I'm so pissed!! Is this blatantly sexist, or what?!

[Shine]

Our local community bank recently got bought out by a bigger bank, and during the upcoming conversion time of switching over, we have been told to make alternative arrangements for any electronic transfers scheduled for the 13th-24th of this month. Fine. I call our insurance company to make arrangements for them to schedule our two monthly draft payments to be taken out 10 days earlier, for this month only. I give them all the account info they need, provide my s.s. #, etc.... Everything is fine, for MY policy payment.

BUT.....it turns out I need to have MrShine call in, himself, to authorize the same thing for HIS monthly draft payment. In other words, even though I am his wife of 15 yrs and even though I can provide all the necessary required acct and social sec. #s and "proof" of who he is and what we want, they need to hear from him that it is OK to proceed with this request.

Mind you, they don't require anything in writing to verify this, they are fully satisfied with simply hearing a MALE voice, indentifying himself as MrShine, giving them all the required number info they need.

I could literally pull some guy off the street and have him recite all the appropriate acct info on my behalf and they would be fully satisfied and have NO WAY of knowing if it was really him, in the first place! :crazy:

When I pointed out the absurdity of it to the rep, she passed me over to her supervisor, who made the lame argument that it was all about preventing "identity theft" and if the situation were reversed, he'd be having to go through the same thing. Yeah, thanks. THAT really clears it up for me. :eyes: The sexism goes BOTH ways.

The whole thing is just so ridiculously lame and it infuriates me. :grr: I wasted half an hour of my time, being on hold, explaining the situation, only to be told we have to call back to make arrangements for his policy payment. When I complained to the supervisor about the time I'd spent and how MrShine will now have to take time out of his busy day to deal with this shit, she offered me up her personal and direct number (oh boy!) so he can hopefully move things along more expeditiously.

Keep in mind, this is NOT high finance or political intrigue we're talking about here. This is about making a fucking arrangement for them to get paid 10 days earlier than they normally do. Insane. :grr:

:rant:

[laconicsax]

1. Not sexist.

Oh wait, it is.

[MrCoffee]

2. it's not sexist, just stupid

If MrShine tried to authorize your payment, they'd give him the same runaround.

[Shine]

6. Yeah, but all he'd need to do is the same thing I would....

get somebody, ANYbody from the opposite gender to say they're me and have her give all the same info I'd be giving.

They don't require any further verification other than some dis-embodied, gender-based VOICE!!!

:crazy:

That's why I think it's sexist.

It's certainly stupid, too. :eyes:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. My dear Shine...

I'm sorry you had to endure all of that...

But you know, it is his account.

I don't see this as sexist, actually...sorry...

I think they're taking reasonable precautions over this. They don't want someone (yes, even you, his wife) to be able to speak on his behalf.

If you had the Power of Attorney, I suspect it would be different...

I could be wrong, of course...

And still, I am sorry you had to endure this mess, sweetie...

:hug:

[Shine]

10. It's ludicrous to me that all they need to hear is a MALE voice, saying he's MrShine

and they're OK with that. As long as they hear the right gender-based voice and get all the right # info they don't require any other sort of verification.

If the name of the game is "Preventing Identity Theft", then this process makes no sense whatsoever.

They have NO WAY of knowing a MALE voice or FEMALE voice is who they really say they are, as long as they can provide the right numbers.

What's to stop me from pulling my next door neighbor over to help out??

NOTHING....which is why this is so silly and sexist. It goes both ways.

[lukasahero]

4. I don't find it sexist

If they had allowed him to update your information without hearing from you, then yes, sexist.

That said, I do think it's stupid and would never work for me and my husband - his name is, in the US at least, uniquely female and mine is ambiguous (both male and female).

So they'd rather have someone, ANYone call with a masculine voice than the spouse of the person? That actually opens up more security risk than it prevents. Sometimes people just don't think. :shrug:

[Shine]

5. It is insanely stupid to make the claim that it's all about preventing Indenty Theft

esp since they're happily satisfied with ANY male voice (or female voice, if the situation were reversed) providing the info that I would be supplying.

It's just crazy. :crazy:

As you so rightly point out, it opens up MORE security risk than it prevents.

[skygazer]

7. Well, I don't think its sexist

But it is pretty stupid. If they're so worried about identity theft, they shouldn't be doing any of this over the phone.

Sorry, Shine, sounds like an aggravating time. :hug:

[From The Ashes]

8. It's stupid...

...but not sexist.

I work for a large cable company. We are not allowed to give out information to people not on the account. It's stupid because they can call back and have someone impersonate the account holder and we have no way of knowing if it is the account holder. :shrug:

[Shine]

12. Exactly!! How can they know??

the whole argument of it being about "preventing identity theft" is completely ridiculous.

[From The Ashes]

15. The point is...

...that for me, if someone calls and says 'I didn't authorize those changes' I can at least say that I verified everything. It is all about CYA and not about sexism.

[Shine]

17. I suspect you're right, re: CYA, but the "verification process" is a joke

and sexist.

If "sexism" is making blanket judgments based on a gender stereotype, ie, VOICE, then I would say this qualifies.

[Burma Jones]

9. Not so much sexist as stupid

Sounds like someone in marketing said "hey, let's do SOMETHING to make our customers think we're doing something about identity theft"

[Shine]

13. It's insanely stupid.

maybe "sexist" is too strong, but this strong woman is VERY pissed. I seriously considered calling back and disguising my voice with deeper tones to pull it off.

:crazy:

[electron_blue]

11. Have you tried calling back and speaking in a LOW voice?

Ya never know... it might work!

[Shine]

14. LOL! I just posted that I'd considered that very thing, in fact.

can you believe how fucking STUPID it is that I have to resort to that kind of shit??!

:grr: I've wasted enough time on this crap.

Nope, I emailed the supervisor's # to MrShine and now HE can deal with it.

I'm done....but I'm still pissed.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Sexist? That's as far from sexist as one can be. It's just kinda silly.

But sexist? Jesus.

[Shine]

18. If sexism is making judgments based on gender stereotypes

ie, tonal qualities of VOICE, then I would say this situation qualifies.

That's all.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Where did anyone judge you on the quality of your voice?

I'm not seeing it.

You identified yourself on your own, and then you mentioned your husband - there were no instances of the person on the phone saying you can't be a guy because of your voice, or that they would only accept your husband's information from someone with a "man's" voice. They wouldn't take your husband's information because you had clearly identified yourself as someone other than your husband.

I really think you're overworking this one.

[Shine]

21. In essence, they basically did say they would only accect my husband's info

from a MALE voice.

Yes, they want to speak directly with MrShine and they take it on faith that the MALE voice is him....I could call up, lower my voice, say I'm him and it could work. That's why it seems sexist to me.

Yes, we're being judged by the tonal qualities of our voices. Doesn't that seem sexist?

I dunno...maybe I AM overworking this one. :D maybe I need a beer! :beer:

:crazy:

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Shine]

37. Deep.

:D
did you make that up?

what we construct is as important at what we de-construct. hmmm...

[Connonym]

19. Agree, sexist no. Annoying, yes

If they had taken your information from your husband with no regard to running it past you, THEN it would have been sexist but if they're holding the same standard to both partners then I don't think there's any sexism involved.

[malta blue]

22. That stinks Shine

but it is completely understandable in the world of corporate crap. :mad:

Mr MB and I had a similar situation with a creditor recently where each one of us had to spend 30-40 minutes on the phone with them to get all our information straight :banghead: Yeah, like we had nothing better to do that day :sarcasm:

:loveya:

[matcom]

23. ummm you frankly should be quite thankful

in this day and age of identity theft you should be THANKING THEM! :eyes:

Mrs Matcom is in banking (fraud specifically).

ANYTHING they do to ensure things are on the up and up is a GOOD thing.

Sexist? I wish EVERY company was so "sexist" :eyes:

[Shine]

25. yeah, but they're making a bogus argument

I don't know if you were being serious or not, but I think it's nuts for them say it's about "preventing identity theft" when they're not even requiring something in WRITING to make it even more official.

All they need is to hear the proper gender voice with the proper acct info. The sexism swings both ways.

I could call up myself, lower my voice, say I'm him, give all the right info and they'd be fine with that.

It seems to me the main basis for this whole thing is to cover their collective legal ass.

Yes, they take it on "good faith" that whoever calls up is who they say they are, but ultimately they can't know for sure....all they can do is say, "Yeah, we talked to so-and-so and they gave us the OK to do this action."

What makes this even more insane is that I'm not requesting some major identity theft-like action, I am simply trying to get them their money earlier in the month! It seems nuts! :crazy:

[matcom]

26. i'm 100% serious

and you are 100% overreacting and playing a card that doesn't need to be played.

it has nothing to do with your voice dear. why don't you accept the fact that they want to verify identities before making a major change?

sheesh some will make a 'statement' out of nothing just to say they did :eyes:

[Shine]

28. I can condede the sexism point, but you have to admit the "preventing identify theft"

argument is absolutely nuts.


If anything, I should be upset that it's so easy for changes to be made on my account...based on their willingness to make changes without written authorization...but by voice only.

Whatever...maybe I am overreacting.

On the other hand, maybe I need a beer. :beer: :D

[UncleSepp]

24. You think that's a pain in the ass? I can't authorize my OWN stuff

Seriously. I have had to get female friends on the phone to say they're me to take care of business with accounts dating from before I changed my name and my voice. I've been cursed at and hung up on by people trying to collect money that I would be only too willing to pay, if they'd just stay on the phone for long enough for me to explain the situation.

I doubt it's really a sexist thing, just a matter of identity verification. Banks are tending to be more and more careful about that now, given the volume of identity theft. It's horribly frustrating, no matter what it is.

[Shine]

27. Wow!!! and you don't think that's sexist??

It certainly seems that way to me. You've been judged because you changed your name and voice.

If we can all agree on the common ground of defining "sexism" as making blanket judgments about something or someone based solely on gender stereotypes (in this case, the tonal quality of one's VOICE), then I would say this situation qualifies as being sexist.

The "preventing identity theft" argument they make is ridiculous b/c they don't require anything in writing to verify my request, they simply need to hear a MALE voice, saying he's MrShine, and giving all the pertinent info.

It's insane. :crazy:

[tigereye]

34. hmm, wonder what would have happened if you wanted to do it online?

assuming you could with your secure passwords, what have you. In that case, either spouse could have done it without the complexity, perhaps?

You would think that would bypass a certain amount of the aggravation.

:hug:


I know my bank always asks me for information which I always have to scramble around to find.... :crazy:

[Shine]

39. I wanted to talk with someone in person b/c what I was asking to do was unique

and only for this month. You know,that's what makes this whole thing so insane: I wasn't trying to arrange anything unseemly or identity theft-like, LOL! I just wanted to authorize them to take out their monthly payment 10 days earlier than usual. No biggie.

It's maddening b/c they claim to be doing something about maintaining privacy, which is why they won't let me make this arrangement on behalf of my husband.....BUT they'll happily accept VOICE-verification over written authorization from anybody who can provide the info they need...which could be easy enough to procure.

It basically gives them the CYA status of saying they are "doing something" to prevent Identity Theft, but that whole argument is such a joke.

:crazy:

I'm over it today. I think the "sexism" claim is probably a bit much to make, but the silliness of their "privacy protection" seems nuts.

[Darth_Kitten]

29. Where I am, if you are not on an account (and spouse or not).....

you can't access information about the account. Lots of people assume they can give permission for their spouse, but due to the every tightening privacy laws here (Canada)....no can do.

Whoever is on the account is responsible for it, period.

[hippywife]

31. Here's what is going on, really.

Even tho, as you stated, you could get any disembodied male voice and accomplish what you wanted, they are doing this to be able to say they took some precaution in the handling of the account. It's not as much precaution as they could/should take, it just enough to say they did something. It's the lazy approach to due diligence.

Hi, sweetie! Sorry it was so aggravating. I get the same run around from our utility companies because they were all in DH's name before we got married and we've just never changed that, even though it's always my sig on the checks. We're in a small town, too, so it's not like they are huge corporations with a ton of accounts receivable clerks where you are just a number. Also we have a Lowe's card and a gas card. I even have my own cards in my name but since he was the primary account holder and I was added later, they won't even talk to me about squat...even when I called to tell them to stop mailing us checks for automatic lines of credit if we would just sign and cash them. Very maddening, but probably not sexist.

:loveya:

[Shine]

36. "t's the lazy approach to due diligence." Yup, that's it, in a nutshell.

yes, definitely maddening.

I probably stretched the "sexism" claim a bit much yesterday, but I was pissed and feeling very self-righteous about it, lol! :D

I've mellowed out and now I just think they're STUPID, not SEXIST and STUPID.

:hi: :loveya:

What a world.

[no name no slogan]

32. What's wrong with being sexy?

[electron_blue]

33. ftr, this doesn't seem sexist to me. Here's an example of sexist policy.

My daughter's pediatrician automatically kept records for children with the father. My ex and I were married and had a daughter, he moved out and life continued the same regarding doctor visits because the doctor's office did not know of the split. Since my daughter did not move out, they just left her mailing address the same, which was with me, which is where she lived her whole life. Anyway... they eventually got wind of my ex's new mailing address, so they automatically changed her address over to his address - without asking him or me - and sent all the bills to him. He ignored the bills, and they didn't get paid. I eventually called to find out what happened with the bills since I knew they were due. I was told that she was now assigned to *his* account and that *I* was not allowed to change it. Only my ex could change it bcs they assigned children to the father. Get this - I was employed, he was not. I had the insurance, he had none. In fact, both his and my daughter's insurance were paid by my employer. Still, they refused to change it without his say so. This is sexist policy.

Your bank not taking your word for your husband's desires sounds like privacy protection and presumably they'd do the same thing if things were reversed and your husband tried to change things in your name. So this is not sexist unless they'd let your husband change things on your account, but not vice versa.

[Shine]

35. Wow, the situation you described is definitely sexist. Amazing.

Maybe I'm being too broad and over-reaching in my definition of "sexist", as pertaining to my situation.

But you're right, at the very least, their policies open up a lot of questions regarding privacy control.

If they were truly serious about preventing "identity theft" they'd require something in writing before authorizing any changes on an acct....rather than simply taking the verification of some gender-specific disembodied voice on the phone.

:crazy:

I could easily call back and have my 14 yr old son say he's MrShine, give all the pertinent ID info and they'd be satisfied....

[electron_blue]

38. Yah, that's not very protective of your/hubby's privacy. Forget your son, or even you,

a veritable stranger (crook) can call up and change everything with your bank, apparently, as long as they have the same sounding voice (male or female) as the owner of the account.

[Shine]

40. Yeah, it's crazy, huh?

so much for "preventing identity theft". Their whole claim is bogus. :eyes:

[ElboRuum]

41. The fact that he'd have to do it too...

...is precisely what makes it NOT sexist. Equal (stupid) treatment.

Now, I will agree with you that this is the LAMEST thing I've ever heard to prevent identity theft, much for the same reasons you provided.

[Shine]

44. Yesterday I was claiming "sexism" b/c I was defining it this way:

"Sexism" is making blanket judgments based on gender stereotypes, in this case, the tonal quality of one's VOICE.

Doesn't the sexism swings both ways, then?

I don't know, I go back and forth about the sexism claim....but their policy of "privacy protection" is definitely lame.

[ElboRuum]

46. Seems to me...

You could with a stretch see it that way... but it really would be convicting on a technicality, specifically because I don't believe sexism is meant, they're just doing this so that they have some minimal verification that the person you are doing this for clearly assented to the transaction.

[Road Scholar]

42. I think I agree with MrCoffee. (#2)I would have to check and see

to be sure. You'll sleep better. lol Don't let them get you so ruffled. You can think better with a clear head. Like we say in NC, "Don't get mad, get even". But don't worry, there's plenty of sexism to go around.:pals: :hi:

[Shine]

45. I was pretty riled up about it yesterday and feeling VERY self-righteous

:rofl:

I've mellowed out on it a bit today, but their policy of "privacy protection" is still maddening to me....esp if it's so easy for changes to be made on our accts based solely on VOICE authorization, over written authorization.

:crazy:

:hi: You're right, there's still plenty of sexism to go around and to keep us busy. Sadly.

[LeftyMom]

43. There was a car dealership that wouldn't give me a price over the phone.

Hemmed and hawed, wanted me to drive up (to Corvallis!) and take a look at it, then we'd talk, etc. Couldn't even get them to give me a ballpark figure. But my Dad really wanted this particular option package, which is hard to find (I handle this stuff for him, since he works nights and isn't awake during business hours,) and I had a sneaking suspicion they were only being so difficult because I'm a woman. So I had my bf call and talk to the exact same salesman without mentioning that I'd called about the car previously or that he knows me. No bullshit, no "come take a look at it," they just gave him the price. Sexist assholes.

The price was a bit high, but I probably would have gone up and got it anyhow if they'd treated me well. I wound up getting a much better deal in a private party sale down here instead.

[hippywife]

47. Had something similar happen

to a friend of a friend. She was easily in her mid thirties. Went into a car dealership to look. The sales guy would talk to her a little and then say something like, "Does your husband want to come in and have a look?" She told him she wasn't married. They talked a little more and then he said, "Well, what about your dad?" Finally she'd had enough of his crap and said, "Look...there's no one with a dick going to be involved in this...including YOU!" :rofl:

[Shine]

48. I agree, sexist assholes.

that kind of shit happens all the time in the auto selling biz. :grr: