Student finance

[beepbeepimasheep]

Dd, a feminist like me, just phoned student finance with a query and also asked them why her letter referred to sponsor 2 when she has only one sponsor. They explained that sponsor one is always the man in the relationship and that women are always sponsor two even when there is no man to sponsor the student. I know there are worse things to get annoyed about but

Jaw on floor.

No... you're pulling our legs?

It's just an order on a computer why would you care?

I wonder what they do when both sponsors are female.

No, I'm not pulling your legs...we couldn't believe it when we heard her explain why.

Bloody hell. Utterly ridiculous.

Do NOT get me started on SFE, they are bloody useless and unhelpful. Nothing would surprise me.

It's stupid unthinking Sexism being built into a system and then no one in the organisation caring enough to force it to be changed. I'd ask for that in writing and then publicise it as widely as possible to shame them into changing it.

In your shoes, I'd be thinking about getting that confirmed in writing and submitting it to Everyday Sexism. That's horrific!

That's mad - clearly the system was written so as not to be sexist, so the humans using it added it back in with this policy!

"It's just an order on a computer why would you care?"

What the fuck are you doing on a feminist board if you need it explained to you, why someone might give a shit about institutional sexism?

What is both sponsors are women?

Can I just check that this is still 2017.....?

It's just an order on a computer why would you care?

Ah, well, actually I can answer this.

For example, since this is student finance, it might be construed as a financial account, and if it's allowed to go over-drawn, as a credit account - in which case, plenty of places would only speak to the primary account holder. I bet plenty of people here, including me, thought they had joint accounts on things, only to call up to sort something out and discover that no matter how you'd filled out the form originally, the provider had put their (male) partner as the primary account holder, and they wouldn't let the secondary account holder make changes.

Many women missed out on shares a few years ago when there was that flurry around the building society buy-outs, because they went to the primary holder. DP and I nearly had issues with our letting agent because they decided to address letters to him (despite knowing he was going to be away for 6 weeks, and despite me being filled in as the point of contact on everything). Barclays bank started addressing statements and letters to my partner when I added him to an account I'd had for 20 years (to their partial credit, they fixed that when I kicked up a fuss)

That's why it matters, not just because it's sexist, but also because more often than not, it has real-world consequences.

Well, exactly, chocchoc.

My bank randomly decided that my husband and I should share a name and changed all of our accounts to my supposed "married" name (I kept my maiden name on marriage). As I don't have any ID in a name that isn't mine, what if he'd dropped dead in the interim where I didn't have my actual legal name on any of my bank accounts? This shit matters.

Wow, so archaic. I worked in bank (insurance and mortgages) 20 years ago, and even then you could choose primary and secondary account holders. We didn't assume anything (although individual members of staff might have I suppose).

That's why it matters, not just because it's sexist, but also because more often than not, it has real-world consequences.

So when I phone student finance they might refuse to talk to me about my support for my DS because I am apparently the second sponsor even though there isn't a first one? Christ, it gets worse - I'm second fiddle to a non-existent male

definitely worth challenging.

Hopefully not, as you are the only one.

But I had that problem with the telephone, and my mum had that issue with their credit cards...

I find it hard to believe this a thing. Who is this company? Sounds a complete silliness to me, what a stupid way of doing business.

What if the 2 sponsors are lesbians?

Does the software explode?

Does the software explode?

It's not the software that's the problem here - the software doesn't care - it's the people doing it that apparently use sponsor 2 for the woman - it's their head that would explode

Student Finance England asked me for a copy of my decree absolute (ie divorce), for DD last year and again for DS this year.

This miraculous status seemingly allows me to be sole sponsor and thus Sponsor 1.

My husband and I put in a 'joint' jobseekers claim recently following a relocation and I was shocked and appalled when I realised that my name doesn't even feature on the paperwork and I didn't even have to sign the final claim (so I think my husband could have made this claim without my knowledge), and that THE MONEY AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO MY HUSBAND. Jobcentre staff could not see my issue with this, even when I slowly and carefully explained what financial abuse is. They said we could complete all the paperwork again and reverse our names so it wasn't really sexist as the system can be overridden, but the point is the system makes assumptions based entirely on sex, and to 'correct' this would have taken lots of paperwork. It doesn't actually matter to me that the money was paid to my husband but the assumption that this should be the case pisses me right off.

Bizarre. D and I have had a joint account since we married and that was 50 years ago! Since he switched banks to mine at the time our cheque book, correspndence etc. has always been Mrs Cat and Mr Cat.

If one bank (at least) could get it right 50 years ago what the hell explanation is there for any organisation in 2017 to get it so badly wrong?

I really think we are going backwards....