So I just tried to change my banking details...

[GotMyGoat]

With Natwest as we've moved house, but they said I'm not allowed to change the address myself as it's a joint account and that DH would need to get in touch with them to do it.

"ok, so we'll come in/call together"

"No, just your DH needs to as he is the primary account holder"

I'm really confused, I thought a joint account was, you know, joint. equal and all that but now I'm very worried that actually what I've done is signed up to an account where DH has authority over our finances - luckily he's a good man who I can trust but I am the one who normally does all the finance and paperwork stuff in the house so am really frustrated that I have to go and ask his permission before sorting anything out with banking now.

Grr! Are all banks like this? Should women refuse to be in joint accounts from now on or what? Just a bit of a moan thread, sorry.

Alexa your lack of knowledge of banks is relevant because you don't know why the accounts need to have a primary account holder, you don't know how this developed, you don't know if the banks default to the man as the primary account holder, you don't know if they switch primary holders and you don't know the proportion of women affected. But you do know it's not a feminist issue. Apparently.

I know that I am the primary account holder in my household.

I know that same sex partners have one person chosen as the primary account holder.

Therefore, I know that banks don't always default to men, and I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest women are being treated differently to men, ergo, I conclude that without further evidence, I can't say this is a feminist issue.

My DH would certainly not think it's a case of misandry because I am the primary account holder.

Right so unless something affects you it's not a feminist issue. Thank goodness you're here so we can check. Please tell me you are not subject to DV. I would live to know this is not a feminist issue.

Do you have some stats Flora to indicate that women are affected by this more than men? Otherwise it's just your personal view.

The facts would indicate that whoever puts their name down first is the primary. How that decision is reached is irrelevant (toss a coin, oppress your wife etc.)

Not sure what the relevance of bringing DV into a discussion about banking practices is unless you're playing acronym bingo?

HTH

I don't see how it's a feminist issue, when no one can say that women are being treated differently to men. They aren't

have you ever known a bank account primary account holder to be changed to a female as primary account holder when the male is primary account holder without this being requested? If so then you would be correct but without that knowledge you would have to be unsure

I have twice gone to a bank (Natwest & Lloyds) & been told that the man had to be the primary account holder.

We bank with the Coop & I am the first named person.

I've had this issue with utility companies deciding to put DP first.

At the time we didn't even live together - I'd just added him as a second name when I was ill, in case I needed him to do admin.

He never did, and had never had any dealings with them. The contract was signed by me, I was the only person who ever spoke to them. I paid them out of my sole account, clearly in my name.

But they started sending letters addressed solely to him, and claiming he was the main account holder.

When I complained, I was told that I was paranoid and he must have requested to be first.

When I told them to take him off the account or at least make me the main account holder, they actually CLOSED that account and opened a new one, for which I had to agree a new contract, while still sending letters about my original account to him.

So I'm not finding it hard to believe banks have done similar.

I do wonder if the set up of some of the computer systems is the cause. Design a system where the man is the first field by default, then port data from your paper files or old system, and lo, suddenly the bloke appears as the main account holder. Obviously you don't have to be this stupid when building or populating a system, but I bet some have been.

My DW is the Primary account holder with the Utilities & has been for 12 years. I've never been "promoted" by them.

I wonder if it is the fact that "Mr" comes before "Mrs" in the alphabet (as mentioned above) & some of the older systems work alphabetically. In the case above, my DW comes before me in the alphabet (first name wise) - could that be why she hasn't been changed?

On a feminist forum you're only likely to get examples of males being promoted over females, it may well happen just as much the other way too - without any hard & fast stats it's all speculation....

I do wonder if the set up of some of the computer systems is the cause

This could be very likely - if the first field on the paper was the "male" field, they'll very likely just have ported that over & it will have defaulted to Primary.

Could guess all day why they do it - they could just be shite of course!!

I used to work in a bank and we were antiquated in our systems, horribly out of date, and yet funnily enough this was not a problem for our computer system when I worked there. It was simply a case that when you signed up for a joint account you ticked a box to say that either both parties had to sign for things (e.g. DD mandates, changes of address, whatever) or just one account holder could sign on behalf of both. Job done, never any issues with it.

The computer system has since been updated (I haven't worked there for a few years) and from talking to other account holders, it seems that they have gone backwards and this is now an issue for people, whereas it wasn't before. Which is weird.

and the alphabetical thing could be a possibility actually. I am the 'first' account holder on our joint account, although I'm pretty sure I never signed any paperwork claiming to be the primary account holder. But my name does come before my DHs alphabetically, so maybe the computer system did it of its own accord?

I've been with my bank for nearly 50 years now. When we married 47 years ago my husband joined my bank as a joint account holder.

My name was first. It remained first and has never defaulted to my husband.

The name on our cheques is, in order, Mrs initials (mine) Grimble and Mr initials (his) Grimble.

Likewise the statements come addressed to Mrs initials (mine) Grimble and Mrs initials (his) Grimble.

So no sexism or defaulting over 47 years.

And I'm the first to call on sexism as DH is quick to tell me

so we should perhaps insist on referring to ourselves as madam and master then this would stop the alphabetical problem of Mr or Mrs coming first?

DixonBainbridge if women talk about this without being shouted down with spurious "explanations" as to why this issue is not a feminist issue, we might be able to determine whether women are affected disproportionately. From my own experiences, speaking to people IRL and reading postings here, it seems to me that this is an issue that affects women disproportionately. We won't find out for sure if anyone trying to talk about it gets every ridiculous excuse under the sun shoved at them - the claim that it is alphabetical is truly the most ridiculous suggestion so far. My life experience and Occam's Razor tells me that if the choice is between that excuse and sexist assumptions about husband's being primarily responsible for money, I'm going with the latter.

As for the explanation itself, either the banks are doing it on purpose - definitely a feminist issue. Or they are not doing it on purpose but it would still be a feminist issue if women are affected disproportionately. The comparison with DV is quite simple - DV affects a relatively small number of women but is definitely a feminist issue. It's not necessary for every single woman to be affected by something for it to be a feminist issue. I'm surprised so many people are struggling with this concept in their eagerness to assure everyone that there's nothing to see here, move along etc.

Thanks for all your thoughts everyone, really interesting to think about

I was under the impression, that like credit cards, there had to be a primary account holder if there was going to be a credit facility on the account (like an overdraft), because only one person could sign for the credit (although thinking about it, we have joint mortgages, so perhaps that isn't the case.. perhaps it's just credit cards that work that way)

I find the idea that it's Mr coming before Mrs very unlikely - I work in IT, and I've never seen someone sorting the title field in this kind of application - lastname, firstname sure, but title? Never.

I think it's a feminist issue if men are predominantly the primary account holders - whether that's because men fill in the forms more often, because women filling in the forms put them first, or because the bank employees/systems automatically put them first is what needs to be established though.

Oh, and I put nothing past people - all sorts of shenanigans have been done with all sorts of my accounts, switching the order of a couple of names around would be small fry in comparison.

I don't see how though you could sorts someones names alphabetically by Mr and Mrs - mine name is Clark and dads name is davis - so in surely his name wouldn't come first because he is Mr Davis and I am Ms Clark?

I added DH to my bank account when he became a SAHD 16 years ago - made sense, as I was the one getting paid, but we both needed to be able to spend. I think I had to fill in the form to make the change.

The bank put his name first on the account, and when I queried it they said that it was because he was the man, and the man's name always went first. As it happens, I do all the online banking/day to day financial stuff, so it's made no practical difference but I am still a bit about it all these years later .

I had a similar argument with Churchill insurance. Joint insurance policy but they couldn't take the payments from my account only from dh's.
they told me they can only take from primary account holder, and it would cost me £30 to change the names round.
I cancelled the insurance and went elsewhere.

We're Dr and Mr, and my surname comes before his; but the buggers still put his name first, so i don't think it's alphabetical.

Well exactly, ChunkyPickle.

If bank clerks filling in a form turn to the man first and then the woman, it will have a dramatic effect on the number of female primary account holders. Even without conscious intent by the bank clerk, who may not even realise the affect this has on the account.

Addressing people as "Mr and Mrs" makes this order a default.

Flora well, if I'm allowed to discuss it (no shouting down here!) I'd like to ask what you think the benefit to the banks would be?

I assume there would be some administration involved in deliberately looking at joint accounts, randomly deciding to make the male partner the Primary holder & then staff having to deal with spurious & time consuming requests to shift it back.

Maybe they do it to keep idle staff occupied? I'm not convinced that it's some malevolent plot by the banks to ensure that males have dominance - because for starters there are millions of female single account holders that would never be affected by this.

I'm more inclined to believe it's a crappy admin error that either computers or people (old systems or old people!!) put into the system.

Apologies if you see this as me wasting womens time but I was under the impression that this was the Feminist board, not the Female board.

Until you've got some hard & fast stats (which speaking to people isn't I'm afraid) then it's all a bit vague & unconfirmed....

Dixon there doesn't need to be a benefit to the banks. Patriarchy doesn't work that way. It's not that long since women were not allowed by banks to get credit without their husband's position. When the banks agreed (under much pressure) to change that rule, they didn't necessarily do a root and branch examination of other aspects of banking practice that were in place that reflected the same approach and assumptions.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your points. It's the usual responses from men complaining that their viewpoints are not being listened to by feminists and/or "hard & fast stats". In feminist-man bingo, I believe that's a double.