Just need to vent.......

[crisi]

BTW, it's not just DVC that practices this accepted policy of placing a mans name first or sending correspondence to the gentleman's name only. It doesn't happen all the time but it is still a common practice in all walks of life. You'd know that if you were a woman.

To be fair, it doesn't sound like this is a consistant DVC practice. And in some cases it sounds like the tables are flipped - where all correspondence comes to the woman, even if the man indicated he'd like to be the primary contact. Without data, it would be impossible to prove that this is systemic. But when a man is chosen over a women intentionally - based on gender only, it is sexist - it is also sexist when a women is chosen over a man intentially - on gender only.

(Another story....one of the women I worked with in a Fortune 100 Facilities department told me that when she organized a move for a department (to a different floor, for instance), if she put women by the window they were always moved in favor of a man getting the window if there was a man at peer level that didn't have a window. Windows may seem to be silly things - but if they are so silly, why care who gets them - peer level OR gender?)

 

[crisi]

ClarabelleCow,

This has nothing to do with how property is held within the marriage (we keep everything together - my BIL who kept everything together just got divorced - after declaring bankruptcy through the fiscal irresponsibility of his ex, and I kept everything together with my ex - that isn't a one on one relationship). This has to do with the outside world assuming I'm a subordinate partner in my marriage. My marriage (and I hope you see yours the same way) is an equal partnership. Therefore, when I'm the partner who maintains the business relationship with the outside party - even when the property is held jointly - I expect correspondence to be addressed to me. At work, this would be like our vendors deciding to address all my correspondence to the guy who sits in the cube next to me. Sure, he's bought equipment from them, and gets correspondence as well, but I also have been a primary contact for them and expect my own correspondence.

The reason getting burned came up is because people didn't believe such a slight thing could cause any harm. Imagine if (God forbid) the OPs husband had just run off with another woman and filed a forwarding address with the post office. He'd now have her reservation - in his name. And if he were a real creep, he could call her up and say "me and the girlfriend are using your reservation and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it."

 

[ClarabelleCow]

"This has to do with the outside world assuming I'm a subordinate partner in my marriage"

Guess I am way too simple or just don't get it, but I really could care less what the outside world thinks!!! For myself, it just isn't something I would get upset about.

But that is me, and everyone is different, so I don't want you to think I am belittleing (not sure if that is even the correct word) your feelings, but for me it isn't a big deal.

 

[wintergreen]

I have read this entire thread with interest, and I think that part of the problem is that DVC seems to be very inconsistent with respect to addressing correspondence to owners. We have our original contract, one add-on and one resale. In all of these contracts, my husband's name is listed first. However, we specifically asked that I be listed as the principal contact, as I make most of the reservations. I have noticed that I have gotten reservation confirmations addressed to me (sometimes) and DH (sometimes). Kinda weird, so I'm not sure that MS' systems are consistent.

What I don't think some businesses understand is that automatically defaulting to the male in the relationship may be costing them a lot of money! For instance, we decided not to become golf members at our country club because there can only be ONE member per household. Spouses and children are NOT MEMBERS and therefore are not able to use the facilities at desirable times. Granted, I could have been the member, but since DH golfs more than I do, it did not seem to make sense (even though we would like to be able to golf together on a Saturday morning). Anyway, as a result of this policy, we limited our membership to a social one, and spend our golfing dollars elsewhere.

Also, after I got married, my alma mater started sending me fundraising materials addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. wintergreen. Now, I changed my name when I got married, but Mr. wintergreen has NO affiliation with my alma mater. I called to ask the college to change my record to reflect my legal name, and to remove the Mr. from the address. They refused, so I have not contributed.

 

[crisi]

You're not simple, it just isn't something you care about.

As I said before, I really don't care if I'm in a HA room. I really don't care if someone says Welcome Home. I don't understand why people want to know what the "best" room is. I "don't get" why other people care about these things, but they do.

Unfortunately, I've been sensitized through experience to noticing - since I was married to the creep who got my interest deduction on his tax return (as well as some work related matters). I used to firmly believe "it didn't matter. All the important battles have been won. Sexism is a thing of the past." Learning differently was personal and painful. This is really a minor battle in the sexism thing. I've never called DVC to complain (though I have noticed, I don't think I could not notice any more).

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

I have been married for 35 years and it is no one's imagination that married women sometimes are automatically assumed to be the secondary member of the marriage. The good news is that it happens pretty infrequently now, compared to when I was first married. Keeping your "maiden" name then was seen by many to be a direct slap in the face of your husband, you automatically became Mrs. John Doe in virtually all correspondence (and if you loved him, were supposed to be thrilled about it), and it could still be difficult to get credit in your own name. I can still remember when women could be fired from their jobs, just because they got married. Anyone want to go back?

Is it worth the effort to point out the remaining symbols of sexism? I think it is today for the same reason it was then. The only reason things are different now is that some women then took the time to raise the issue, even when they were belittled for their efforts with some variation of "why are you making such a big deal over nothing?" (Sound familiar?) The changed world we have now was built on the backs of women who were laughed at at the time. The least we can do is to acknowledge that.

If it's no big deal, why shouldn't companies just go with what the couple decides? Usually the paperwork these days comes back the way we send it in - my husband's car is in his name with me as the co-owner, my car is the reverse. But when I did all of the work to buy into DVC, deliberately putting my name everywhere as the primary owner, and someone somewhere went to the specific effort to reverse the names so that suddenly my husband was the one getting all the correspondence, I do wonder why. After 35 years of often watching my husband's name become "primary" when I signed something first, but never seeing my name become "primary" when he signed first, I do assume now that someone decided that my husband "should" be primary because he is the man, and it does irritate me.

So in this case, I called the DVC and nicely told the woman I spoke with why I was upset, and asked her to have it changed back to the way my husband and I decided it should be in the first place. The whole thing took 1/2 hour out of my life. That 1/2 hour, added to the 1/2 hours that other women spend calling or writing the DVC (and other organizations) is the only thing that will prevent our daughters and grandaughters from having to make a call like it down the road.

 

[J and R's mom]

Hummm.. I kept my name when I got married so I understand this can become a bit confusing to others at times and cause inconveniences down the road if not corrected quickly. I went and checked my last conformation and it was addressed to me. I remember our guide said he would put my name first since I was the one who would be doing all the corresponding. So, I would guess it is the first one listed on the contract.

Same here, I didn't change my name when we were married either. I'm the primary contact (the original one that called in) and I'm the one that handled all of the phone calls and paperwork AND everything typically comes in my name. My DH's name is on some of the stuff and listed after mine, but mostly it's my name.

I do remember our guide asking me who the primary contact would be so that she could note the account. I told her that I was. And DH is very happy to have it that way. He just says, "Tell me when and where and I'll be there."

 

[rmontgo892]

I have been married for 35 years and it is no one's imagination that married women sometimes are automatically assumed to be the secondary member of the marriage. The good news is that it happens pretty infrequently now, compared to when I was first married. Keeping your "maiden" name then was seen by many to be a direct slap in the face of your husband, you automatically became Mrs. John Doe in virtually all correspondence (and if you loved him, were supposed to be thrilled about it), and it could still be difficult to get credit in your own name. I can still remember when women could be fired from their jobs, just because they got married. Anyone want to go back?

Is it worth the effort to point out the remaining symbols of sexism? I think it is today for the same reason it was then. The only reason things are different now is that some women then took the time to raise the issue, even when they were belittled for their efforts with some variation of "why are you making such a big deal over nothing?" (Sound familiar?) The changed world we have now was built on the backs of women who were laughed at at the time. The least we can do is to acknowledge that.

If it's no big deal, why shouldn't companies just go with what the couple decides? Usually the paperwork these days comes back the way we send it in - my husband's car is in his name with me as the co-owner, my car is the reverse. But when I did all of the work to buy into DVC, deliberately putting my name everywhere as the primary owner, and someone somewhere went to the specific effort to reverse the names so that suddenly my husband was the one getting all the correspondence, I do wonder why. After 35 years of often watching my husband's name become "primary" when I signed something first, but never seeing my name become "primary" when he signed first, I do assume now that someone decided that my husband "should" be primary because he is the man, and it does irritate me.

So in this case, I called the DVC and nicely told the woman I spoke with why I was upset, and asked her to have it changed back to the way my husband and I decided it should be in the first place. The whole thing took 1/2 hour out of my life. That 1/2 hour, added to the 1/2 hours that other women spend calling or writing the DVC (and other organizations) is the only thing that will prevent our daughters and grandaughters from having to make a call like it down the road.

Good for you! Thanks for taking the time! It cracks me up that we can be called sensitive, etc., over this/these issues but by all means the perfect view and how a resort is laid out can be discussed endlessly or should I say analytically. I enjoy the dialogue on both.

I respectfully disagree with "it is no one's imagination that married women sometimes are automatically assumed to be the secondary member of the marriage" because that's exactly what many believe including some of our fellow sisters! You question anything and your considered a trouble maker, sensitive...you name it. My favorite tag line has to be if your looking for sexism it you'll find it!

Peace

 

[rmontgo892]

To be fair, it doesn't sound like this is a consistant DVC practice. And in some cases it sounds like the tables are flipped - where all correspondence comes to the woman, even if the man indicated he'd like to be the primary contact. Without data, it would be impossible to prove that this is systemic. But when a man is chosen over a women intentionally - based on gender only, it is sexist - it is also sexist when a women is chosen over a man intentially - on gender only.

(Another story....one of the women I worked with in a Fortune 100 Facilities department told me that when she organized a move for a department (to a different floor, for instance), if she put women by the window they were always moved in favor of a man getting the window if there was a man at peer level that didn't have a window. Windows may seem to be silly things - but if they are so silly, why care who gets them - peer level OR gender?)

I can see that and in no way meant to imply DVC is knowingly doing "this." Hence the term institutionalized

The point I was making is that the OP was simply venting about something with a kind of..anyone else notice this with DVC. I personally haven't had a problem with DVC but I am not gonna say it doesn't happen cause I have experienced it in other walks of life!

I can't prove it was sexist or discriminatory! I can understand the OP's frustration and didn't enjoy the not so subtle character assassination, though. The good old...no problems here or why start some or look for it, type of attitude. It reeks of the...you asked for it mentality.

The more things change...the more they stay the same...

Psst...it's never considered silly when it comes from a man's solid point of view or valid opinion.

 

[msdis]

DVC is my thing, I bought it, I paid for it, and put DH's name as co-owner and it gives him great pleasure every time something comes in his name cause he knows it gets me.

To the op-I would like to think if it came down to it they would have figured it out at the desk. Just the same they should have been paying attention. Hope you have a wonderful trip.

 

[gazeborob]

OK, so I didn't read all 8 pages of replies, just the OP and a couple of others. Let me see here, you are going, you have a reservation and it is confirmed in DH name. SO WHAT!

GET OVER IT!

 

[athenna]

OK, so I didn't read all 8 pages of replies, just the OP and a couple of others. Let me see here, you are going, you have a reservation and it is confirmed in DH name. SO WHAT!

GET OVER IT!

The OPS's point was that her husband's name is on the ressie and he isn't even going! She was concerned that she may have a problem at check in because her name isn't on it. THAT'S WHAT!

 

[JerJan]

Thanks Athenna!!!!!!

 

[lenshanem]

If DVC's system is only capable of listing one person from the contract in their mailings, they really need to ask during the paperwork process who would like to be listed as the primary contact, regardless of sex. I can see how some would find the current situation insulting.

Like I mentioned earlier, in my situation it doesn't bother me that everything comes in hubby's name despite myself being the one that handles everything. I just open all his mail anyway.

But, after going back and reading some of the situations described in more detail I can see the problems that might arise given DVC's current handling of names on contracts.

 

[RweTHEREyet]

The same thing happens at our house. I did the research. I worked at the Disney Store and got the discount that enabled us to make the first purchase, I did all the legwork and made the payments with Disney Store (second job) earnings. Stuff comes in his name. oh well.

I also make all reservations for weekends when we don't use points, and dining reservations, they are all in my name. When we check in, my name is on that ressie, and I always get key No. 1. That gets him... oh well

 

[icydog]

I have been married for 35 years and it is no one's imagination that married women sometimes are automatically assumed to be the secondary member of the marriage. The good news is that it happens pretty infrequently now, compared to when I was first married. Keeping your "maiden" name then was seen by many to be a direct slap in the face of your husband, you automatically became Mrs. John Doe in virtually all correspondence (and if you loved him, were supposed to be thrilled about it), and it could still be difficult to get credit in your own name. I can still remember when women could be fired from their jobs, just because they got married. Anyone want to go back?

Is it worth the effort to point out the remaining symbols of sexism? I think it is today for the same reason it was then. The only reason things are different now is that some women then took the time to raise the issue, even when they were belittled for their efforts with some variation of "why are you making such a big deal over nothing?" (Sound familiar?) The changed world we have now was built on the backs of women who were laughed at at the time. The least we can do is to acknowledge that.

If it's no big deal, why shouldn't companies just go with what the couple decides? Usually the paperwork these days comes back the way we send it in - my husband's car is in his name with me as the co-owner, my car is the reverse. But when I did all of the work to buy into DVC, deliberately putting my name everywhere as the primary owner, and someone somewhere went to the specific effort to reverse the names so that suddenly my husband was the one getting all the correspondence, I do wonder why. After 35 years of often watching my husband's name become "primary" when I signed something first, but never seeing my name become "primary" when he signed first, I do assume now that someone decided that my husband "should" be primary because he is the man, and it does irritate me.

So in this case, I called the DVC and nicely told the woman I spoke with why I was upset, and asked her to have it changed back to the way my husband and I decided it should be in the first place. The whole thing took 1/2 hour out of my life. That 1/2 hour, added to the 1/2 hours that other women spend calling or writing the DVC (and other organizations) is the only thing that will prevent our daughters and grandaughters from having to make a call like it down the road.

I love what you said "Donaldbuzzandminnie". I was one of those women and I suspect you were too. They tried to make it a "burn the bra" issue but we wouldn't let them. I also agree this is a small thing to some because they haven't lived through discrimination in the job and in every other venue such as bank accounts and mortgages. Do you know they wouldn't count my income when figuring out if we could get a mortgage? I was, after all, suspect of becoming pregnant and therefore not credit worthy. It hurt me because we couldn't buy a house we could afford due to this sexist thinking.


"That 1/2 hour, added to the 1/2 hours that other women spend calling or writing the DVC (and other organizations) is the only thing that will prevent our daughters and grandaughters from having to make a call like it down the road.[/QUOTE]

That's what I don't get either. All the stuff I went through was considered small stuff at the time but aren't you glad you didn't have to live like that.. If our men, and I am including my dh, don't understand that our granddaughters might be affected by discrimination then they should re-examine their values.


"But when I did all of the work to buy into DVC, deliberately putting my name everywhere as the primary owner, and someone somewhere went to the specific effort to reverse the names so that suddenly my husband was the one getting all the correspondence, I do wonder why. After 35 years of often watching my husband's name become "primary" when I signed something first, but never seeing my name become "primary" when he signed first, I do assume now that someone decided that my husband "should" be primary because he is the man, and it does irritate me."

Thank you for saying this so well. I feel exactly the same way. Word for word this is true and should be revisited by whomever decided the man's name should be the default posistion! And yes, my husband doesn't understand the fuss each time a correspondence from DVC arrives in his name and not mine. He thinks it is hysterical that I am truly irked by this.

 

[Stimpy]

If DVC's system is only capable of listing one person from the contract in their mailings, they really need to ask during the paperwork process who would like to be listed as the primary contact, regardless of sex. I can see how some would find the current situation insulting.

They DO ask and it IS on our Purchase Agreement that I am the primary contact yet everything comes in DH's name. All he did was sign the Mickey's where I told him to sign...that was it. I did everything else. DH was the first one to tell our guide that I was to be the Primary Contact. It is in the contract, so I know our guide put in that information. Somewhere along the line DVC decided to change it to him. I think DVC owes me the $25 THEY charge to change the primary contact.

 

[athenna]

Thanks Athenna!!!!!!

No problem, I've got your back, girl
I feel sympathy for you, all you wanted to do was vent, and it's turned into a political issue

JUST LEAVE JERJAN ALONE ALREADY

 

[colleen costello]

Can I add fuel to the fire? I hate that DVC mail calls me "Mrs. Zanger" or "Mrs. Costello" because they were too clueless at closing to ask me what I preferred to be called. My dh and I DO have different last names, and one of the reasons that is the case is that I never wanted to be "Mrs. So-an-so." No disrespect to those who like the title, personally I do not. It seems to me that "Ms." is a better choice as it is appropriate in front of the name of ANY female. Why they have added "Mrs. " as my title is beyond me because I certainly would NEVER have referred to myself in this way.

Most of our DVC mail comes to me.

 

[wdwstar]

When we bought our points Dh & I our guide had asked who would be the one to make mosst of the ressies, DH said the wife..... i make all the ressies and all the ressies come in my name . except for one time i needed two rooms at the same time , so i had put one in my name and one in DH name and that is how the conf. letters came one in DH and one in mine.
i believe it all has to do with who is listed on the deed first