Venting…dentist office stuff.

[Disneychick13]

It really seems silly to agonize over whose name goes first on a form/document/whatever. Does the business treat you bad/differently because you are a woman (or man!) Do they defer to your spouse for decisions/ communication instead of you? Do they refuse to speak to you? Do they demean you? Then sure get angry/transfer your business! if it’s just a matter of who gets listed first……meh. As far as asking a customer what they prefer, yeah I mean I guess that sounds good. But that would mean nothing to me compared to how I am treated as a customer. That‘s just my opinion.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Not missing the point, apparently you’ve missed mine. My point is why should someone care who is listed first? We’ve gone so far passed modern progressive thought that we’ve moved into getting annoyed or offended over stupid things. A company needs standards. If that policy is to list the male first, why on earth should that offend me?? If that policy is to ask me who I want listed first, my question is going to be, does it matter? And if they say no, then why did they bother asking? Who cares!?!?!

Because the point isn't about who is listed first it's about why are they was someone even given a choice or asked.

There are many times where who is listed first makes more sense and other times where it's just an assumption. Asking is not a burden don't let anyone tell you it is.

I don't care who is listed first on things but I would care if my bank put my husband first as the primary just because he's a male and the husband. We had me as primary for several years because I had more money in the bank and a few more years as an account holder; a joint money market account fee schedule was based on the collective funds of the primary account holder, when our circumstances changed we did the paperwork to change it.

On the early years of joint car and renters then homeowners insurance we had me first because when transitioning to AAA I had been with AAA for many years already at that time, my car insurance had higher limits than my husband (matters for prior insurance for rates). But if my agent just put my husband first because "he's the male, and the husband" it's not an agent I'd personally want.

It'd not about whose name is first that’s a red herring, it's why was a particular person was selected, depending on the reason may impact someone's viewpoint.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

Why care? History. I'm old enough not to take for granted the strides that have been made since I got married over 50 years ago. When I got married, as far as governments, most companies, and even personal correspondence was concerned, my personal identify was erased and replaced by the term "Mrs. Him". So no credit, utility or medical bills, mortgages in my name - just back to the status of a child. And I was supposed to be thrilled about it. Complaining was considered just stupid whining at best, and a real lack of respect for my husband at worse. As in, "Why are you making such a big deal about it?" It doesn't mean anything."

But it was those kinds of complaints, issued by people who were regularly ridiculed for them, that eventually led to a world where all of our daughters can now hold jobs that aren't just listed under "help wanted male, help wanted female", and can own homes in their name, or have their income considered for a joint mortgage.

Too many people still take for granted the strides that have been made as if they flew out of the air, because they either don't know about, or care about, what it took to get there.

So when I researched and organized the sale, filled out the DVC paperwork, and just asked my husband to "sign here", and everything came back addressed just to him, you can bet I did care and got it changed. We're not completely done yet.

 

[TAX GUY]

Why care? History. I'm old enough not to take for granted the strides that have been made since I got married over 50 years ago. When I got married, as far as governments, most companies, and even personal correspondence was concerned, my personal identify was erased and replaced by the term "Mrs. Him". So no credit, utility or medical bills, mortgages in my name - just back to the status of a child. And I was supposed to be thrilled about it. Complaining was considered just stupid whining at best, and a real lack of respect for my husband at worse. As in, "Why are you making such a big deal about it?" It doesn't mean anything."

But it was those kinds of complaints, issued by people who were regularly ridiculed for them, that eventually led to a world where all of our daughters can now hold jobs that aren't just listed under "help wanted male, help wanted female", and can own homes in their name, or have their income considered for a joint mortgage.

Too many people still take for granted the strides that have been made as if they flew out of the air, because they either don't know about, or care about, what it took to get there.

So when I researched and organized the sale, filled out the DVC paperwork, and just asked my husband to "sign here", and everything came back addressed just to him, you can bet I did care and got it changed. We're not completely done yet.

Just curious, is there a reason why your screen name is "donaldbuzz&minnie"? Why not Minnie's name first?

I still don't think or see here where anyone said a female's name MUST be listed second after the male's name. It may be internal company practice for a number of reasons, but I didn't see that one mentioned.

 

[cobright]

Are there really people who care about this stuff? I don’t see how anyone who is secure with who they are and who they are within their relationship would care what order others list them.

When it’s put into the loaded terms like Head of Household? Or categorized as Primary Earner? Or describes a status that implied that some members of a list are dependent on others regardless of whether that is true? Yes, that bothers people and it should.

 

[kymom99]

When it’s put into the loaded terms like Head of Household? Or categorized as Primary Earner? Or describes a status that implied that some members of a list are dependent on others regardless of whether that is true? Yes, that bothers people and it should.

And as in the case of the OP, where she is listed by first name only, and she carries the insurance!

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

Just curious, is there a reason why your screen name is "donaldbuzz&minnie"? Why not Minnie's name first?

I still don't think or see here where anyone said a female's name MUST be listed second after the male's name. It may be internal company practice for a number of reasons, but I didn't see that one mentioned.

Just curious myself. Are you thinking that Is there a reason why I should think my screen name ought to list Minnie's name first?

In reading through a number of your posts, I see you've mentioned several times that that internal company practice may list a male's name first routinely "for a number of reasons", but haven't actually specified what those reasons might be. I'd love to know what those objective specific reasons are. But I gather that your real point is that organizations that choose list males's names first as a matter of routine are just doing it coincidentally. Doesn't matter since it's just random. Unless, of course, they have a "number of reasons" (that they haven't necessarily specified.)

So could you please list any government entities or companies you know about (targeted equally at both male and females, not, for example, an ob/gyn's office) that decide, just a matter of routine internal company policy, of course, to habitually list the female's name first? Then I'd be happy to consider the possibility that the practice of listing males' names first is just a simple artifact of a bygone era, and not the last threads of an unhealthy historical pattern.

 

[TAX GUY]

Just curious myself. Are you thinking that Is there a reason why I should think my screen name ought to list Minnie's name first?

In reading through a number of your posts, I see you've mentioned several times that that internal company practice may list a male's name first routinely "for a number of reasons", but haven't actually specified what those reasons might be. I'd love to know what those objective specific reasons are. But I gather that your real point is that organizations that choose list males's names first as a matter of routine are just doing it coincidentally. Doesn't matter since it's just random. Unless, of course, they have a "number of reasons" (that they haven't necessarily specified.)

So could you please list any government entities or companies you know about (targeted equally at both male and females, not, for example, an ob/gyn's office) that decide, just a matter of routine internal company policy, of course, to habitually list the female's name first? Then I'd be happy to consider the possibility that the practice of listing males' names first is just a simple artifact of a bygone era, and not the last threads of an unhealthy historical pattern.

Based on your first reply and mentioning the strides taken over the years, I wasn't sure if there was any reason you listed two male character names before the female character name. That's all

As for our company's "number of reason's", I've stated that our internal practice is just that so those reviewing others work (check for accuracy and compliance) can quickly and easily follow the flow of income and expenses to each person, and then be sure any deductions/credits are properly allocated in the instances it's required to be. Keeping the practice uniform makes for better work flow.

I can't speak for other entities or companies and their practices, but if you're truly interested, you'd probably be best to ask them directly.

 

[jennyq87]

I make more $ than my husband. I file our taxes. I handle most our finances. His name is usually first in correspondence, on invitations, all that jazz. I honestly could not care less. I can't imagine there is malicious intent with most of these examples. Rather, a combination of traditional etiquette, consistency within systems, etc. Sometimes you need to pick your battles.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Sometimes you need to pick your battles.

Yup and that's what many individuals have been doing over the years. Pushing for modernity. No need for anyone to act like there's something wrong with picking that battle. Battle by the way doesn't have to mean some big fuss, take your business elsewhere and don't recommend a place if you want to and contact the place of business if say for alumni, dvc,etc to adjust the way things read.

 

[amylevan]

When it’s put into the loaded terms like Head of Household? Or categorized as Primary Earner? Or describes a status that implied that some members of a list are dependent on others regardless of whether that is true? Yes, that bothers people and it should.

I would expect that if someone is using the term Primary Earner that they have the primary earner listed. Which in my particular case would change over the years depending on a variety of variables.

If someone is using the term Head of Household, than I would expect that they are following the IRS definition, which doesn’t apply to me because I’m married.

For merely listing clients where one is first or one is listed as spouse, I do not care or see the big deal.

I’m curious if you all also are offended at wedding invitations addressed to Mr. and Mrs.?

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

Based on your first reply and mentioning the strides taken over the years, I wasn't sure if there was any reason you listed two male character names before the female character name. That's all

As for our company's "number of reason's", I've stated that our internal practice is just that so those reviewing others work (check for accuracy and compliance) can quickly and easily follow the flow of income and expenses to each person, and then be sure any deductions/credits are properly allocated in the instances it's required to be. Keeping the practice uniform makes for better work flow.

I can't speak for other entities or companies and their practices, but if you're truly interested, you'd probably be best to ask them directly.

Flip a coin 100,000 times and you can expect that about 50,000 times that coin will land heads up. If you are betting on that coin flip, and the coin lands heads up 99,000 times out of 100,000, it is reasonable to suspect the game is rigged.

Take 100,000 organizations in the US that still choose the account holder by gender. You and I both know that I don’t need to interview anyone to find out that it is highly unlikely that 50,000 of these companies routinely treat the female in the relationship as prime. Actually, we would be hard pressed to find even one company in the US that does this. Can you name one? I can’t.

Is it logical to assume that almost 100,000 out of 100,000 firms have come up with perfectly justifiable reasons to automatically consider males, but not females, to be their prime clients? Logic can’t explain this. But history can.

US laws governing the rights of married women have a starting point, and that starting point came to us via English Common Law and the doctrine of Coverture. It stated that “the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage.”

Women have been slowly and painfully chipping away at laws and customs that completely erased their identity upon marriage ever since the doctrine of Coverture was adopted into our early legal system. (I described in an earlier post that some of these directly affected me in my lifetime.) And the last remnants of these outmoded patterns even today can be found in organizations, like the op’s dental office, that obstinately insist that a man, instead of the insured, must be the prime member in a team.

I can actually see how, in your company’s case, you have a better reason to do this many others. You’re dealing with the IRS, which was founded prior to a time when most married women didn’t work. The husband was almost certainly the one and only breadwinner. It probably makes it much easier for your company to continue this pattern than it would be to ask each couple who wishes to consistently remain Taxpayer #1 and who wishes to remain Taxpayer #2 in your records. But it’s history, not logic, that determines that a married female breadwinner in 2022 is Taxpayer # 2 in your records, while her husband who stays home with the kids is Taxpayer #1.

So please don’t ask me to explain why I don’t care which cartoon character is named first on the disboards, or whose name is signed first on a birthday card, but I do care that I feel the weight of history slowly receding. To seriously ask me why these are not equivalent issues is to prove my point. We are not quite done yet.

 

[RedAngie]

Not sure what the big deal is. Listing your husband first isn't a jab at you, just their in house practice. We do the same in our office (CPA firm). We typically list husband first (as taxpayer) and wife second (spouse). It's not because we are trying to insult women, but our internal practice is that way, and has been that way. When we all look at documents and returns, "taxpayer" will be associated with hubby's docs. It means nothing to anyone other than within our office.

“It’s always been done that way” is a lame excuse for continuing that practice.

 

[Allison]

Why care? History. I'm old enough not to take for granted the strides that have been made since I got married over 50 years ago. When I got married, as far as governments, most companies, and even personal correspondence was concerned, my personal identify was erased and replaced by the term "Mrs. Him". So no credit, utility or medical bills, mortgages in my name - just back to the status of a child. And I was supposed to be thrilled about it. Complaining was considered just stupid whining at best, and a real lack of respect for my husband at worse. As in, "Why are you making such a big deal about it?" It doesn't mean anything."

But it was those kinds of complaints, issued by people who were regularly ridiculed for them, that eventually led to a world where all of our daughters can now hold jobs that aren't just listed under "help wanted male, help wanted female", and can own homes in their name, or have their income considered for a joint mortgage.

Too many people still take for granted the strides that have been made as if they flew out of the air, because they either don't know about, or care about, what it took to get there.

So when I researched and organized the sale, filled out the DVC paperwork, and just asked my husband to "sign here", and everything came back addressed just to him, you can bet I did care and got it changed. We're not completely done yet.

Say it again for the people in the back. This bears repeating.

 

[rigs32]

Just curious, is there a reason why your screen name is "donaldbuzz&minnie"? Why not Minnie's name first?

The point is that posted CHOSE their screenname. A business dictating the primary customer based on gender without allowing the customer to choose is based on the history of subjugating women. People can be upset by something without being offended and that's ok. You can think it's no big deal and that's ok. A customer can feel disrespected by your company's practice and that's ok. It shouldn't be ok for one person to dictate what another can be upset about ESPECIALLY given the history (and continued practice of) men being assumed in charge.

Even a previous poster talked about "men" and "ladies". Not men and women. Not ladies and gentlemen. One connotates gender and the other can carry commentary about a woman, not just gender. You often hear adult women called girls, but you almost never heard adult men called boys.

Language has meaning. The way people are categorized and ranked can have meaning. Stop telling people that bristling at such antiquated use of language and assuming the man is in charge is wrong.

 

[TAX GUY]

The point is that posted CHOSE their screenname. A business dictating the primary customer based on gender without allowing the customer to choose is based on the history of subjugating women. People can be upset by something without being offended and that's ok. You can think it's no big deal and that's ok. A customer can feel disrespected by your company's practice and that's ok. It shouldn't be ok for one person to dictate what another can be upset about ESPECIALLY given the history (and continued practice of) men being assumed in charge.

Even a previous poster talked about "men" and "ladies". Not men and women. Not ladies and gentlemen. One connotates gender and the other can carry commentary about a woman, not just gender. You often hear adult women called girls, but you almost never heard adult men called boys.

Language has meaning. The way people are categorized and ranked can have meaning. Stop telling people that bristling at such antiquated use of language and assuming the man is in charge is wrong.

Flip a coin 100,000 times and you can expect that about 50,000 times that coin will land heads up. If you are betting on that coin flip, and the coin lands heads up 99,000 times out of 100,000, it is reasonable to suspect the game is rigged.

Take 100,000 organizations in the US that still choose the account holder by gender. You and I both know that I don’t need to interview anyone to find out that it is highly unlikely that 50,000 of these companies routinely treat the female in the relationship as prime. Actually, we would be hard pressed to find even one company in the US that does this. Can you name one? I can’t.

Is it logical to assume that almost 100,000 out of 100,000 firms have come up with perfectly justifiable reasons to automatically consider males, but not females, to be their prime clients? Logic can’t explain this. But history can.

US laws governing the rights of married women have a starting point, and that starting point came to us via English Common Law and the doctrine of Coverture. It stated that “the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage.”

Women have been slowly and painfully chipping away at laws and customs that completely erased their identity upon marriage ever since the doctrine of Coverture was adopted into our early legal system. (I described in an earlier post that some of these directly affected me in my lifetime.) And the last remnants of these outmoded patterns even today can be found in organizations, like the op’s dental office, that obstinately insist that a man, instead of the insured, must be the prime member in a team.

I can actually see how, in your company’s case, you have a better reason to do this many others. You’re dealing with the IRS, which was founded prior to a time when most married women didn’t work. The husband was almost certainly the one and only breadwinner. It probably makes it much easier for your company to continue this pattern than it would be to ask each couple who wishes to consistently remain Taxpayer #1 and who wishes to remain Taxpayer #2 in your records. But it’s history, not logic, that determines that a married female breadwinner in 2022 is Taxpayer # 2 in your records, while her husband who stays home with the kids is Taxpayer #1.

So please don’t ask me to explain why I don’t care which cartoon character is named first on the disboards, or whose name is signed first on a birthday card, but I do care that I feel the weight of history slowly receding. To seriously ask me why these are not equivalent issues is to prove my point. We are not quite done yet.

“It’s always been done that way” is a lame excuse for continuing that practice.

Ok, thanks for your (all of you) replies. Very insightful and helpful.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

Ok, thanks for your (all of you) replies. Very insightful and helpful.

Thanks for this. I appreciate it.

 

[sasywtch]

Yep, I can remember my grandmother having credit cards, from the time credit cards were first used in the 1960’s, that had her name as MRS. John Smith (my grandfather’s name). Her first name was never on the account, and it stayed like that for decades, even after she became a widow.

Wards didn't even have the Mrs LOL I can remember going up to the register and the cashier telling me that my card wasn't good any longer because they were issuing cards in my own name woo hoo. To the pp who commented on my utility post, of course you didn't have to pay a deposit when you all moved because you didn't divorce. I stayed in the home but my ex wanted the bills out of his name and into mine (which is common practice). When I called to do that, since the utility bills had been in his name, I was a new customer and had to put a deposit down even though we had been married and living together in that house for 18 years. When I bought this new house 2 years ago with my disabled daughter, some of the utility bills are in my name, some in hers. However, it also lists a secondary of our choice. So, I am on hers, and she is one mine. I have never written an invitation to Mr and Mrs Joe Smith, it's always been Joe and Jane Smith and family. I don't get offended if I received one that said Mr and Mrs Joe Smith, I just figured they were old school. For 20 years I was proud that I was married and using my husband's last name, didn't give a thought that he was listed first but, I also see the ramifications of what happened in the past and glad that things are changing.

 

[NotUrsula]

The tax records on our house list us as the equivalent of Joe Blow and Jane Doe, as I kept my birth surname when we married. The house is jointly titled in both names, and alphabetically, my surname comes first, but DH's name is first on the house title, presumably because the title company drafted the deed that way. All of our property tax information for real and personal property is filed based on that deed.

You want to know why I care? For starters, the HOURS off my life I lose every 2 years when my vehicle registration (and sometimes driver license) comes up for renewal. My state has allowed online renewal for years now, but we have to prove that we have paid our property tax before licenses and tags can be renewed. Normally for online renewal, the software checks the property tax rolls and verifies so that you can go forward. However, because my DH' name comes first on the house title and is not followed by a comma, the software does not find my surname in a search. I can even put in the address of the house into the tax records, but again, the index does not contain my name, and it won't verify except by the human eye. DH can do all his renewals online, but I have to go in person and stand in line and show them our property tax receipts. (And yes, I know it's a software bug, but it exists because the software was created with a field entry design that assumed that there would always be only one surname on a property deed, and the state says it would too expensive to change.)

I also carry our family's health insurance, but our doctors do have decent software, and I'm listed as the primary on all medical accounts for that reason. The full names of every covered member of the family are on all records, and all are indexed properly as well.

 

[ronandannette]

The point is that posted CHOSE their screenname. A business dictating the primary customer based on gender without allowing the customer to choose is based on the history of subjugating women. People can be upset by something without being offended and that's ok. You can think it's no big deal and that's ok. A customer can feel disrespected by your company's practice and that's ok. It shouldn't be ok for one person to dictate what another can be upset about ESPECIALLY given the history (and continued practice of) men being assumed in charge.

Even a previous poster talked about "men" and "ladies". Not men and women. Not ladies and gentlemen. One connotates gender and the other can carry commentary about a woman, not just gender. You often hear adult women called girls, but you almost never heard adult men called boys.

Language has meaning. The way people are categorized and ranked can have meaning. Stop telling people that bristling at such antiquated use of language and assuming the man is in charge is wrong.

Remind me again what's wrong with referring to women as ladies? Sorry, I really don't know. It falls on the ear so much more pleasantly than "female", which makes me cringe. And neither boys or girls is appropriate for anyone over the age of 18, IMO.