would this irritate you?

trailingspouse

Many thanks for all your thoughts.

People seem to split into two camps - those who think it doesn't matter (and that I shouldn't trouble my pretty little head about it?), and those who think that, actually, it is a big deal.

A couple of points - mgdavid, I have a joint account and an individual account, so it is perfectly factually and grammatically correct for me to refer to my joint account (to distinguish it from my individual account). Lily-Rose - yes, traditionally married couples would be addressed as Mr and Mrs. Traditionally lots of things used to happen that no longer happen. I agree Mrs and Mr sounds a little strange, but that's only because we're not used to it.

Deneb - am I 'one of those women'. Well, if you were going through a door ahead of me, I would be grateful if you held it for me. And if I was going through a door ahead of you I would hold it for you (and I'm sure you would be grateful too). I'm pretty sure that just makes me an ordinarily courteous human being.

To return to my original question of whether I'm right to be irritated (not upset, not heading for an early grave, not losing sleep, just irritated) - let me put it in a different way -

A man opens a joint bank account for himself and his wife. When the letter arrives, it's addressed to his wife and then him. Is he right to be irritated? We'll never know, because it would never happen.

PeacefulWaters

trailingspouse wrote: »

A man opens a joint bank account for himself and his wife. When the letter arrives, it's addressed to his wife and then him. Is he right to be irritated? We'll never know, because it would never happen.

I did the donkey work arranging a joint mortgage. Mrs PW is first named for reasons known best to the adviser.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Nice house too.

innovate

I can't believe this thread is still going. Surely there are one or two more important things in this world than the oxymoron of "my joint account", as the OP calls the account she and her husband hold together.

Everynamestaken

I once waited around one minute like a lemon for 2 women to hold the door for them at the gym. They were talking to each other in there professional attire and I got no acknowledgment. I then held the other door for them expecting a 'thankyou' and got nothing once again.

I took exception because I specicially waited for them, and when I asked "would it not be courtesy to say thankyou, I got the bog standard reply of "young males today" bla bla.

Anyway, as for this thread, i'm too tired on a night after work to give a monkeys whose name is first on the letters.

mgdavid

thanks innovate; the thread is still going, partly because the OP is being disingenuous by pretending she doesn't understand the grammatical point.

societys_child

Yeah, why are bank statements, invoices, bills, always addressed with my name first? Wish they'd address 'em to my missus . . . she might not ignore them then

LittleVoice

slopemaster wrote: »

Traditionally, yes, Mr and Mrs A N Other.
(NOT Mrs B N Other, as that would be a divorcee's [STRIKE]widow's[/STRIKE] title. )

But, as this is the 21st Century, why assume the OP shares her husband's name?

Amended. Traditionally a widow is still addressed using her husband's first name/initials.

We moved on a little in the 1980s - Diana could have been Princess Charles when she was married.

liuhutOz

I really don't think that I would have noticed tbh, we just switched our accounts and we got a letter each, maybe to ensure that we both received the information.

trailingspouse

Well, we're getting a little away from my original question. I'm also quite surprised that this thread is still going strong. Maybe it isn't as trivial a problem as some of the posters would like to think.

Re 'my' joint account - can I refer you back to my comment #32. I fully understand the grammatical point.

But that's not the point I'm making here. My point is quite simply that if I'm Applicant 1 I should be treated as Applicant 1. And to me that includes being named first on the correspondence. And it does matter (see alanq's comments #31).

It's interesting that this basic point has been the catalyst for comments on 'aisles for women' in supermarkets, holding doors open, a lesson on traditional forms of address and thrush treatments!! Gosh!!

ColdIron

trailingspouse wrote: »

But that's not the point I'm making here. My point is quite simply that if I'm Applicant 1 I should be treated as Applicant 1

Do you now concede your earlier desire that 'all human beings are treated equally even when it comes to the little things' and that there are some occasions when they should not?