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.

Flora,

I'm an active feminist, and I agree with a lot Dixon said.

At no point, has there been any proof or even suggestion on this thread that banks choose to out men as the primary account holder. Indeed, many posters have told stories of his not being the case in their life.

twitter.com/misogyny_online/status/395458345530036224

Dixon, crappy admin errors can still have systematic causes that tell you a lot about the values of an organisation.

Daft fictional eg: suppose your system has a dictionary which suggests autocompletions for common names. But it only contains very old-fashioned English names, not common (say) Bangladeshi names. And transactions will be refused every time a name is misspelt. Bangladeshis will frequently find their names misspelt and their transactions refused.

That could look like individual operator error, but actually it's a systematic discrimination against people who didn't fit the Olde Englishe mould.

And yes, currently this discussion is all a bit vague and unconfirmed. Discussing anecdote is where scientific investigation starts. It's how you choose in what areas to carry out the formal investigations that produce those hard and fast stats. Which then tell you whether your anecdote was actually important.

We could say, "We mustn't discuss till there's hard data" and "We didn't look for hard data because we didn't realise there was anything to investigate." But that would be a very neat circular argument to prevent investigation.

Ah, I think I'll duck out now as obviously I've misunderstood.

I thought this was a discussion among equals, but if taking the other viewpoint brands me a misogynist while other similar but female viewpoints are considered valid, I don't really want to be here!!

I shall go & count the money in my joint bank account (of which Mrs Bainbridge is the Primary and has been for 23 years) and then go and hammer some nails or some other manly pursuit...

Enjoy the rest of the broadcast discussion...

Dixon I don't see you in your posts engaging with points other posters have raised, just dismissing. I gave an answer to the somewhat sensible question you raised about the benefit to the banks. Parsing also addressed your points about crappy admin in a very thoughtful and sensible manner.

I guess if you think engaging in a discussion means other people simply accepting what you say, you may feel out of place here. Flounce away then.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no proof because the suggestion is really quite tenuous.

Even if software was able to selectively prioritise men over women it is easily recifiable if the injured party took remedial action (as previously outlined).

Ultimately a primary account holder does not have that many additional privileges over a second holder. Especially if a mandate has been considered and filled in properly.

Flora, perhaps you can give examples of how a primary account holder is better off. I mean real examples that clearly place one party at a significant disadvantage.

I'm with you Flora. A lot of Feminism is women's RL experience and then joining the dots. Maybe the banks aren't doing it on purpose or deliberately (but clearly some are as a couple of posters have said that). Women having control and access to finances is an important part of feminism.

Not sure why so many people are determined that this isn't a feminist issue. Anything could be a feminist 'issue'. Feminism is a political movement. As such it is a way of looking at the world (amongst other things obviously!).

I suggest you read the thread Techno and see the examples of disadvantage of not being the primary account holder. You might then notice that this is not just about software and is not easily rectifiable by the injured party.

If you think it's a trivial matter not to have full control over your finances (including credit cards and bills) or if you want to stick your head in the sand and avoid any consideration of how supposedly neutral assumptions or systems are not actually neutral, good for you.

People have said the same thing about every feminist issue to date - not representative enough, you can't prove it's happening, not significant enough, not intentional, not really harmful. All in a somewhat desperate attempt to see the world as we would like it to be - fair, balanced and rational - and not what it actually is. Hint: none of these things.

Thanks scallops, I agree with that. Control over finances is absolutely a feminist issue. There is a reason why Child Benefit was payable to the mother and why it was payable to all families until recently. Family finances are highly gendered in our society and give rise to lots of different issues, including the dynamics within a relationship and how the outside world treats the couple from a financial perspective. Sweeping women's experiences and discussions off to the side as a "computer says no" issue is not helpful (or interesting).

You're not answering the question. I've contributed and read the thread from post one and am asking for examples where the secondary account holder is disadvantaged in a significant manner (and I don't mean not being able to change an address).

You're asking me to read the thread but clearly you haven't read or fully understood the process of opening up a joint bank account from a legal standpoint. Irony indeed.

Any manner in which a person does not control their money (including being able to change their address) is a disadvantage. Can you not read the examples given where women are told they cannot be the primary cardholder? I have a credit card which I cannot access the balance nor any transactional information whatsoever.

"clearly you haven't read or fully understood the process of opening up a joint bank account from a legal standpoint" - you have insufficient evidence to make such a claim. Ironic, eh?

Normally I see things as feminist issues all over the place. And this may well be a feminist issue, I dunno. But upthread I pointed out that despite having a bank account 50 years ago and then a joint one with DH 47 years ago i.e. in the antediluvian days when, as Flora said, women needed male guarantors and other crap like that, my bank has never defaulted to Mr first.

So maybe some banks are feminist friendly and others aren't?

In fact, Flora's comment just gave me a lightbulb moment. I switched to my bank from another back in the day (1970s) because the one I was originally with refused me credit without a male guarantor. I told them to get stuffed and then traipsed round several banks getting the same answer until the one I eventually found who said "no problem", so I've been with them ever since. Obviously just more enlightened.

I have a joint account with another woman & aside from the statements coming to me (as I do the tax) we have never had any issues with any transactions or questions so I am surprised at issues raised in this thread. Rather grateful OP has raised it as it has made me aware that there may be issues if either of us tried to alter the account. I just assumed as joint holders we would both be notified and/or required to agree any changes.

I'd like to ask what you think the benefit to the banks would be?

Through an assumption that a man would have more money than a female and therefore having a man as primary account holder would be of benefit if the bank wanted to reclaim money owed.

it would be interesting to know which banks people have had issues with and which banks they have not had issue with

I agree with that when but also, I'd say there doesn't need to be an advantage to the bank for it to be sexist, just as I don't think it has to be intentional (although I wouldn't rule out that it is intentional). The banks' processes and procedures do not get reinvented, they stay the same or evolve as needed. If something has always been done in a particular way, there would need to be a catalyst to make a change. So the banks' account opening processes wouldn't and won't change unless there is a reason to change.

This is part of why feminist issues can have the appearance of neutrality. If an aspect of society was developed when patriarchy was more obvious, that appears to be part of the wallpaper and it is not always easy to see that the reason behind it is patriarchal assumptions, not neutral rationality.

It may not be the bank per say either. It might be individuals making those assumptions. We all live in the wider context of society.

I bank with the Co-Op. DH & I have 3 joint accounts. I'm first on the account in all 3 cases. We've had the accounts 7 years.

But I do think banking processes could change to accommodate truly joint accounts. Can't see any reason why not, other than expense.

scallops the bank should be able to accommodate truly joint accounts - they do it for business accounts. From a customer perspective, that would be the best. I don't want to be the primary account holder. If I am travelling for work or my DH is, I don't want him calling me at 3am because he's lost his wallet and needs me to cancel the cards I'm primary on (again).

However even with this primary account holder issue, the banks could do it differently. For example, if you open an account online or over the phone, the call centre script will be set by the bank and will follow the computer input process. They could say "first give us the details of the person you wish to be the primary account holder. That person will be able to do X, Y and Z." In my experience, they just say "Let's start with your husband's details" with no explanation of the consequences.

I didn't realise things weren't allowed to be feminist issues unless the party treating women less favourably was doing it knowingly and deliberately.

Guess all those dinner ladies and cleaners are going to have to pay back all the money they were awarded for systematic discrimination then. Because the councils didn't mean to flout the law. They claim it was accidental that one lot of manual work, mainly done by men, got paid more than a comparable lot of manual work mainly done by women. Accidental for forty years after the Equal Pay Act.

But hey, according to some posters on this thread it's not a feminist issue unless it's deliberate.

Flora, no one has been told they cannot be the primary account holder as this is organised when an account is opened. If the women here, including yourself, had stipulated that you wereto be the primary then the man would have slightly less control.

So ultimately it's down to the individuals to decide. This is possibly the feminist issue but to place the issue on to the banks is stretching it.

On page one of this thread you made some very bold claims about banks, which were not only untrue but could not possibly cover all banks.

But edam, that's the point!

No one has anything other than anecdotal stories about banks having defaulted to the male as the primary. And they've been more than counteracted by the exact opposite.

It just doesn't seem to be a feminist issue! because it doesn't appear that women are suffering any detriment.

Sorry, my phone throws in exclamation marks in some kind of overly excited autocorrect move. It's bizarre.