Feminist Pub XX - may the summer rains wash the patriarchy down the plughole

[NoTechnologicalBreakdown]

Ooh ooh! Do I get to start it?

Wine and cake all round. And a celebratory burst on the patriarchy-blasting cannon!

Old pub here

Haven't read or watched any GoT stuff. Should I?

Brian Cox makes me switch off the telly.

Thought it had just gone quiet, but the Pub had dropped off threads I'm on. Whoops.

Kind of wishing I had someone to add to my bank account just so I can go and be cross at the bank and be placated with free money.

Fingles - you know what would happen - you add this person, the bank decides you are not important any more, you go and be cross at the bank, the bank says "na na na na na take your money somewhere else then", and you are cross and not any richer and have more forms to fill in.

Sorry. In a pessimistic mood. Too many things to do. And I WANT A HOLIDAY.

So, back in the nineties, when banks handed out shares like smarties, they could only give shares to individuals, not couples. Legally, each share could be owned by one person. so - did they give 50% to men, and 50% to women? Did they ask the owners of joint accounts if they preferred one person to have the shares? OR - did they give the shares to the FIRST named person on a joint account who was, ta da, the penis wearing person?

Luckily, I have a DH who sees all possessions as joint possessions, and I knew about the shares, but imagine in a household where the man sees all money as his, and keeps finances hidden.

I wish I knew how to challenge things like that legally, because it was national banks handing out those shares, and therefore giving men money that women didn't get.

NeverEver

Hmm... I enjoyed the books more than the show, to be honest. There's a lot of violence in both, but on the show (without 'hearing' characters thoughts etc) it seems a lot more gratuitous at times. The TV show has also made some decisions that make it much more problematic in terms of treatment of women than the books which, given that the books present a pretty brutally patriarchal medieval-style world, is saying something.

I do get to be cross at the bank after all! Went in a few months ago and asked them to change the title on DD's account, what with the marital status of a two year old not being relevant. They looked at me like I'd grown another head, but said they'd do it. Just had a letter from them addressed to the parent or guardian of Miss DD. Bet I don't get fifty quid for complaining though.

Fingles

Hmm - I wonder if they address letters to baby boys to 'Master' or 'Mr' (though I know that technically they mean the exact same thing!). I remember feeling quite put out as a child when I realised that my DBs titles would change to acknowledge them as adults, whereas mine would only change on marriage.

This reminds me of the bonkers conversations I sometimes have with old-fashioned members of my family about how "Mrs Hovis Maiden-name" doesn't exist, because it 'proper etiquette' terms I can only be referred to as "Mrs DH First Name Last Name".

*in proper etiquette terms.

My bank insists I can't have an account with no title, although they will allow me to have a bank card with just my name, no title.

There's an easy way around that one, Hovis - don't get married! Elderly relatives will be so incensed by you living in sin that they'll completely forget to bitch about your name.

Alas, too late. So I've decided to get a PhD to put an end to all titular confusion.

There are a lot of younger people who have issues with married women keeping their names and/or using Ms and who invoke the so-called etiquette rules. Just take a look at any of the threads on MN on these issues.

Quite Seneca. It's not an age thing. Nor is it an etiquette thing - or rather, the correct etiquette is to address people as they prefer. But does anyone pay any attention to this!?

I have no plans to do a PhD (I'd be at least 50 before I was done) but sometimes I wish I had one JUST to confuse people like my mother, who insist that men come first, but equally insist that Dr outranks Mr. She was REALLY confused by friends of ours who are a male Dr and female Rev, as Rev comes before Dr, but she's decided that Dr and Rev is probably OK, although would prefer Dr and Mrs.

I often address cars to my parents as Mrs and Mr. I get envelopes back addressed to Mrs DH Firstname.

I just go with no title when addressing cards etc. Just Firstname Surname, no one's ever complained. Although I do have one married friend whose cards I address to Dr Hername. A lady doctor and she kept her own name, the scandal!

DD has an appointment with the consultant orthodontist next month. It was addressed to Miss My-Name. She's actually Miss DHs-Name. Apparently because I use my maiden name, her hospital notes have this surname associated with them (even though she's never used it), because they assume babies have the same surname as their mother when they are born (and I've always used Dr My-Name and never Mrs-DH's-Name if I used Dr-DH's-Name, we'd both have the same title/name. We've tried to change it to her actual name - but to no avail.

That's weird oubliette. The DSes were baby Myname in hospital but it was sorted by the time they got their red books and we had registered them.

She has the correct name in her red book, at the doctors, at the dentist, at school, etc. Just not at the hospital she was born in. DS doesn't have the same problem, but he was born in a different hospital (he's never had an appointment at his birth hospital though).

That is v strange!

There are (or were) 3 major systems of electronic patient records. I wonder if your hospital is on a different one!

Look at this shite from the radio times:

"This was demonstrated when she switched patients to examine Kate. It allowed her to study her husband’s lover close up, tormenting herself with the sight of the young flesh and curves that her husband apparently enjoys on a regular basis."

The wife in this drama is late 30s, the girlfriend early 20s. Id describe both actresses as athletic rather than curvy. Is there any need for this relish?

Doesn't reflect the scene to me either (I'm presuming Dr Foster)... any 'young flesh' was offscreen if I remember - she was fully dressed on camera.

Hmmm - electronic records? Nope - they seem to rely on an old fashioned folder full of paper notes (I've had them scribble out My-Name and replace it with DH's-Name on the outside of the folder, in permanent marker, but every time we go back it is still filed under My-Name). They manage to issue prescriptions for her with the surname My-Name, but appointments are always addressed to the parent/guardian of Miss My-Name. I've given up trying to do anything about it.

www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-09-16/doctor-foster-episode-two-review-never-a-dull-moment-as-lie-upon-lie-unpeeled-and-machinations-took-shape

It's the idea that it's the "young flesh" that's tormenting for her, not the major infidelity and betrayal! And as you say, chunky, Kate was in a sports crop top and cycling shorts on screen, not a wonder bra and thong. Anyone would think that RT were trying to get people to watch and letch over "young flesh"

So I got my new chequebook today, correctly designating the account as M. John Jones ou Mme Jane Smith. No comment from the bank though, no apology and no certainly no cash!

I guess I can commend them for just sorting it out swiftly, but I did quite want to get into a barney about it with them and then threaten to flounce off Discretion has to be the better part of valour this time though, as they have also neglected to notice that I no longer qualify for their premium service, but I still seem to have access to it all, so I'm keeping mum for now.

Sorry it's a dull ending!

Chris Brown may be unable to enter Australia to tour because of his DV conviction.

Good.