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.

Techno I think this is too challenging for you.

flora you are coming across as very stubborn and single minded.

What techno has said makes sense! whether or not you agree with it, so there's no need to be rude.

so as long as woman don't appear to suffer it is not a feminist issue, ism's don't work on the lines of appearing to suffer or not you can't treat people differently whether they suffer or not by the differences you impose on them,

Thanks Alexa

Flora this isn't challenging for me at all as I have a good understanding of bank accounts an operation. Your stubbornness is clouding your ability to truly learn something so I will bow out gracefully.

However, I will leave you with some homework. There is a very good reason why you may not be able to perform administrative duties on your joint credit card account, if you are not the primary account holder. The reason is very valid and not a feminist issue at all. There is a significant difference between a credit card account and a bank account so will leave you to find out for yourself. When you do you will realise why you are barking up the wrong tree.

Alexa I have little time for people whose only interest in feminism is to tell women that their issues are for them to resolve individually, that X, Y or Z is not a feminist issue, that things are the way they are because [insert spurious reason here so long as it is not to do with fundamental issues of patriarchy in how our society is organised].

Techno I don't need your homework. You don't seem to understand the points raised here which question why there is a primary cardholder at all and how the processes for establishing who should be the primary cardholder influence the process and therefore the consequences.

"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."

No they haven't.

The exact opposite would be if a man opened an account believing he was first or equal, and then found he'd been given secondary rights. Unless I've missed it, there hasn't been a single story like that.

Or are you trying to claim that some women reporting they haven't noticed possible discrimination, somehow cancels out those who have noticed it? That the Co-op (say) not discriminating means NatWest can't be?

I think this area is worth further investigation, to see if there really is a statistically significant issue here. And also to see if some institutions are biassing one way and some another - both would be wrong if this is being caused by the bank. (Males having more control of money because of conditions outside the bank is another problem.)

Damn those stubborn feminists, eh? They're so single-minded about, you know, women's rights.

Perhaps they should branch out into kittens?

I have a joint account with DH and I'm the primary account holder so it's not necessarily a patriarchy thing.

I would argue that the problems with any kind of joint account can leave esp. married women severally disadvantaged. particularly in cases where there there is already a financial imbalance in the relationship.

eg husband earns more so applies for credit card as primary card holder wife signs up as second. second has no right to see statements or obtain any info. ok if you are not married as primary holder is responsible. married YOU ARE. it is considered JOINT debt. IF you can PROVE you didn't spend it you might get away with it on a divorce. good luck with that esp if he turns out to be a real shit who spends on your card cos he knows your pin.

I really cringe when women are advised there best protection in a relationship is marriage. it really isn't. one piece of advice I will be giving my daughter never ever have a joint credit card or a joint credit account

I second WhentheRed's Qs:

1. Why do joint accounts require a primary cardholder?
2. Why do banks ask the men for the information first?

BTW, I'm astonished that banks are applying a "primary account holder" structure to joint accounts, and apparently not mentioning this rather important legal matter to the customers signing on the dotted line.

I thought I understood, from the old days, the difference between (a) a proper joint account and (b) simply having an additional cardholder on a single account.

It looks like the banks have now blurred this: they sell the account as (a), but give you only the rights of (b).

Agree completely ParsingFright.

"It looks like the banks have now blurred this: they sell the account as (a), but give you only the rights of (b)." And that is incredibly worrying.

Presumably if you are the primary account holder you can take all the money out and shut down the account? That is definitely a feminist issue given the historical financial abuse of women.

When we went to do our mortgage application recently, the advisor asked me for my details first.

Our joint account has me as the primary account holder.

My friend and her wife have a joint account, one of them is the primary holder.

On our Sky account, I have had issues before because I am not the primary account holder, just a named person on the account.

On our Electricity bill, DH has had issues before because he is not the primary account holder, just a named person on the account.

For these reasons, and many others that have bee stated on this thread, I don't think it is a feminist issue, because I can't see any gender based detriment happening.

paperlantern I have a joint credit card account with my mum. She is the primary account holder, I am a named cardholder. I have full access to the available credit, and no access to statements or account information.

It isn't a patriarchy issue. It isn't detrimental to 'women'; in this situation is it detrimental to the secondary account holder. This is not gender based.

Agreed, this situation is detrimental to the secondary account holder Alexa. You give lots of excellent examples.

So the next question is, is there a statistical tendency for the secondary account holder to be the female and the primary account holder to be male, where there's one of each?

Because if so, the situation is disproportionately detrimental to females. And that's something feminism should be looking at. (If it were the disproportionately detrimental to males, it would still be worth looking at.)

Supposing the statistics, once you've got them, do show a skew.

It could be that there is no element on the part of the banks/utility cos, etc that is contributing to this skew, and they are purely passive reflections of informed decisions made by individual account holders, who are themselves reflecting societal norms.

Or it could be that the banks/utility cos are doing something that is contributing to the skew. Such as introducing computer systems which only recognise one primary account holder, rather than two equal ones. Such as not informing people opening accounts that this is the case. Such as turning to the man for his info first when a couple come in.

Looking a little deeper into why these things are happening enables us to understand and, if necessary, fix them.

This is terribly old hat, btw. Impact assessments asking "does doing things this way systematically discriminate against any group, intentionally or unintentionally" are a standard part of most major planning these days.

And FloraFox said, applied generally:
"I have little time for people whose only interest in feminism is to tell women that their issues are for them to resolve individually, that X, Y or Z is not a feminist issue, that things are the way they are because [insert spurious reason here so long as it is not to do with fundamental issues of patriarchy in how our society is organised]."

Parsing, I agree with everything you just said, and finally feel like this conversation is moving in the right direction!

It could be, that banks (or more specifically, bank systems or bank tellers) are making assumptions that the male should be the primary account holder. This, would be a feminist issue.

It could be, that when a mixed sex couple are applying for something, they are putting the man first, because one or both of them believe the man should be first (or could be the main earner, or is in charge of finances). This, would be an example of patriarchy.

It could be, that when a mixed sex couple are applying for something, they are putting the woman first, because the woman is in control of the household finances, or the main earner. This, would be an example of feminism achieving its goal.

It could be that joint accounts just aren't 'joint' in the sense we expect, and maybe banks should rename the accounts. Or maybe they should look into how joint accounts work, and ensure they are, indeed, absolutely joint.

But to say this is outright a feminist issue, with absolutely no real knowledge of any of the above, is trite.

If the patriarchal examples are true, then I absolutely agree, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. But if it is simply an issue of one party, of either sex, receiving detrimental treatment, well that's just the way joint accounts work. If you don't like it, don't have one. They aren't exclusively for mixed sex couples, so this issue will always exist (unless the banks rethink they way joint accounts work).

But the fact my boss gets paid more than me, doesn't make it a feminist issue, just because he is a male and I am a female. There are plenty of men who work below me. I worry sometimes that attributing feminism to every single issue without it being directly affecting women and women only, breeds the opinion that feminists are all radical, and belittles the root cause of the feminist movement.

Alexa, the only person changing the way they're talking here is you!

You've stated again and again absolutely categorically on this thread that "it isn't a feminist issue."

And now you're finally admitting that it might be a feminist issue: we don't know till we look into it.

Hurrah!

So now we can get on with what Flora suggested ages ago: "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"

I can't see it's ever wrong to ask the question, "Is this a feminist issue?"

The answer may, on investigation, be No.

But if we don't ask the question, how will we know?

What a load of rubbish Alexa. Sorry. But belittling the root cause of feminism? Really? How is looking at something through a feminist lens belittling the cause of feminism? Because that is all we are doing.

Parsing puts it far more politely.

Ok can I ask what is the consequence of these joint accounts not really being joints?

So one person wants to change the address but can't because they aren't the primary holder.
What happens when people separate and the 'financially weaker partner' aka the woman in most cases wants to make changes (ie change address)? How far us the secondary account holder actually 'owns' the money in that account?

Those are good (and worrying) questions NaiveWoman. And you make the point that women are more often the more financially dependent person.

I am not the primary holder on our joint account. I am the higher earner. I would be pissed off if DH closed the account and buggered off but I wouldn't be destitute. Again this comes back to control and access to money and that is very much a feminist issue.

So even if it were 50/50 split in primary account holders between men and women, we know that it isn't a 50/50 split in terms of earnings and women earn less. So any shenanigans with joint accounts are going to affect women disproportionally.

I've said repeatedly, and I stand by, that women being the secondary account holder is not a feminist issue, because it isn't always the case!

IF women are being presumed to be secondary to men, that is a feminist issue.

But the fact women are very often the primary holders of the account, means it can't be a fact, that banks are 'promoting' men to the primary account holder position.

Asking 'is this a femisit issue' is never wrong, I agree. But assuming something is a feminist issue, is detrimental to the cause. Because it becomes trite, it becomes repetitive and boring. Screaming 'PATRIARCHY!' every time a woman is treated differently to a man, does belittle it. Because sometimes people are just treated differently, that may or may not be an issue, but it isn't necessarily based on gender.