buck stated, “Women expect that they can just walk in and get a loan with nothing to back it up… We have learned the hard way that we have to have a sound lending process.”^[9] Banks for women would not be able to operate successfully outside of the confines of traditional banking practices. Instead of changing a historically patriarchal banking system, women’s banks would carve out their own space within the traditional framework and strive for equality on established ground.^[10]

The growing pains experienced by formerly feminist women’s financial institutions aligned with the experiences of other feminist organizations during the time period. The second wave feminist movement often struggled with maintaining support from middle-class women who did not identify with radical feminism. Deviation from traditionally mainstream principles, as seen in early iterations of women’s banks, could be too different and extreme for the average consumer, limiting the bank’s growth opportunities and accumulation of resources needed to maintain operations. As argued by historian Gail Collins, moderate feminists were firm that “both sexes could work together to create something new and fairer, and tried to express their ideas in terms that moderate housewives could relate to.”^[11] This limitation rang true in women’s financial institutions; future banks and credit unions would need to put management and sound financial decisions within the traditional banking framework first in order to succeed.

Denver Banks on Women

After the First Women’s Bank of Manhattan opened, business-minded people and activists across the United States developed plans for women’s financial institutions. One of these plans was the Women’s Bank in Denver. Using the First Women’s Bank of Manhattan as a model, organization for a financial institution for women in Denver began in earnest. The venture began in 1975. A group of community-minded women with business experience formed a Women’s Association to realize the goal of a nationally chartered bank for women. The members of the Women’s Association explained their mission in a 1976 pamphlet, stating, “It is a well known fact that women are essentially at the ‘roots of finance’… Although our first consideration will revolve around the active roles of women in Denver, we are creating a bank that will serve all.”^[12] The meaning was clear. The bank would not suffer from the same ideological concerns as the First Women’s bank of Manhattan. Business came first.

The Denver Post clarified the separation between the First Women’s Bank and the proposed Women’s Bank in Denver. The Post referenced the ten people listed as incorporators of the bank: Judith Foster, Carol Green, Edna Mosley, Michel Feinstein, Loretta Norgren, Wendy W. Davis, Leslie Friedman Davis, Betty Sue Freedman, Beverly A. Grall, and Barbara Welch Sudler. When discussing the First Women’s Bank of Manhattan, Carol Green stated, “One of the problems in New York was that they broke things too early,” and when the bank struggled, “people sat around and said, ‘Those dumb women.’”^[13] The mistakes made by the First Women’s Bank of Manhattan would not be repeated in Colorado. In 1977, the charter received preliminary approval by the Comptroller of the Currency and concrete preparation for the Women’s Bank was underway.

From the beginning, the public showed mixed reactions when it came to a financial institution for women existing in Denver. After the charter for the bank was approved, press coverage included both positive and negative views. Mainstream banking employees questioned the validity of a women’s bank and the inherent mission of targeting and supporting women. United Bank of Denver employee, Marilyn Barnwell, argued, “Credit… is always discriminatory in that everyone must meet the requirements,” and “minority banks can’t serve bad risk groups any better than other banks can.”^[14] Barnwell’s statement questioned the validity of an ideologically-powered bank, citing again that ideology cannot replace standard banking practices, as seen in New York. The spokesperson for the Women’s Bank, Judith Foster, refuted these concerns saying that minority banks “are not automatically assumed to be playing favorites for these groups.”^[15] From the bank’s inception and entrance into the public consciousness, a clear tension emerged between the bank’s ideological concerns and profitability aided by traditional business practices. The bank’s marketing needed to walk a fine line. On one side, the bank hoped to educate and support women. On the other hand, the bank sought profits and the necessity of catering to a wide customer base, including men, confined them. The bank could never be only for women.

During these early days, before the bank even opened, the bank adopted a more inclusive ideology in regards to marketing. Spokespeople for the Women’s Bank hoped to make it clear that the bank served not only women. The bank appointed Larae Orullian as president in October of 1977; she previously worked as the executive Vice President of Guaranty Bank & Trust.^[16] From the beginning of her tenure, Orullian made her stance on the bank’s mission apparent. In a speech given months before the Women’s Bank officially opened, Orullian made the bank’s mission clear, the Women’s Bank “in spite of its name, will be a bank for all people.”^[17] Although the bank would be serving and educating women on banking, it would still prioritize profitability. The bank would focus on commercial business first.

Another financial institution built on feminist ideology in Denver already existed as the Women’s Bank of Denver was being developed: the Colorado Feminist Federal Credit Union (CFFCU), which opened in 1976. CFFCU’s practices and structuring showed their unapologetic feminism. Unquestionably, women came first. CFFCU Employee Julie Robinson stated, “Here, no credit is good credit” and “the type of women we serve can’t get served anywhere else.”^[18] The CFFCU sought to combat discrimination in credit lending by giving women opportunities outside traditional lending practices. It operated as a not-for-profit credit union, allowing ideology to be at the forefront of business decisions. On the other hand, banks answered to board members expecting dividends.

While the CFFCU and the Women’s Bank of Denver seemed to have similar ideals, their financial missions could not have been further apart. Leaders of the women’s banks opening up across the country often openly denounced feminism. Rita McCoy, president of the Women’s Bank in San Diego firmly stated, “I don’t feel that we have included the feminist movement in our organization at all.”^[19] Similarly, one founder of the Western Women’s Bank in San Francisco, Dorothy Kulvin, stated, “If you ask whether we’re feminists, we’re not.”^[20] Feminism had become a dirty word in women’s banking. Ideology no longer superseded business needs in nationally chartered banks for women. The Women’s Bank of Denver would be business first from the beginning.

“Women’s Bank Exceeds Hope”

By 1978, organizers worked on final preparations for the Women’s Bank of Denver and set for a July opening. The board of directors held a stock sale in April 1978 to increase funds for the bank. The sale was a major success. Sales included 100,000 shares of stock at $20 each, garnering the bank $2,000,000 in initial capital.^[21] The huge success of the initial stock offering boded well for the success of the Women’s Bank. The Denver community seemed to view this new venture as a solid investment into the future of banking in Denver.

President Orullian and other organizers felt confident in the bank’s success despite the spotty track record of previously established financial institutions for women. The bank filled a niche need for women while also catering to male clientele. The bank’s organizers conducted feasibility studies early on that showed Denver needed more banking institutions; the city had “fewer banking outlets per person than any other U.S. city, except Chicago.”^[22] Conditions were just right for a new bank to enter the financial fray in downtown Denver.

On July 14, 1978, the Women’s Bank officially opened for business. Women and men alike lined up outside the Equitable Building in downtown Denver to open accounts with the Women’s Bank of Denver. New customers filtered in and out throughout the day, served by a highly trained and personable staff. At the end of the day, the Women’s Bank had taken in over $1 million in deposits: 60% from women and the remaining 40% from men.^[23] The first day of operations not only revealed community interest and financial feasibility, but, even more importantly, that a women’s bank could appeal to both genders. The Women’s Bank was a success.

The success of the first day confirmed that a women-focused venture could be accepted in commercial banking. Judith Foster, vice chairman of the Women’s Bank, said of the opening day success, “This is an exciting way for capitalists to show that the free enterprise system works to get women into the mainstream.”^[24] The Women’s Bank showed that the spending power of women, who banks previously ignored, could be an asset to a business. Banking on women worked, and the banking scene in Denver appeared ready and accepting of this new enterprise. 

The Women’s Bank continued to grow rapidly during its first year of operation, surpassing nearly every financial projection. In its first three months, the bank boasted an operating profit each month, which, according to President Orullian, was a feat that typically took three to five years to achieve.^[25] The bank hired more staff members to meet demand and deposits steadily increased by eighteen to twenty-five accounts per day. The Women’s Bank did not suffer the same afflictions of its predecessors. Smart planning decisions and a highly capable staff had secured the bank strong opening months with no signs of growth slowing down.

In addition to their quick profitability, the Women’s Bank followed through on creating programs for women’s needs, establishing classes and community outreach programs to educate and support women’s financial interests. The bank held brown bag lunch seminars weekly in Downtown Denver to provide education for women on different financial topics, including loans, insurance, credit, and other financial plans. Community outreach and education set the Women’s Bank apart from other banks in the area.

At the end of its first year, the Women’s Bank had officially cemented its place in the financial scene of Denver as a successful and flourishing financial institution. The bank continued to surpass all expectations, finishing the year in a financial state most banks took years to achieve. Deposits reached double the initial projections, garnering $13.08 million and the bank recaptured all of the initial startup costs, becoming completely financially solvent.^[26] After one year in operation, the Women’s Bank succeeded. The future looked bright.

Women’s Banks Obsolete?

The Women’s Bank of Denver grew past its first year and found continued success, but then in the 1980s, national attitudes towards financial institutions began shifting. Although financial institutions for women were opening in major cities across the country, questions about their necessity and long-term solvency persisted in national conversations. Success also remained unpredictable, as the Women’s Bank of Denver exceeded expectations while others floundered to achieve financial solvency. Did the United States truly need banks for women and would the purpose they served last?

While the Women’s Bank of Denver flourished, the Colorado Feminist Federal Credit Union failed. Although initially successful with loan delinquency well below the 2 to 3 percent national average , the CFFCU could not sustain reserves of capital high enough to meet demand. Money left the credit union much faster than it was coming in and attempts to secure funding from liberal organizations failed. The lack of capital made the ideologically motivated loan practices of the CFFCU unsustainable. The institution officially closed in 1979. Upon its demise, a note was sent from management to CFFCU members reading, “In sisterhood, we tried.”^[27]

There were many reasons attributable to the closure of the Colorado Feminist Federal Credit Union. The CFFCU focused on lower-income women who would not be served by mainstream financial institutions. This led to the eventual lack of capital that crippled the credit union. Additionally, the presence of the Women’s Bank provided competition that the CFFCU could not match. The Women’s Bank catered to the middle class, and this absence of this class’s support for the CFFCU made their growth stall. Gail Paulson, an organizer and treasurer at the CFFCU stated, “I think the Women’s Bank completely undercut us, but not intentionally… A lot of middle class women felt a lot more comfortable with them than us.”^[28] The reputation of the Women’s Bank as a business first, professional venture had garnered more support from women in the community than the feminist ideology driven CFFCU. Radical feminism did not court the middle or upper class women needed to raise funds. In just three short years, the ideals behind the Colorado Feminist Federal Credit Union had become obsolete.

While the Women’s Bank of Denver continued to thrive, feminist credit unions and other banks for women experienced financial decline and scrutiny. The efficacy of women’s banks had entered the national conversation and the reviews weren’t glowing. In 1980, The New York Times published “Women’s Banks: An Idea Whose Allure Has Faded” by columnist Ann Crittenden, columnist and economist for the newspaper. Crittenden cited both ideological and business practices as reasons why women’s banks seemed to be fading out of the public consciousness. She argued that women did not want to bank with a “minority” bank, instead wanting to be completely on par with men in mainstream financial institutions. Crittenden quotes an unnamed senior vice president of a Wall Street brokerage house as stating, “Who wants to do business with a woman’s bank? I want to walk into Morgan and get what I want. We’ve worked so hard to be all together, why stay segregated?”^[29] Some women wanted to keep pushing for parity within already established mainstream institutions instead of being “segregated” to a women’s bank.

Additionally, the title of “women’s bank” potentially created too narrow of a customer base by alienating male clientele. However, this claim could be disputed by the fact that seven of the eight nationally chartered women’s banks in the United States were profitable in 1982 according to a review of their financials, including deposits, assets, and net income.^[30] This did not reflect the notion of a dying market due to lack of customers. The financials showed the exact opposite.

Lastly, because of the emerging “post-feminist” era of the 1980’s, society at large wanted to believe that inequality among the sexes was a thing of the past. If discrimination was no longer an issue, there was no need for a women’s bank. The supposed obsolescence of women’s banks was corroborated by Eve R. Grover, president of First Women’s Bank of Maryland who stated, “Women’s banks per se are no longer needed.” However, this was followed by the contradictory statement, “But there still is some subtle discrimination toward women despite the law.”^[31] Despite open acceptance that discrimination still existed towards women in banking, the overarching narrative reflected the idea that women’s banks were no longer necessary. Women’s banks had served their purpose.

The Women’s Bank Era Ends

After the initial wave of women’s banks in the 1970’s, the idea slowly fell out of the public narrative. Despite this fact, the Women’s Bank of Denver continued to succeed financially, attract new customers, and offer educational tools for women to grow their financial knowledge through the 1980s and into the 1990s. However, the Women’s Bank of Denver did not survive through the 1990s.

During the 1980s, rampant deregulation in banking led to many changes in banking practices. Holding companies could now purchase out of state banks, a practice known as interstate banking. Smaller, successful banks were bought out in droves by large national chains. The Women’s Bank of Denver and its holding company Equitable Bankshares of Colorado fell to the growing trend and the board voted to sell to investors in 1994. The decision was not unanimous, with bank President Larae Orullian voting against the $17.5 million sale. Although initially Orullian made decisions as a conservative actor, she was now the voice of the liberal minority on the board of the Women’s Bank. Maybe ideology did have a place in business. In a 2020 interview, Orullian said that despite her desire to reject the sale, “a majority of the owners felt the time had come.”^[32] The sale signaled a change in guard for bank management. Orullian left and Virginia Berkeley took the position of President and CEO of the Women’s Bank in 1995.

While the institution maintained the Women’s Bank moniker for a few years after the sale, the holding company owning the bank ultimately decided to change the name to the Colorado Business Bank in 1997. The Women’s Bank era in Denver had officially ended. The decision came with press announcements touting the rebrand from an institution for women to reflect the new mission of serving the small business needs of Denver.

In the wake of CBB’s name change announcement in January 1997, many newspapers published articles on the topic.. The Rocky Mountain News published an audaciously titled article: “Women More ‘Confident, Aggressive’ Banking in ‘90’s.” The article discussed the problematic narrowness of the Women’s Bank name for the bank’s new mission, describing it as unnecessary in the light of progress in the banking industry. President Virginia Berkeley argued, “Women and women-owned business are now treated fairly and equally at banks in town… So in that sense we did accomplish our very first mission.”^[33] This comment reflects the shift of women’s views and how women were viewed in the world of business and finance. The current president believed the Women’s Bank served its purpose; businesses now saw women seriously as individual, economic actors. The bank had evidently won the battle against discrimination in this specific context, wanting to now exist in a postfeminist world in banking.

Berkeley continued her campaign in the press in order to rationalize the name change of the Women’s Bank to the Colorado Business Bank for both the community and the bank’s clientele. Another argument used included the desire for the bank to enter the mainstream. The name “Women’s Bank” could potentially alienate customers and keep the bank within the minority niche. In an interview, Berkeley stated, “It was the right time to dramatically underscore our expansion into the mainstream… There is not much more dramatic than changing your name.”^[34] The newly formed Colorado Business Bank sought to change its name and its reputation in the community as a bank for businesses, not just for women. Commercial interests had completely superseded any remaining woman-focused ideological missions.

Customers offered various responses to the bank’s name change, ranging from indifference to disappointment. The two separate letters sent from bank president and CEO, Virginia K. Berkeley to bank customers in the wake of the name change announcement captured this dichotomy. The first letter–sent to customers unbothered by the name change–offered an explanation concerning the name change, including increased inclusivity and a better reflection of the bank’s purpose while assuring the customer that banking operations would remain unchanged. The letter stated, the bank would no longer cater to the needs of women specifically, and was now “a bank for all people.”^[35] In contrast, the letter to customers who chose to leave the bank upon the name change took a more combative tone, stating the customer “terminated this partnership” and the bank had “never been a bank solely for women.”^[36] While the bank lost a few loyal customers due to the name change, the customer base remained largely unchanged. Business continued as usual at the new Colorado Business Bank and the Women’s Bank began to slowly fade into history.

After the rebranding of the Women’s Bank into the Colorado Business Bank, very little initially changed. In 1998, one year after the Women’s Bank became the Colorado Business Bank, President Berkeley gave an interview in The Denver Business Journal discussing the state of the bank. The interviewer raised the question of whether the name change had impacted the gender ratio of the customers at the bank. Berkeley responded that the “customer base is about the same as it was” with slightly more women than men. Notably, The Journal also asked about women’s glass ceiling in banks, and Berkeley answered, “Of course… In 1976, there were two female bank presidents in Denver. Today, there are two.”^[37] The number of female bank presidents did not increase in twenty years in Denver. It seemed that the banking industry in Denver had not really evolved as much as previously stated. Had banking honestly outgrown the need for women-first institutions?

Women in Banking Today

The state of gender equality in banking today shows a bleak picture. The earlier optimism touting a postfeminist, discrimination-free world in banking led to the potentially premature death of the women’s bank. Though proponents of ending women’s banks argued banks had overcome discrimination, effectively eliminating the need for these institutions, when looking at the facts, it is clear that the exact same issues that created the need for women’s banks persist today.

Women still face discrimination and unconscious bias as both customers and employees of financial institutions. Women entrepreneurs often are not taken seriously when requesting loans and capital. In a 2022 study by the U.S. VC Female Founders Dashboard, only two percent of venture capital was given to businesses with women founders.^[38] This major discrepancy shows not enough has been done to address biases in lending practices and displays the limitations of The Equal Opportunity Credit Act of 1974.

Women employees of banking institutions also continue to experience discrimination at work. Women often have lower pay and less chance of upward mobility within banks, despite job performance. In the United States, 50 percent of bank employees are female but only 7.5 percent of banks have a woman CEO at the helm.^[39] Although women make up a large portion of bank employees, not many break through the systemic barriers in place keeping women from positions of power.

The largest banks in the world are continually accused of discrimination against women today. In 2023, Goldman Sachs settled a lawsuit initially filed in 2010 on behalf of 2,800 women employees claiming “the bank discriminated against women when it came to pay, performance evaluations and promotions.”^[40] Goldman Sachs settled for $215 million dollars with the promise to “investigate” any gender discrimination that may exist in the company. In response to the settlement, senior woman executive for Goldman Sachs Jamie Fiore Higgins spoke on the biases towards women within banking, “Every generation has been better on a relative basis. On an absolute basis, it’s still terrible.”^[41] The same grievances that drove the founding of women’s banks across the country in the 1970s still exist in droves today. Could women still benefit from the same support, education, and acceptance offered by a financial institution with women’s needs at the forefront?

The original model of the women’s bank has been revived in recent years. Today, there are sixteen women-owned banks in the United States, now classified as minority banks by the Comptroller of the Currency. There are still women across the country fighting to provide equitable banking services for women. Although “women” are often left out of the title of these banking institutions now, the ideology remains the same. In some ways, the legacy of the Women’s Bank of Denver continues on.

The Women’s Bank of Denver succeeded beyond all expectations for nearly two decades, existing to educate women on finances and encourage the employment of women in executive roles of financial institutions. However, the Women’s Bank was not immune to the difficulties that other institutions of this design faced. The constrictions placed on ideologically driven enterprises, such as the Women’s Bank, led to the eventual distancing from the original woman-focused mission until the bank disappeared in 1997. Although a casualty to the ever changing landscape of the feminist movement and the changing views of women in society, the Women’s Bank of Denver offers insights into the value and need for financial institutions for women that remain today.

Notes

1. Kirsten Swinth, Feminism’s Forgotten Fight: The Unfinished Struggle for Work and Family (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018). ↑

2. Katherine Turk, Equality on Trial: Gender and Rights in the Modern American Workplace (Philadelphia , PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019). ↑

3. Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present (London: Little, Brown and Company, 2014). ↑

4. Enid Nemy, “Congress Passes Bill Banning Bias Against Women on Credit,” The New York Times, October 11, 1974. ↑

5. Richard Phalon, “Family Money: Women’s Rights in Credit,” The New York Times, December 8, 1977. ↑

6. Ibid ↑

7. “Financial Trouble for Feminists,” Time Magazine, November 8, 1976. ↑

8. Barbara Brotman, “Women’s Banks Try to Shed Soft-Touch Image,” The Blade, December 10, 1978, 12. ↑

9. Ibid ↑

10. Emilie Raymond,“‘You’ll Love Women’s Bank’: Transforming Richmond’s Business Community and Culture, 1976–84.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 128, no. 2 (2020): 154–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915634. ↑

11. Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present ↑

12. Katie Rudolph, “‘A Bank For All People’: Remembering the Women’s Bank,” “A Bank For All People”: Remembering The Women’s Bank | Denver Public Library History, March 22, 2022, https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/denver/bank-all-people-remembering-womens-bank. ↑

13. Carol Bell and Rykken Johnson, “Denver Group Asked Women’s Bank OK,” The Denver Post, March 19, 1976. ↑

14. Bill Robinson, “Reactions to Women’s Bank Mixed,” Rocky Mountain Journal, July 13, 1977, 2. ↑

15. Ibid ↑

16. “Denver Women’s Bank President Selected,” Daily Camera, October, 6, 1977. ↑

17. Joan White, “A Hopeful New Community Symbol,” The Denver Post, October 13, 1977, 20. ↑

18. Jane Hoback, “New Bank Another Step to Give Women Credit,” Sentinel, April 12, 1978, 12. ↑

19. David Dietz, “Women’s Banking Goes West,” The New York Times, April 11, 1976, 5. ↑

20. Ibid ↑

21. Don Lyle, “State Women’s Bank Sets Opening for July,” Rocky Mountain News, April 1978. ↑

22. Gwen Gibson, “Woman President Sure of Bank Success,” Women’s Bank Archive: Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy Department. ↑

23. Don Lyle, “Deposits Reach $1 Million in Women’s Bank,” Rocky Mountain News, July 15, 1978, 6. ↑

24. Ibid ↑

25. “Women’s Bank Post Three Months of Operating Profits,” Rocky Mountain News, November 14, 1978, 69. ↑

26. “Women’s Bank Exceeds Hope,” American Banker, July 31, 1979. ↑

27. Chocolate Waters, “Feminist Credit Union Closes”, Westword, February 1979. ↑

28. Bruce Wilkinson, “Disinterest Killed Credit Union”, The Denver Post, February 11, 1979. ↑

29. Ann Crittenden, “Women’s Banks: An Idea Whose Allure Has Faded”, The New York Times, August 4, 1980, 6. ↑

30. William Gruber, “Banks Widen Appeal as Need for Women-only Units Fall”, Chicago Tribune, April 12, 1982, 8. ↑

31. Ibid ↑

32. Gail Beaton and Thomas Noel, The Women’s Bank: A Denver Success Story, January 2021, Twenty Twenty Design. ↑

33. “Women More ‘Confident, Aggressive’ Banking in ‘90’s”, Rocky Mountain News, January 10, 1997, 3B. ↑

34. “Women’s Bank is ‘Colorado Business Bank’”, Intermountain Jewish News, January 17, 1997, 16. ↑

35. Virginia K. Berkeley to Women’s Bank Current Customers , January 1997, The Women’s Bank Collection, Denver Public Library Special Collections. ↑

36. Virginia K. Berkeley to Women’s Bank Former Customers, January 1997, The Women’s Bank Collection, Denver Public Library Special Collections. ↑

37. “Small Business Strategies: High Profile”, The Denver Business Journal, March 1998 ↑

38. Dasha Shunina, “Female Founders Received Only 2% of Total Capital in 2022,” Forbes, December 14, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dariashunina/2023/12/11/female-founders-received-only-2-of-total-capital-in-2023-according-to-pitchbook-report/?sh=7832a4785469. ↑

39. Cathy Nestrick, “Women CEOS Leading the Way,” ABA Banking Journal, March 1, 2024, https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2024/03/women-ceos-leading-the-way/. ↑

40. Michelle Chapman, “Goldman Sachs Settles Gender Discrimination Suit for $215 Million,” AP News, May 9, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/goldman-sachs-settlement-gender-equity-b9373d369cb70165565ec83abe03b8c3. ↑

41. Joshua Franklin, “What Women Employees Say About Goldman Sachs’ Culture,” The Financial Times, May 19, 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/54bc83e3-aeaf-46a2-b004-e2deb0785022. ↑