Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Now I'm ticked

This article about how a stay-at-home mom was denied from being able to purchase a cell phone and was told that her husband should buy it for her was disturbing enough, but what really gets me is the comments from those defending the phone company!

This comment in particular burned me:

Of course mums work very hard, but that doesn't make them exempt from showing income against their name, which is what the real issue is.
This goes to a point which someone was making to me about how some (politicians, in particular) like to talk a good game about supporting families and family values, but our actions don't speak to it. And why we really need to start thinking more about the human beings at stake rather than setting arbritrary rules and laws that don't make any sense in a lot of situations.

Those that support the phone company seem to be arguing that, hey, how are they to know she can pay her bill? Anyone ever hear of deposits? Before assuming she can't pay her bill, how about giving her the chance? This would also be in the best interest of the company, who is in the business of selling phones.

I also have a real problem with anyone telling any woman how she should run her life.
She's not on welfare, she's not asking for special treatment, she's simply trying to buy a product. So long as she pays her bills (and since when have companies ever cared who pays the bills so long as they get paid), it really is none of our business what her family has chosen as their lifestyle.

I was beginning to question my original belief that governments should just get out of the marriage license business altogether, because we're having a major defecit problem right now and more marriages would frankly help (gay or straight).

But this has put me firmly back into the category of "stay the hell out of our lives." Stop assuming you know what I can and can't afford based on a few labels.

Next thing you know, apartment buildings will stop renting to single mothers because how are they going to be able to afford it without a man around?

Not to mention (well, okay, I guess I'm mentioning it) is this comes after a time when everyone was throwing loans around, regardless of income. So now I guess the pendulum is swinging far off in the other correct their mistakes, and we pay for it. Or can't buy it. BALANCE, people!!


Anonymous said...

Ok, never mind the sexist 1950s attitude of this problem, but seriously, who the fuck cares what a person's job is when they're buying a phone? Since when is it written into a mobile contract that you have to be employed. What if she were independently wealthy and unemployed, would she still be sent home to find a hubby to buy the damned thing. WTF is *that* about?

If she can pay her own bills (regardless of who brings in the money) why do they care if she's employed?

I'm not even going into the idea of full time parenting not being a "real" job.

Anonymous said...

I ran into this issue when I wasn't working and was still living with Jacob's Dad. It made me so angry. We couldn't put my name on our lease because I wasn't working.

And for some reason, companies don't give a rat's butt about customer service right now when they REALLY should be focusing on it.

(There's a rant building inside, but I'm not sure if I have the energy or willpower to spill it.)

Kori said...

Sad to say, this doesn't surprise me, nor does it even make me angry. Just tired, really, really tired. Maybe I can work up a good rant, but at the moment it just seems like one more thing that divides "us" from "them." God help me from ever becoming a "them."

Tara R. said...

When I was still a SAHM I had to fill out a form that asked for my occupation and salary. I put domestic engineer and then listed my hubs salary... cuz what was mine was mine, and what was his was mine.

Government should most definitely get out of the marriage business.

hugabug1 said...

I'm not on any of the paperwork for our house. It's all in Richard's name because he was the one with the job. They said it would be easier and faster to do everything in his name only. Also, it might affect our interest rate. Basically, it would be a nuisance to have to check my credit since I wasn't "contributing" to the payment. They did say, however, that it wouldn't affect my rights regarding ownership. Apparently the law in Arkansas says that what's his is mine. It's annoying because I'M the one who takes care of everything and I can't do certain things since I'm not on the paperwork.

Anonymous said...

This pisses me off to no end but like Natalie said, I'm not sure if I have the energy to spew on this. It's just so exhausting to be fighting this crap all. the. time.

Jen said...

This is a more common problem than most folks are aware of, and it's not just phone companies. Many areas want proof of employment income, which becomes difficult when you are not officially employed. I've been the major breadwinner in my marriage and now I earn very little. Interestingly enough, during the five or so years that I was the major breadwinner, my husband's income situation was never questioned when HE wanted to buy things, etc.

Me. Here. Right now. said...

Not so far from 1972 when women couldn't get a credit card in their own name but only as Mrs. John Doe.

Reestablishing credit after my divorce was pretty easy. But I had to lose the man to do it!

Anonymous said...

Un-fricken-believable! All I can say is that is bloody infuriating! Grrrrrrrrrrr............

Shiona said...

Wow. I didn't even know that mattered. That is pretty ridiculous. It's a phone, not a car.