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.

No-one is screaming patriarchy and you still haven't explained why it is detrimental to look at something as a feminist issue? For whom would it possibly be detrimental?

OK you find feminism and its politics boring and repetitive. No-one is asking you to participate. But I find it repetitive and boring to be told constantly that we should/should not be addressing certain issues as feminists.

And btw, this joint account scenario is by no means the first time this problem has been brought up in feminism and elsewhere on MN. This is clearly an issue for women.

alexa, how on earth do you know that the primary name on a joint account is as likely to be a woman as a man? You don't. You just keep shouting 'it's not a feminist issue' in an attempt to stop people finding out!

More information is indeed needed, but to try to close down the debate before any investigation is the action of someone who fears feminism, or is a misogynist (and it's possible to be a female misogynist), or just doesn't understand what the hell inequality is and why it is important.

Stop trying to tell people not to look at something that interests them! If you couldn't care less, fair enough, no-one's expecting you to do any research. But don't try to silence everyone else who is trying to find out whether this might be 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. "

You've admitted we've no fucking idea what the ratios are of men:women as primary account holders. Or why the ratios are whatever they are.

I cba to engage any more. You just make up whatever shit keeps you happy, Alexa. Oh look, you do.

Jesus, I am a very active feminist, the suggestion that I find feminism and it's politic boring is hilarious. I did a phd in feminist marketing.

What I find boring, is when people attribute feminism to every issue in society. I think it demeans the cause, and can be detrimental as people basically stop listening. It affects the real issues. This is something that I have encountered on many occassions; when people dismiss the subject as soon as they hear 'feminist' because it can be overused.

I guess it's a bit like 'political correctness'. No one uses it anymore, because it all went a bit OTT and was spouted constantly. So it lost a lot of it's real meaning and became almost a joke. We do not want this to happen to feminism, so I think it is important to ensure we are only addressing issues as feminist, when they really are.

I appreciate that this joint account scenario may well be a feminist issue. But there is, and has been on this thread, plenty of evidence to suggest that it may not necessarily be a feminist issue. SOME women may be receiving detrimental treatment, but then so are some men, in the same scenario.

Because this issue seems to affect mixed sex couple both ways around, and also affects same sex couples, my point is, is this really something that is inherently sexist? Many posters on here seem to suggest, it may not be.

edam I don't. Nor does anyone else (or maybe they do which would be great for this discussion), but all I know is that in my household, I am the primary account holder.

I think it's personal choice, from what people here have said, and the three people I have asked personally in the past day.

Some people have the woman named first, some the man. Doesn't seem, from very small, basic (admittedly!) market research, that this is anything to do with the banks.

I AM PREPARED TO BE PROVED WRONG!

And believe me, if this is something banks are doing, I will be the first person campaigning for this to change.

My irritation came from comments like this:

I think this is a feminist issue. For one thing, the banks will default to the man as the primary account holder unless you specifically ask otherwise, as well as switching the chosen designation to the man sometimes. Aside from that, this is an issue which predominantly affects women and is significant because it reduces financial autonomy for women.

That are made with no basis. The banks do not, it seems, default to a man as the primary account holder. Loads of people have posted here where that has not been the case for them, therefore it isn't a default.

I agree with the bigger picture, entirely. But I cannot agree with such sweeping, incorrect statements.

So you can't agree with some statements. That's not the same as shouting 'this is not a feminist issue' which is what you have been doing throughout the thread.

I would love to know a bit about feminist marketing though, if you have a minute, and no body minds the derail. Never heard of it before

But we aren't attributing feminism to every issue in society. We are looking at this one. One that a number of women have complained about. Some of us are trying to look at this for the implications on women if they aren't the primary account holder. And that is different from men to women because of power balances in relationships and financial power. So even if there is a 50/50 split in primary holder there could still be more detrimental outcomes for women than men.

But tbh you could look at every issue in society through a feminist lens, if you want to. That's what political movements do.

Political correctness is just about not being sexist/racist/homophobic/ageist/ableist etc. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

No, as I explained, I was saying that in response to some banal and ignorant statements. Not to the issue as whole.

sinister I would be happy to talk about it, but I don't understand the question. You've never heard of feminist marketing?

Basically, without being too specific, how feminism is relevant in Marketing - so feminist (and misogynist) advertising; things like the Dove 'real woman' campaign for example, but mainly advertising aimed at certain sexes (like only men are ever driving cars in car adverts, and women are in kitchens in kitchen/cooking/cleaning adverts).

Much more to it, which I would be happy to talk about, if you are interested. I got a first class honors, I like to brag about that too

I would love to discuss when's questions more and explore with women who feel they have been affected by these practices how it came about and what might be done about it. I feel it is an issue worth exploring and has potentially serious questions for women who are affected. I would like to do this without a chorus of Not All Banks Are Like That whether from people who have no interest in feminism or from "active feminists" . If you don't think it's an important enough issue to merit your participation, please feel free not to participate. However, it's unlikely this thread is going to get to that point now.

Feminists: 0 Shouters-Down: 1

Absolutely scallops, but my point was that is this a feminist issue? Maybe it is. I am not sure.

A number of women do seem to have complained about this. But for every one that has, on this thread, another has said that the opposite is true in their situation. So, can we really say women are being affected? Or that some people are suffering detriment.

Either way, I think a joint bank account should be just that, absolutely joint. Regardless of who are the named parties. I'd be really interested to know why, if this isn't the case, and why someone has to be primary.

I think When's first question is the nub of the issue. Why do banks require a primary account holder? Personally I think it is historical going back to when women couldn't get a bank account without a male signatory so they were just a "tag on" to man's account and nothing much has changed since then.

According to the link posted earlier, when two or more people want to open a joint account, they can choose to sign a mandate which either states that they have joint, equal status over the account, or assigns one as the primary.

However, whether or not banks are explaining this properly, I don't know. They might well be giving one person the mandate and asking them to sign it. I assume that would be misselling?

Alexa I don't believe the question of whether there are sexist assumptions underlying this problem are measured by saying that one woman's experience cancels out another. The expression Not All Men Are Like That is the equivalent idea for discussions about patriarchy and relationships between men and women.

I have never experienced domestic violence so I would not say to women that have experienced it that it is not a feminist issue because lots of women don't suffer it, because men are victims of DV from women or that there is DV in gay relationships. There are people who do respond that way to DV however - MRAs and anti-feminists.

Sometimes I read posts on here and I don't necessarily think what's being discussed is a feminist issue. If I make a point about that (which I generally wouldn't) and others don't agree, I would bow out rather than keep making my point over and over again and derailing the conversation so that others have to keep coming back to my same point again and again and can't get on with other parts of the discussion they might be interested in.

flora my involvement, or intended participation in this discussion, is really nothing to do with you, if you don't want it to be. Don't insinuate I have no place in a conversation. If you don't want to discuss it with me, please stop replying to me.

Your continued comparison to DV is offensive. This is in no way the same thing. DV is an issue involving one person creating a physically harmful environment for another. This is about being first named in the bank.

I would agree that it would be an absolute feminism issue if there were people who felt they were opressed or their male partner was using their control over joint finances as a power tool. I know this happens. This is an issue. This is not a bank related issue.

Can you see the distinction?

Whenthered So do I. I don't always conclude that they are, and all I have done here, is ask is there an underlying feminist issue.

People posting nonsense like the example I gave before, are not helping anyone have a rational discussion about it. I believe there may well be some level of patriarchy happening within joint accounting, but I am asking if anyone has any ideas of why; why there has to be a primary account holder?

This goes for all companies, not just banks. Like gas and electricity suppliers, digital/sky TV suppliers etc. WHY does one person need to be a primary account holder?

Maybe once we know this, we can start looking at it with more knowledge and come to a better conclusion.

So, moving on from the person trying to make the thread all about her.

Is it worth doing a very unofficial MN survey to find out how many people are equal joint account holders, and what the gender split is wrt primary account holders in pseudo joint accounts? And in each case, how the allocation came about?

It's likely to be complicated by people who, like the OP, have no idea they are not equal account holders.

I don't have a lot of energy to dedicate to this at the moment, so wouldn't be able to make much use of the results.

Good question when

parsing I'd be interested in that. I'd also like to take a look at various bank opening procedures to see what they are doing. I could start to look at online applications since that's fairly easy to do.

I suppose SurveyMonkey is something I should learn.

If someone else fancies taking the results and running with them, I can have a crack.

We could get other Qs in there if they're also useful. What are we trying to analyse? Financial power held by women? Or specifically the behaviour of the banks? Or a bit of both?

Hmm. Suggested Qs:

1. Do you have a joint bank account with an adult of the opposite sex?
2. Are you equal partners on the account? (Y/N/dk/Y to the best of my belief)
3. If one person is the primary account holder, is it the male or the female?
4. Why is that? a) because we actively chose to have things that way round b) because the bank just set it up that way

[need more detail on this one, to investigate the mechanisms by which "bank just set it up that way"]

(Sorry, bit brain dead today)

Parsing

Good Qs. Can I suggest that no.2 is more broken out? A lot of people might assume that because they are joint holders they are equal partners (like the OP). I would suggest:

(a) are you the primary account holder? (Y/N/dk)
(b) if you are not the primary account holder, can you do the following things without the permission of the primary cardholder:
(i) access the balance and account information?
(ii) withdraw without any restrictions that do not apply to the primary account holder?
(iii) change the account details (such as change of address)?
(iv) order new cards?
(v) cancel the cards?
(vi) close the account?

I would also suggest:

5. Did your bank tell you that one person would be the primary account holder and that one person would be the secondary account holder?

6. If so, did the bank tell you what the different rights were for the primary and secondary account holder?

7. Did you consciously choose that either you or your partner would be the primary account holder?

I'd like to dig a bit into the issue of the process and whether the banks just followed a script of asking for the husband's details first.

Great idea re. Surveymonkey

I like the survey idea