There have been times when I have sympathised with the feminist movement. Both of these times have occurred when dealing with the mortgage departments of banks.
On the last two occasions when my husband and I have applied for a mortgage, we have reported similar assets and salary details. But when the loans were granted, not only the notification of the loan but also all subsequent correspondence was addressed to my husband.
Many women, even those who are financially dependent on their husbands, still have a financial stake in the house and are entitled to look at correspondence relating to it. But they would probably hesitate to open a business letter addressed only to their husband, and he may or may not show it to them without being asked.
There is also a growing number of women who not only earn decent salaries, but may even earn more than their husbands, and might rightly object to being placed in the submissive role.
Who knows how many other banks are also unable to conceive that a wife might have a say in the ownership of the house (except the colour of the curtains, of course)?
Recently we have just had another experience where my husband received a letter from a bank granting us a mortgage after I had visited the bank's representative personally and supplied all the information. This letter was particularly infuriating because the only mention I merited was that as his wife, I was required to sign "unlimited suretyship" for the loan.
What the bank is saying, is that he can have a loan of a couple of hundred thousand, and if he falls into arrears on the interest repayments, the bank will not resort to him, it will resort to me for both the loan and the arrear interest. But presumably, as a woman, I'm not worthy to be granted a loan.
A complaint to the bank about this resulted in an embarrassing grovel to me, as an individual, which was not the point of the complaint. I was told there was not enough room on the application form for two names and that it was not intended to be a personal slight, just an omission made in error.
According to a legal adviser, the excuse of "not having enough space on the form" is nonsense. But she says what does determine how the bank deals with you is how you are married - if you are married in community of property, the correspondence is addressed to both of you, whereas if you have an ante-nuptial contract, the correspondence is addressed to only one of you.
That still strikes me as an unsatisfactory explanation. Why should the bank choose to address correspondence about a married couple's affairs to the husband? Why don't they sometimes address correspondence only to the wife and then field the complaints?
It is a small request, but, dear banks, if you would just negotiate with "Mr &Mrs" you will engage women's attention in the business of managing the household mortgage, which is very likely to be to your benefit.