NationStates Jolt Archive

I had thought Australia had ditched the '50s attitude towards women.

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/12/18/mom-denied-cell-phone-for-being-a-mom/?icid=200100397x1215797733x1201007038

I had thought Australia had ditched the '50s attitude towards women.

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/12/18/mom-denied-cell-phone-for-being-a-mom/?icid=200100397x1215797733x1201007038

well that sounds weird enough alright. introverted wannabe recluse that i am, what i have a hard time understanding is why anyone would want one. a cell phone that is. mom's of course come with the kind of life forms most of us presumably occupy.

Whoa. Despite the sexism (although I don't think it was fully intended) when did cell phone companies stop selling phones and contracts to people who couldn't afford them?

Whoa. Despite the sexism (although I don't think it was fully intended) when did cell phone companies stop selling phones and contracts to people who couldn't afford them?

(In USA)
When I got my Sprint phone, they ran a credit check on me. So presumably, it's possible to be denied one if your credit is hideous enough.
However, there are several pay-as-you-go options from various companies, for those who don't qualify for the ongoing plans.

I do find it shocking that the company would care how you came up with the money, though! To be denied for being a mom is ridiculous.

Well, I can sort of follow the logic of not giving contracts to people without proof of employment. But shouldn't proof of income for the family in this case be enough?

I had thought Australia had ditched the '50s attitude towards women.

Yeah, they dropped it like the beer and barbeques :tongue:

Only in Austrailia.

Vodaphone's position may be insane, but I think I 'get' it...

She's a stay-at-home mom, right? Okay, what's the divorce rate like in Australia? If she gets divorced, how can she pay for the phone?

They're being stupid, but I could almost see the broken logic they're using.

Vodaphone's position may be insane, but I think I 'get' it...

She's a stay-at-home mom, right? Okay, what's the divorce rate like in Australia? If she gets divorced, how can she pay for the phone?

They're being stupid, but I could almost see the broken logic they're using.

She's a stay-at-home mom. Thus if they get divorced, she gets a reasonable chunk of the property, and will probably also be getting support payments of some sort.

Finally, using that logic, they shouldn't give anyone contracts these days: I bet the rate of job loss is a damn sight higher than the divorce rate.

...
Wow.

from the article quoted in the OP
"Not good enough, said Vodafone -- they don't sell phones to moms."

That's so stupid, I'm inclined to think this is a spoof. Since when do shops refuse to sell an item to a customer on the grounds of the customer's job? Generally shops refues to sell only if you don't have enough money to pay (generally: that's what credit cards are for). 1 Mom's $ = 1 CEO's $.

meh.

No, it's a true story.

No, it's a true story.

That's... strange...

Unless the contract was somewhat strongly business-orientered, I mean.

Well, hopefully Vodaphone will lose a LOT of business. She should keep hammering them in the media, and keep hammering them, until, lest they keep bleeding business until they go bankrupt, they are FORCED TO GIVE her a cell phone, not only to sell her one, but to GIVE. At which point she should refuse it, sign a publicity contract with an opposing company for WAY MORE than a cell phone (but including one), and watch Vodaphone burn while she gets paid for it all. Their faces should be under her boot! She should hurt them. Change them into Orwell's picture of the future...

I highly doubt they don't sell phones to mums. That's ludicrous. What I assume happened is that she applied for a contract except she has no income. Part of what makes Australia awesome is that we don't try to fuck up people's lives: we have strict rules about lending, which is why we have some of the best banks in the world. I'm assuming there is a similar rule regarding phone contracts. If she has no income, she can not pay for the phone. She can, however, purchase a prepaid phone.

I highly doubt they don't sell phones to mums. That's ludicrous. What I assume happened is that she applied for a contract except she has no income. Part of what makes Australia awesome is that we don't try to fuck up people's lives: we have strict rules about lending, which is why we have some of the best banks in the world. I'm assuming there is a similar rule regarding phone contracts. If she has no income, she can not pay for the phone. She can, however, purchase a prepaid phone.

She could EASILY have proven income with her husband's paycheck. And the company knows it. Since she can afford it and is being refused it due to something she is not at fault for, she should FORCE THEM to do her bidding.

She could EASILY have proven income with her husband's paycheck. And the company knows it.

Then it should be in JOINT names.

Then it should be in JOINT names.

It should be like she wishes it to be. She can afford it and, even were they to get divorced, she'd still be able to due to the alimony. The company doesn't have a say in this. It exists to serve us.

It should be like she wishes it to be. She can afford it and, even were they to get divorced, she'd still be able to due to the alimony. The company doesn't have a say in this. It exists to serve us.

No.
It exists to make a profit. If it believes there is no profit and a potential risk in doing a deal, it should step away from it.

If only the banks in the US and UK had done the same :(

This is an attempt by a smart company to minimise risk and harm by ensuring the 2 year contract she was undoubtedly signing up for could be paid. Unfortunately, they went about it in a stupid, stupid, stupid way because their risk assessment model failed to take into account her husband's high wage, or else it was computed that the risk of divorce was too high for the 2 year contract.

I have no doubt that she could go on an indefinite post-paid plan, not to mention a pre-paid plan, but I'm certain the telco's have been burned before by screwing up people's lives with things they can't pay for.

She wanted a Blackberry Storm. At current going rates (if I remember my advertising correctly) that's a minimum of $80 a month for 2 years. That's a helluva lot of money. Yes, the way they treated her was disrespectful, especially all the "just get hubby to do it for you" stuff, but if gender were removed from it entirely, it's just a business decision. I'm certain that they would do the same were it a stay at home dad with an industrial electrician wife.

As AP said, we have extremely strict lending laws, to stop people digging themselves into uber-debt. This is just another facet of that. A poorly carried out, and quite possibly poorly thought out facet, but not sexism.

Well, that's shitty.

I highly doubt they don't sell phones to mums. That's ludicrous. What I assume happened is that she applied for a contract except she has no income. Part of what makes Australia awesome is that we don't try to fuck up people's lives: we have strict rules about lending, which is why we have some of the best banks in the world. I'm assuming there is a similar rule regarding phone contracts. If she has no income, she can not pay for the phone. She can, however, purchase a prepaid phone.

Sounds fair enough.

She could EASILY have proven income with her husband's paycheck. And the company knows it. Since she can afford it and is being refused it due to something she is not at fault for, she should FORCE THEM to do her bidding.

No it may not be her fault that she can't afford a phone that doesn't mean that a company should just give them.

How do you know she can afford it? Did you do a credit check on her? Do you know how much the family makes?

Of course the original source placed in the OP seems to have beaten up the story a lot and tried to turn this into a whole sexism issue, which is a stretch at best.

well, i thought stay-at-home "mom" died out as a profession in the 50's... but yeah, that story is pretty stupid. if she could afford it, then its stupid. if she couldn't, then its not really stupid, however

I think it's totally ridiculous. I could understand requiring some kind of proof of her husbands income perhaps, but this is just stupid. Especially so since her kids could probably get a phone if their old enough and they have proof of parental support. I smell a well deserved discrimination lawsuit ...

It should be like she wishes it to be. She can afford it and, even were they to get divorced, she'd still be able to due to the alimony. The company doesn't have a say in this. It exists to serve us.

1st. does Austrilia have alimony ?
2nd. is it legal for a wife to initate a credit check on her husband's income?


in texas the answer to both of these is no.

Good on Vodafone, mothers shouldn't be wasting money on themselves, they need to realize that family comes first.

Cell phone companies do credit checks when they sell phones? Since when?

Cell phone companies do credit checks when they sell phones? Since when?

Since they give away cheap phones on the assumption they claw back the money on high priced contracts you're expected to be able to pay for the forseeable future?

she should FORCE THEM to do her bidding.
thanks Heikoku... I now have an image of the Family Circus mom in Dominatrix Gear, snapping a whip shouting "You WILL do the biddings of your Mistress!"

I need to get some sleep... but I got at least 5 hours more to go... :tongue:

Since they give away cheap phones on the assumption they claw back the money on high priced contracts you're expected to be able to pay for the forseeable future?

I have not had a credit check for any of the three cell phone contracts I have signed in my life. I am surprised to find out that they do credit checks for such small amounts of money.

I have not had a credit check for any of the three cell phone contracts I have signed in my life. I am surprised to find out that they do credit checks for such small amounts of money.

Did you buy these recently or was this before the credit crunch?

That's so stupid, I'm inclined to think this is a spoof. Since when do shops refuse to sell an item to a customer on the grounds of the customer's job? Generally shops refues to sell only if you don't have enough money to pay (generally: that's what credit cards are for). 1 Mom's $ = 1 CEO's $.
Yes.

The issue was that Mom's $0 != CEO's $0.

If she took out the cash, she'd get the phone and prepaid plan no problem, anywhere. But she wanted credit, i.e. "I'll pay you later", and here they were not sure she could do that.


But getting a loan is a privilege, not a right. They weren't sure if she could pay them later. So they've lost a customer. It's their choice and their loss.

I have not had a credit check for any of the three cell phone contracts I have signed in my life. I am surprised to find out that they do credit checks for such small amounts of money.

if you had a previous contract with no issues they normally dont have to credit check you again. though they are pretty sly about how they do it normally while your filling out page 2 of the contact they use the info from page one to runa quick check.

Also if you have a credit card they waive credit checks. cause they can just bill the credit card.

I have not had a credit check for any of the three cell phone contracts I have signed in my life. I am surprised to find out that they do credit checks for such small amounts of money.

I've had a credit check everytime I've got a new phone. On my first contract I had to put down a deposit as I was just 18 and it was the first credit I'd had. I can't imagine what kind of half-arsed business wouldn't run a credit check before lending someone money.

I've had a credit check everytime I've got a new phone. On my first contract I had to put down a deposit as I was just 18 and it was the first credit I'd had. I can't imagine what kind of half-arsed business wouldn't run a credit check before lending someone money.

if you pay for your phone instead of using the cell phone contract to pay for/get cheaper prices.

if you pay for your phone instead of using the cell phone contract to pay for/get cheaper prices.

Why would I shell out the insane prices they ask for new handsets?

1st. does Austrilia have alimony ?
2nd. is it legal for a wife to initate a credit check on her husband's income?


in texas the answer to both of these is no.

We already know how backwards Texas is, I don't think you need to advertise it.

We already know how backwards Texas is, I don't think you need to advertise it.

Why is preventing wives from initiating credit checks on their husbands finances backwards?

We already know how backwards Texas is, I don't think you need to advertise it.

no we jsut seperated child support and alimony, then decied that alimony was a hold over from an old backwads era when women couldnt work for themselves.

Why is preventing wives from initiating credit checks on their husbands finances backwards?

I was commenting on the alimony, actually, but I think that signing a marriage contract with someone should be like any other business partnership--there should be transparency and shared responsibility. If a couple decides that the husband will continue with his job, providing the monetary support they need, and the wife (we are presuming a heterosexual marriage of course) will become a career mother, providing the day-to-day maintenance and child-rearing they need, then those are the roles they have chosen. However, the husband is not entitled to keep his earnings, assets and credit hidden, or hand out "allowances", just because because he's the "bread winner." By that logic, the wife should be able to refuse to allow the husband to have contact with their children, since it's her domain.

no we jsut seperated child support and alimony, then decied that alimony was a hold over from an old backwads era when women couldnt work for themselves.

That's fine and dandy, as soon as you decide that unequal pay for equal work and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion are equally antiquated and should be abolished.

I was commenting on the alimony, actually, but I think that signing a marriage contract with someone should be like any other business partnership--there should be transparency and shared responsibility. If a couple decides that the husband will continue with his job, providing the monetary support they need, and the wife (we are presuming a heterosexual marriage of course) will become a career mother, providing the day-to-day maintenance and child-rearing they need, then those are the roles they have chosen. However, the husband is not entitled to keep his earnings, assets and credit hidden, or hand out "allowances", just because because he's the "bread winner." By that logic, the wife should be able to refuse to allow the husband to have contact with their children, since it's her domain.

Perhaps I should rephrase, why is it backward preventing one party from initiating credit checks on the other party within a marriage?

Both parties are due some degree of privacy and if a marriage has deteriated to the point where the parties are no longer living up to the roles they have agreed then I think there are more important problems than whether the stay at home mum or dad can get a new mobile phone.

Good on Vodafone, mothers shouldn't be wasting money on themselves, they need to realize that family comes first.

I giggled. Thank you.

:fluffle:

thanks Heikoku... I now have an image of the Family Circus mom in Dominatrix Gear, snapping a whip shouting "You WILL do the biddings of your Mistress!"

I need to get some sleep... but I got at least 5 hours more to go... :tongue:

I was going towards 1984. Y'know, boot on face...

Vodaphone's position may be insane, but I think I 'get' it...

She's a stay-at-home mom, right? Okay, what's the divorce rate like in Australia? If she gets divorced, how can she pay for the phone?

They're being stupid, but I could almost see the broken logic they're using.
They can cut her service off for non-payment IF such a time comes -- like they would do for anyone who can't pay their bills.

Perhaps I should rephrase, why is it backward preventing one party from initiating credit checks on the other party within a marriage?

Both parties are due some degree of privacy and if a marriage has deteriated to the point where the parties are no longer living up to the roles they have agreed then I think there are more important problems than whether the stay at home mum or dad can get a new mobile phone.
because when you are married you have a financial bond with your spouse and if the son-of-a-bitch is ruining your credit rating you have an urgent need to know it.

They can cut her service off for non-payment IF such a time comes -- like they would do for anyone who can't pay their bills.

getting the 300 dollar phone back that she got for free provided she fufill her 2 year agreement is a differnt story however.

getting the 300 dollar phone back that she got for free provided she fufill her 2 year agreement is a differnt story however.

They can sue for it.

Heikoku: Sue, pay $200 in expenses, and get an old used phone worth $20? Great idea.

getting the 300 dollar phone back that she got for free provided she fufill her 2 year agreement is a differnt story however.
^This.
Don't see what the fuss is about, getting credit is not a natural right.

I've paid in cash for my first cell phone, which I'm still using and have no intention of replacing in the next... well, until they make something as good again, if they ever do.

Heikoku: Sue, pay $200 in expenses, and get an old used phone worth $20? Great idea.

Then sue for the interest as well. The point being, they don't get to pick and choose who to do business with.

Then sue for the interest as well.
Yeah. Sue, sue, sue. That's REALLY what everyone loves to do.
They should also sue these bankrupt homelenders and solve the crisis.


The point being, they don't get to pick and choose who to do business with.
Of course they do. It's their right as a lender not to lend money if they don't feel confidence in the person's ability to pay. Or if they feel a bit dizzy today.

If you come to me and demand that I lend you money, I'll see it as extortion, not "me not getting to pick whom to deal with".

It should be like she wishes it to be. She can afford it and, even were they to get divorced, she'd still be able to due to the alimony. The company doesn't have a say in this. It exists to serve us.

No. She CAN'T afford it. She doesn't have money. The money is not hers. If she does not have a job, she does not earn money.

Sounds fair enough.

And if you of all people think it's fair enough, I can't believe the idiocy of the people who can't understand that the article and the mother's situation is ridiculous.

Cell phone companies do credit checks when they sell phones? Since when?

Since Australia is a decent country? Also, it's not the phone that was the problem. It's the contract. If you can't afford a contract, you can't have one. Simple.

Yeah. Sue, sue, sue. That's REALLY what everyone loves to do.
They should also sue these bankrupt homelenders and solve the crisis.



Of course they do. It's their right as a lender not to lend money if they don't feel confidence in the person's ability to pay. Or if they feel a bit dizzy today.

If you come to me and demand that I lend you money, I'll see it as extortion, not "me not getting to pick whom to deal with".
well one can always hope that such a policy causes them to go out of business then.

Yeah. Sue, sue, sue. That's REALLY what everyone loves to do.
They should also sue these bankrupt homelenders and solve the crisis.



Of course they do. It's their right as a lender not to lend money if they don't feel confidence in the person's ability to pay. Or if they feel a bit dizzy today.

If you come to me and demand that I lend you money, I'll see it as extortion, not "me not getting to pick whom to deal with".

*Nods*

well one can always hope that such a policy causes them to go out of business then.

You have to be kidding me.

You have to be kidding me.
why?

treating a grown woman like a child who has to ask daddy for a phone should make her and everyone she knows choose to do business elsewhere.

well one can always hope that such a policy causes them to go out of business then.
Well, you can always hope, true enough.

In practice, though, it's the companies with irresponsible lending policies that are likely to go out of business.
This time her husband is an electrician, who is supposedly immune to losing his job. Next time it's going to be a non-citizen immigrant on minimum wage just about to get sacked.

In some better situation, probably it makes sense to grant all requests, but right now there's a shortage of credit money, if someone gets it, someone else doesn't. So you have to choose the ones more likely to pay back.

You have to be kidding me.I agree.
The company exist to make a profit. If they believe you will not be able to pay your bill, they have every right to with-hold their service or product.

I agree.
The company exist to make a profit. If they believe you will not be able to pay your bill, they have every right to with-hold their service or product.
of course they do. but if their policy pisses off too many customers they will fail (unless there are no other reasonable phone providers in australia)

of course they do. but if their policy pisses off too many customers they will fail (unless there are no other reasonable phone providers in australia)

It bewilders me that you see this is "unreasonable". Our credit system is one of the most reasonable in the world. It's rather reasonable to not give people things they can't afford. If the customer can't pay it hurts them as well as the companies.

why?

treating a grown woman like a child who has to ask daddy for a phone should make her and everyone she knows choose to do business elsewhere.

Then that grown woman should get a job, or accept that she will need to get the contract in joint names.

Well, you can always hope, true enough.

In practice, though, it's the companies with irresponsible lending policies that are likely to go out of business.
This time her husband is an electrician, who is supposedly immune to losing his job. Next time it's going to be a non-citizen immigrant on minimum wage just about to get sacked.

In some better situation, probably it makes sense to grant all requests, but right now there's a shortage of credit money, if someone gets it, someone else doesn't. So you have to choose the ones more likely to pay back.

Also, if the phone is only in her name, the husband - be he electrician or minimum-wage worker - has no financial responsibility for the bill.

of course they do. but if their policy pisses off too many customers they will fail (unless there are no other reasonable phone providers in australia)What's the general reaction of the Australian population?

No. She CAN'T afford it. She doesn't have money. The money is not hers. If she does not have a job, she does not earn money.

You know the guy with the nice job? Yeah, he may lose it too. Why don't we suggest, then, that ALL cell phones must be pre-paid or such?

Shit happens. It's NOT an excuse to discriminate against people.

What's the general reaction of the Australian population?

I'm Australian. Read what I said. I have a feeling most of us would agree.

You know the guy with the nice job? Yeah, he may lose it too. Why don't we suggest, then, that ALL cell phones must be pre-paid or such?

Shit happens. It's NOT an excuse to discriminate against people.

Sweetheart, I have a feeling you have no idea what's going on.

It's not discrimination. Did you even read the article? Did you even read the thread? Did you even read what you quoted? I don't think so.

It bewilders me that you see this is "unreasonable". Our credit system is one of the most reasonable in the world. It's rather reasonable to not give people things they can't afford. If the customer can't pay it hurts them as well as the companies.



Then that grown woman should get a job, or accept that she will need to get the contract in joint names.



Also, if the phone is only in her name, the husband - be he electrician or minimum-wage worker - has no financial responsibility for the bill.
if you are fine with wives being treated like children...well its your country.

if you are fine with wives being treated like children...well its your country.

You're being ludicrous.

She's not being treated like a child.


God, I can't handle the stupidity.

Sweetheart, I have a feeling you have no idea what's going on.

It's not discrimination. Did you even read the article? Did you even read the thread? Did you even read what you quoted? I don't think so.

Yes, yes it is. Mainly because the woman is being forced to depend on her husband's name due to taking care of her children.

Which of the "sometimes" of your avatar are you on, currently?

You're being ludicrous.

She's not being treated like a child.


God, I can't handle the stupidity.
of course she is. she was told to go get her husbands permission to get a phone.

Yes, yes it is. Mainly because the woman is being forced to depend on her husband's name due to taking care of her children.

Which of the "sometimes" of your avatar are you on, currently?

Plenty of women take care of their children and work. This woman chooses not to work. If she does not work, she does not have her own income. If she does not have her own income, she can not get a phone contract because she has no proof that she can pay for it. She can, however, get a phone contract in joint names.

Oh, and save the petty jokes for someone who thinks you're witty.

of course she is. she was told to go get her husbands permission to get a phone.

No, she wasn't.

She can go get a prepaid phone any time she likes. She can not, however, have a contract with a phone company if she doesn't earn any money.

Plenty of women take care of their children and work. This woman chooses not to work. If she does not work, she does not have her own income. If she does not have her own income, she can not get a phone contract because she has no proof that she can pay for it. She can, however, get a phone contract in joint names.

Oh, and save the petty jokes for someone who thinks you're witty.



No, she wasn't.

She can go get a prepaid phone any time she likes. She can not, however, have a contract with a phone company if she doesn't earn any money.
big letters doesnt change that she is being treated like a child.

big letters doesnt change that she is being treated like a child.

No matter how big I write, you can't get it through your head can you?

No matter how big I write, you can't get it through your head can you?
no big letters will not change the facts.

no big letters will not change the facts.Maybe you are misreading what the facts are? The mother has no source of income, other than her husband. Therefore, it would make more sense for the husband to be the one signing the contract. Seeing as he is her source of income.

Maybe you are misreading what the facts are? The mother has no source of income, other than her husband. Therefore, it would make more sense for the husband to be the one signing the contract. Seeing as he is her source of income.

Thank you.

Maybe you are misreading what the facts are? The mother has no source of income, other than her husband. Therefore, it would make more sense for the husband to be the one signing the contract. Seeing as he is her source of income.
she is not his child, she is his wife.

no big letters will not change the facts.

You're not LISTENING to the facts. I'm telling the facts to you yet you refuse to listen.


Here, have some sand to stick your head in. It will make ignoring reality easier:
http://www.ataktrucking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/post.bank_run_sand_for_sale.jpg

You're not LISTENING to the facts. I'm telling the facts to you yet you refuse to listen.


Here, have some sand to stick your head in. It will make ignoring reality easier:
http://www.ataktrucking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/post.bank_run_sand_for_sale.jpg
you seem to think that married persons are and should be totally seperate financial units.

they are not.

she is not his child, she is his wife.

So?

she is not his child, she is his wife.Yes, but that has absolutely no bearing on what I just said.
She is a stay at home mom. She does nothing to earn money, other than be married to her husband. Who, conveniently, makes money. Therefore, he is a good line of credit for her, because he makes money with which he can pay his debts.
The mother lacks this particular ability. I would not give her a cell phone, either. Unless the husband (Who makes money, surprise surprise.) was consenting to pay the bill.

you seem to think that married persons are and should be totally seperate financial units.

they are not.

If they aren't totally separate financially, then both their names should be on the contract.

Does reading comprehension trouble you, at all?

Yes, but that has absolutely no bearing on what I just said.
She is a stay at home mom. She does nothing to earn money, other than be married to her husband. Who, conveniently, makes money. Therefore, he is a good line of credit for her, because he makes money with which he can pay his debts.
The mother lacks this particular ability. I would not give her a cell phone, either. Unless the husband (Who makes money, surprise surprise.) was consenting to pay the bill.

Apparently she believes there is some sort of magical money that will magically pay the bill in magical land.

Yes, but that has absolutely no bearing on what I just said.
She is a stay at home mom. She does nothing to earn money, other than be married to her husband. Who, conveniently, makes money. Therefore, he is a good line of credit for her, because he makes money with which he can pay his debts.
The mother lacks this particular ability. I would not give her a cell phone, either. Unless the husband (Who makes money, surprise surprise.) was consenting to pay the bill.
so you think that she should be his .... defacto child who has no say on how the household money is spent?

you think that only he should be responsible for buying things, for making contracts, for all financial decisions?

and that is somehow a good and modern way to live?

so you think that she should be his .... Defacto child who has no say on how the household money is spent?

You think that only he should be responsible for buying things, for making contracts, for all financial decisions?

And that is somehow a good and modern way to live?

headdeskheaddeskheaddesk

If they aren't totally separate financially, then both their names should be on the contract.

Does reading comprehension trouble you, at all?
so if HE went in to get a phone, the provider should tell him that he must get his wife's permission?

so if HE went in to get a phone, the provider should tell him that he must get his wife's permission?

No.

You still don't get it do you? It's nothing to do with permission.

Have you had a god damn TIA or something?

you think that only he should be responsible for buying things, for making contracts, for all financial decisions?
Well, it's between them. Her only power rests on the agreement that she stays at home and he works. If they decide to manage their finances that way, they have to be consistent with it.


and that is somehow a good and modern way to live?
A modern way to live is for both parents to have a job.

*snip*I think that they should spend money together. That's what marriage is, IIRC. A union of two people. One part of that union who does not contribute financially should not go gallivanting off to spend money that the other part of the union makes without the other part's consent.

No.

You still don't get it do you? It's nothing to do with permission.

Have you had a god damn TIA or something?
i am shocked that you think that a woman who decides to stay home with her children should be a second class citizen.

I think that they should spend money together. That's what marriage is, IIRC. A union of two people. One part of that union who does not contribute financially should not go gallivanting off to spend money that the other part of the union makes without the other part's consent.
and that is a good idea to some extent.

in reality its pretty hard to be together for every freaking thing that might require a contract whether it be a cell phone, newspaper delivery, or cable tv.

i am shocked that you think that a woman who decides to stay home with her children should be a second class citizen.

I don't think that. You are having serious comprehension problems. I think I'll leave you to it. Remember, yogurt goes in the fridge not the cupboard.

and that is a good idea to some extent.

in reality its pretty hard to be together for every freaking thing that might require a contract whether it be a cell phone, newspaper delivery, or cable tv.My parents have managed to do it quite well.

My parents have managed to do it quite well.

Perhaps it's because they're not inbred. :/

My parents have managed to do it quite well.
oh i expect that if you ask youll find that while they may have agreed to such things they didnt both show up at every contract signing for minor expenses.

I don't think that. You are having serious comprehension problems. I think I'll leave you to it. Remember, yogurt goes in the fridge not the cupboard.
well then what do you mean by suggesting that a married stay at home mom has no right to make the decision to spend family money on a cell phone?

Yes, but that has absolutely no bearing on what I just said.
She is a stay at home mom. She does nothing to earn money, other than be married to her husband. Who, conveniently, makes money. Therefore, he is a good line of credit for her, because he makes money with which he can pay his debts.
The mother lacks this particular ability. I would not give her a cell phone, either. Unless the husband (Who makes money, surprise surprise.) was consenting to pay the bill.

She does nothing to earn money - except - if she's at all like the "housewives" of the fifties in America - she manages the finances, pays the bills, buys the food, prepares the food, cleans up after the meals, cleans up after his messes, takes care of the children, does the laundry and runs all his errands, manages appointments for the family - for this she gets to sleep in his bed, live in his house, eat his food and be patronized by him and anyone else who cares to be a condescending asshole. There's not enough money in the world to pay a hired servant to do everything a "housewife" does. If you think she's some sort of useless drone - think again.

well then what do you mean by suggesting that a married stay at home mom has no right to make the decision to spend family money on a cell phone?

I DID NOT SAY THAT.

My IQ is dropping ten points just reading what you write.

She does nothing to earn money - except - if she's at all like the "housewives" of the fifties in America - she manages the finances, pays the bills, buys the food, prepares the food, cleans up after the meals, cleans up after his messes, takes care of the children, does the laundry and runs all his errands, manages appointments for the family - for this she gets to sleep in his bed, live in his house, eat his food and be patronized by him and anyone else who cares to be a condescending asshole. There's not enough money in the world to pay a hired servant to do everything a "housewife" does. If you think she's some sort of useless drone - think again.

I highly doubt he thinks it's some sort of "useless drone".

But she doesn't make money.

It's very simple.

I DID NOT SAY THAT.

My IQ is dropping ten points just reading what you write.
then you think she should have been able to contract for a cell phone as long as they had a good enough credit rating?

then you think she should have been able to contract for a cell phone as long as they had a good enough credit rating?

No. I think she should be able to have a contract in her own name if she has a good credit rating AND INCOME.

If you think she's some sort of useless drone - think again.I have a mother. I know from doing what I can around the house what kind of chore it is for her to do most of the above, and have a job at the same time. (Being an accountant might help with the finance part, though.)

It's just that she (the housewife), very simply, does not make money.

She does nothing to earn money
[...]
If you think she's some sort of useless drone - think again.
No one's saying she's some sort of useless drone. It's merely that she doesn't have her own reliable income. For all the money she has, she is totally dependent on her husband.

Obviously she can spend the money she's given to spend all she wants.

But now some credit company is not convinced that it counts as reliable income, and prefers not to take the risk.

Yes, she is doing hard work. But not formally paid. And your lender doesn't care how hard do you work, he cares how well do you earn.

I highly doubt he thinks it's some sort of "useless drone".

But she doesn't make money.

It's very simple.

And if it weren't for her, he'd have to hire two or three people to do everything she does - she may not "earn" money, but she's saving her husband a ton. You should, I feel, rethink your '50s attitudes. You relegate her to the status of a dependent when, if anything, they're interdependent. If there were real equality he would pay her what she's worth, in which case, she'd probably be earning more than him.

In the final analysis, she contributes to his excellent credit rating and so, should partake of it - without having to ask for his permission, any more than he has to ask for hers.

No. I think she should be able to have a contract in her own name if she has a good credit rating AND INCOME.
you seem to be splitting some hair that i dont see.

she is a stay at home mother. she does not have seperate income...therefore you are saying that she should have no right to make a simple contract to buy cell phone service without her husband's express in person permission--same as if she were a 17 year old minor.

where did i go wrong with that?

No one's saying she's some sort of useless drone. It's merely that she doesn't have her own reliable income. For all the money she has, she is totally dependent on her husband.

Obviously she can spend the money she's given to spend all she wants.

But now some credit company is not convinced that it counts as reliable income, and prefers not to take the risk.

Yes, she is doing hard work. But not formally paid. And your lender doesn't care how hard do you work, he cares how well do you earn.
which is why they should be punished for their policy by people dropping their condescending services.

And if it weren't for her, he'd have to hire two or three people to do everything she does - she may not "earn" money, but she's saving her husband a ton. You should, I feel, rethink your '50s attitudes. You relegate her to the status of a dependent when, if anything, they're interdependent. If there were real equality he would pay her what she's worth, in which case, she'd probably be earning more than him.

In the final analysis, she contributes to his excellent credit rating and so, should partake of it.Does the company recognize hard work, or actual finance?

And if it weren't for her,
And if it weren't for my legs, I'd have to move around in a wheelchair.


What does it change?
Money is green crunchy paper, it's not "what would they do without me".

You're still looking at some perfect world rather than the real one. Green crunchy paper. Or other form of money. That's what buys goods. Not "without me someone would have to hire someone else".

And if it weren't for her, he'd have to hire two or three people to do everything she does - she may not "earn" money, but she's saving her husband a ton. You should, I feel, rethink your '50s attitudes. You relegate her to the status of a dependent when, if anything, they're interdependent. If there were real equality he would pay her what she's worth, in which case, she'd probably be earning more than him.

In the final analysis, she contributes to his excellent credit rating and so, should partake of it.

I do not have a 50s attitude. I have a logical viewpoint. You, however, seem to be struggling with that. If she does not make money she can not have a contract. It's simple. I really can't see how it can be expressed in any other way. If they are interdependent, then both of their names should be on the contract. What is wrong with expecting the person who pays the bills to be on the contract?

you seem to be splitting some hair that i dont see.

she is a stay at home mother. she does not have seperate income...therefore you are saying that she should have no right to make a simple contract to buy cell phone service without her husband's express in person permission--same as if she were a 17 year old minor.

where did i go wrong with that?

Where did you go wrong with that? Oh, golly gosh, where can I begin?

Yes. She is a stay at home mother. That is correct.

Yes she does not have a separate income. That is correct.

No, I never said she didn't have the right to sign a contract.

No, she does not need her husband's permission. Even if the husband came in and said "I give her permission", it would be irrelevant.

He needs to be on the contract because he pays the bill.

Does the company recognize hard work, or actual finance?

This is magical land of the magic money, remember?



The viewpoints of these people is starting to make me realise how the world got into this credit situation in the first place.

He needs to be on the contract because he pays the bill.Exactly. Is this concept hard to understand?

And if it weren't for my legs, I'd have to move around in a wheelchair.


What does it change?
Money is green crunchy paper, it's not "what would they do without me".

You're still looking at some perfect world rather than the real one. Green crunchy paper. Or other form of money. That's what buys goods. Not "without me someone would have to hire someone else".
married people dont live as seperate financial entities no matter if one works, both work or neither work. they assume each other's debts. they have claim on each other's money.

married people dont live as seperate financial entities no matter if one works, both work or neither work. they assume each other's debts. they have claim on each other's money.Of which he can claim none. Because she has none.

I do not have a 50s attitude. I have a logical viewpoint. You, however, seem to be struggling with that. If she does not make money she can not have a contract. It's simple. I really can't see how it can be expressed in any other way. If they are interdependent, then both of their names should be on the contract. What is wrong with expecting the person who pays the bills to be on the contract?



Where did you go wrong with that? Oh, golly gosh, where can I begin?

Yes. She is a stay at home mother. That is correct.

Yes she does not have a separate income. That is correct.

No, I never said she didn't have the right to sign a contract.

No, she does not need her husband's permission. Even if the husband came in and said "I give her permission", it would be irrelevant.

He needs to be on the contract because he pays the bill.
he pays the bill whether he is on a contract or not.

if HE goes in to get a cell phone and then loses his job, SHE Is liable for that contract just as much as he is.

if you think that both should be on the contract, just say so. i dont see that its an important thing with an expense so small but if you think so, thats fine.

married people dont live as seperate financial entities no matter if one works, both work or neither work. they assume each other's debts. they have claim on each other's money.
You should go to the government and propose some bills to legislate that and give it a solid financial ground, establishing an alliance of a man and a woman as a distinct inseparable entity.

Then, she'll be fully able to sign in her husband's name.

Of which he can claim none. Because she has none.
she has his.

a housewife saves her family oodles of money. that doesnt get counted because all income is family income and making it stretch is as important as earning it.

I do not have a 50s attitude. I have a logical viewpoint. You, however, seem to be struggling with that. If she does not make money she can not have a contract. It's simple. I really can't see how it can be expressed in any other way. If they are interdependent, then both of their names should be on the contract. What is wrong with expecting the person who pays the bills to be on the contract?



Where did you go wrong with that? Oh, golly gosh, where can I begin?

Yes. She is a stay at home mother. That is correct.

Yes she does not have a separate income. That is correct.

No, I never said she didn't have the right to sign a contract.

No, she does not need her husband's permission. Even if the husband came in and said "I give her permission", it would be irrelevant.

He needs to be on the contract because he pays the bill.

It would only be fair if he had to get her permission to spend what amounts to their joint income as he would not have as much to spend if not for her work.

If he wants to buy a phone, he needs her permission. If he wants to go out for a few drinks with the guys, he needs her permission. If he wants to treat her like a child, she gets to treat him like a child. If he wants a relationship with an adult, he needs to treat her like an adult and require the rest of the world to treat her like an adult because that's what she is. She may not earn money, but she takes adult responsibilities. It's the epitome of insulting behavior to say that, though her actions contribute to his earning power, because she herself earns nothing she can, with impunity, be treated like she is nothing.

You should go to the government and propose some bills to legislate that and give it a solid financial ground, establishing an alliance of a man and a woman as a distinct inseparable entity.

Then, she'll be fully able to sign in her husband's name.
she shouldnt have to sign in her husbands name. she should be able to sign in her own name.

as is the case in most contracts for such services that i have ever signed. it goes in my husbands name or in my own and, in the end, both of us are responsible for it.

she has his.

a housewife saves her family oodles of money. that doesnt get counted because all income is family income and making it stretch is as important as earning it.Please note the underlined. A company does not care what you do if you do not make money doing it. It doesn't matter how much money you save your husband/wife by doing what you do. If you do not make money, the company is not going to let you sign a contract with it.

Please note the underlined. A company does not care what you do if you do not make money doing it. It doesn't matter how much money you save your husband/wife by doing what you do. If you do not make money, the company is not going to let you sign a contract with it.
the company is a fool who is alienating customers.

if she gets a phone, HE cannot walk away from the bill.

please do not mind me beating my head against my desk.

Please do, perhaps shaking it up a little will open your mind.

Please do, perhaps shaking it up a little will open your mind.

Oh please, thats rediculous. It has nothing to do with a "closed mind". No one has said anything sexist or anything, so dont pretend like they have.

Please do, perhaps shaking it up a little will open your mind.Or, perhaps, it will give you reason to think of why I am doing it.

Oh please, thats rediculous. It has nothing to do with a "closed mind". No one has said anything sexist or anything, so dont pretend like they have.

Actually it's very sexist. You're basically saying that it's legitimate to treat a stay at home mother like a child just because she shares in her husbands income instead of producing her own.

I doubt very much you would say the same if he were the one staying home.

Actually it's very sexist. You're basically saying that it's legitimate to treat a stay at home mother like a child just because she shares in her husbands income instead of producing her own.

I doubt very much you would say the same if he were the one staying home.And you simply assume this of me because...? :rolleyes:

And you simply assume this of me because...? :rolleyes:

Do you deny it?

And you simply assume this of me because...? :rolleyes:

Sssh. Just by screaming sexism, they dont have to have any real arguements.

Sssh. Just by screaming sexism, they dont have to have any real arguements.
popping in to cry sexism is off topic.

Do you deny it?Deny what? I have to know what you're accusing me of to deny something.

popping in to cry sexism is off topic.

Im not the one crying sexism.


Making the person who makes the money be on the contract is in no way sexist. I doubt anyone would be freaking out if the guy was not allowed a phone because he stayed at home.

Its not treating her like a child. Its the company covering their ass.

Im not the one crying sexism.
no youre the one who is off topic.

no youre the one who is off topic.

When confronted with your inability to argue, cry "off topic!"

:rolleyes:

When confronted with your inability to argue, cry "off topic!"

:rolleyes:
that made no sense.

Let me put it to you this way. My fiance and I applied for some little payment plan thing when I bought her the ring. I couldnt be the one who applied for it, because I didnt have an income, I was a student. She had to be the one listed on the plan, because she was working.

I didnt cry sexism. Is anyone else going to for me?

Is anyone else going to for me?Not I, because it isn't sexism. :p

Deny what? I have to know what you're accusing me of to deny something.

Though, because of the previous posts, you should understand what I'm talking about, I'll explain it. I think that you have a double standard and that if a man were a househusband, you would think that he should be able to get credit on his own, without his wife's permission.

But, if you believe that a stay at home Dad should get the same treatment as a stay at home mom, even though I disagree with you about what the treatment should be, I would, at least, give you credit for not being a sexist.

Let me put it to you this way. My fiance and I applied for some little payment plan thing when I bought her the ring. I couldnt be the one who applied for it, because I didnt have an income, I was a student. She had to be the one listed on the plan, because she was working.

I didnt cry sexism. Is anyone else going to for me?
you arent married.

Though, because of the previous posts, you should understand what I'm talking about, I'll explain it. I think that you have a double standard and that if a man were a househusband, you would think that he should be able to get credit on his own, without his wife's permission.

But, if you believe that a stay at home Dad should get the same treatment as a stay at home mom, even though I disagree with you about what the treatment should be, I would, at least, give you credit for not being a sexist.Equal treatment is equal treatment. If a man is a stay at home husband with no source of income, his wife's name should be on the contract because he cannot realistically pay the company back without his wife's consent. One should not assume that, just because you are married, you automatically have your wife's/husband's consent in all monetary situations.

I think that you have a double standard and that if a man were a househusband, you would think that he should be able to get credit on his own, without his wife's permission.


And you base this off what? Paranoia? Baseless assumption? No one has indicated such.


Bah, Im out. I have liquor to drink and cigarettes to smoke.

Equal treatment is equal treatment. If a man is a stay at home husband with no source of income, his wife's name should be on the contract because he cannot realistically pay the company back without his wife's consent. One should not assume that, just because you are married, you automatically have your wife's/husband's consent in all monetary situations.
yeah

that doesnt reflect reality very well. in a marriage both partners are on the hook for all the debts incurred no matter who incurrs them (there may be some way to have seperate finances but that requires some serious legal paperwork).


if the working husband racks up a huge debt and then they get divorced, she is on the hook for half that debt no matter that it was all HIS money or not.

yeah

that doesnt reflect reality very well. in a marriage both partners are on the hook for all the debts incurred no matter who incurrs them (there may be some way to have seperate finances but that requires some serious legal paperwork).


if the working husband racks up a huge debt and then they get divorced, she is on the hook for half that debt no matter that it was all HIS money or not.

That's why my ex's current wife is still with him. He's piled up over a $150,000 in credit card debt (without her permission) and it takes his entire paycheck to cover the monthly payments. Her paycheck goes to mortgage, car payments, food, and general living expenses. If they were to divorce she'd get half his debt, even though she doesn't get (or want) any of what he bought and he bought it all without consulting her. He continues to apply for, and get, credit cards in both their names without consulting her. Now tell me that's proper.

That's why my ex's current wife is still with him. He's piled up over a $150,000 in credit card debt (without her permission) and it takes his entire paycheck to cover the monthly payments. Her paycheck goes to mortgage, car payments, food, and general living expenses. If they were to divorce she'd get half his debt, even though she doesn't get (or want) any of what he bought and he bought it all without consulting her. He continues to apply for, and get, credit cards in both their names without consulting her. Now tell me that's proper.
my sister is in a similar spot. not that she WANTS to divorce her husband but he keeps racking up needless debt and he is of an age that he is going to die and leave her to pay all of it.

if she could figure a way to divorce him and have him take his own debt she would do it in a minute.

I understand, more and more, why the trend is for women in countries like Japan (and here for that matter) to marry late or never marry. Who wants to spend her life depending on someone else's good will to get what she needs - never mind what she wants?

I would certainly opt for less, if it were all mine, than for more that's doled out to me as he sees fit.

I think the fundamental difference in thinking here may be that, where I come from at least, spouses who don't work for monetary compensation aren't viewed as renters or dependents upon the other's income. Unless there's a prenup, whatever money is earned is their money, which means the person who has his/her name on the paycheck has no more right to spend it all than the person who doesn't. Clearly this is not the case in Australia. Personally, I think this is a stupid policy, but I don't have to live in Australia.

Perhaps it's because they're not inbred. :/

Flaming doesn't make your argument look any more reasonable, you know. It just makes you look puerile.

Exactly. Is this concept hard to understand?

Apparently so.

he pays the bill whether he is on a contract or not.

if HE goes in to get a cell phone and then loses his job, SHE Is liable for that contract just as much as he is.

if you think that both should be on the contract, just say so. i dont see that its an important thing with an expense so small but if you think so, thats fine.

But he has no liability to pay that bill because he's not on the contract.

It's not a personal belief that I think they both should be on the contract: it's simple logic.

she has his.

a housewife saves her family oodles of money. that doesnt get counted because all income is family income and making it stretch is as important as earning it.

I'm pretty sure the phone company doesn't care that she saves them money.

It would only be fair if he had to get her permission to spend what amounts to their joint income as he would not have as much to spend if not for her work.

If he wants to buy a phone, he needs her permission. If he wants to go out for a few drinks with the guys, he needs her permission. If he wants to treat her like a child, she gets to treat him like a child. If he wants a relationship with an adult, he needs to treat her like an adult and require the rest of the world to treat her like an adult because that's what she is. She may not earn money, but she takes adult responsibilities. It's the epitome of insulting behavior to say that, though her actions contribute to his earning power, because she herself earns nothing she can, with impunity, be treated like she is nothing.

She is not being treated like she is nothing. She is not being denied the right to telecommunications. She's not being denied the right to buy. She is being denied a contract based on the fact that she, herself, does not make any money.

the company is a fool who is alienating customers.

if she gets a phone, HE cannot walk away from the bill.

Alienation? Puh-lease.

He can too walk away from the bill. If he's not on the contract, he's not liable.

Please do, perhaps shaking it up a little will open your mind.

Or perhaps it will bring him down to your intellectual level.

Equal treatment is equal treatment. If a man is a stay at home husband with no source of income, his wife's name should be on the contract because he cannot realistically pay the company back without his wife's consent. One should not assume that, just because you are married, you automatically have your wife's/husband's consent in all monetary situations.

Exactly!

yeah

that doesnt reflect reality very well. in a marriage both partners are on the hook for all the debts incurred no matter who incurrs them (there may be some way to have seperate finances but that requires some serious legal paperwork).


if the working husband racks up a huge debt and then they get divorced, she is on the hook for half that debt no matter that it was all HIS money or not.

I'm not quite sure how your country's financial system works, but last time I checked, if I sign it, I pay it. Simple. If he signs it, he pays it. If we both sign it, then we're both "on the hook".

I understand, more and more, why the trend is for women in countries like Japan (and here for that matter) to marry late or never marry. Who wants to spend her life depending on someone else's good will to get what she needs - never mind what she wants?

I would certainly opt for less, if it were all mine, than for more that's doled out to me as he sees fit.

THEN GET A JOB.

Flaming doesn't make your argument look any more reasonable, you know. It just makes you look puerile.

I don't particularly care.

I think their point was .. how were they to guarantee they would pay? I see no problem in that. It wasn't a conspiracy against moms man.

On the poll choices.. I chose .. doesn't matter how you pay, just while you pay.. not in those exact words.. but it was meaning it.

The head line should've been 'Cant get a cell cause you have no credit'.. NOT cant get a cell cause you are a mom. Paaaleeeease.

and Anti-Social Darwinism you lost a bit of respect (not that you'd give a crap) from me when you were talking about your single daughter who couldn't make it on 30k a year,that she'd have to move back home. So you encouraged her .. or whatever to go in to the military where she now/then made 60k. I dunno what world you been living in, but for you to portray a person can't live on 30k is mighty disrespectful. There are many single parents with kids, those without the custody still paying.. and none make near 30k. I think you have been spoiled, honestly.

Let me repeat.. anyone .. especially a single person that cant live in teh US very very comfortably on 30k a year.. even before taxes.. are trying to live outside their means, trying to keep up with mommy and daddy, or brother and sister..or the jones', or a fool with their money. So .. there isn't a legitimate excuse. High on the Hog isn't an excuse.

Let me grab a 30k a year job. I'm living fat man. Most I ever made was $17 an hour at Tyco.. That's not even 30k ..I felt like I had money flying out my ass.. but I saved!! But no way in hell your daughter would've struggled on 30k. -snip- Ouch


forgot! ... vid! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y2gI0crRHU

THEN GET A JOB.





Sweetie, I'm retired. I worked for the same company for over 20 years and raised two kids - alone.

One of the reasons my ex and I divorced is because I realized that I was at his mercy financially - and that he enjoyed having me at his mercy.

I have no doubt that she could go on an indefinite post-paid plan, not to mention a pre-paid plan, but I'm certain the telco's have been burned before by screwing up people's lives with things they can't pay for.

She wanted a Blackberry Storm. At current going rates (if I remember my advertising correctly) that's a minimum of $80 a month for 2 years.

Well, strongly business-orientered contract, as I said... looks like Vodafone was right in not accepting a business contract with a person with no personal income. Why can't people use a bloody prepaid?

She's a stay-at-home mom. Thus if they get divorced, she gets a reasonable chunk of the property, and will probably also be getting support payments of some sort.

Finally, using that logic, they shouldn't give anyone contracts these days: I bet the rate of job loss is a damn sight higher than the divorce rate.

Note: "BROKEN" logic, as in rampant stupidity that looks reasonable on the surface, until you actually think about it. aka "Corporate Policy" American style.

The article probably doesn't tell the whole story, but going from what it does say, the sign-up process was halted as soon as the woman revealed she didn't work, with no further enquiries as to her financial situation.

From http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24812183-1243,00.html

"They asked for my details - my home number, my work number - and I told them I don't have a separate work number because I'm a mum. That's when she said 'We have a problem'," Ms Fair said.

Staff told her it was a regular occurrence and they had sent away another mum empty-handed only days before.

"They said their computers just don't allow it," she said."

"Vodafone spokesman Greg Spears yesterday confirmed the no-housewives rule and said getting a man to buy the phone instead was the quickest fix."

Some folks here seem to be claiming that she was turned down because she couldn't prove her ability to pay for the contract, leaving aside the concept of household income for the moment, but it seems her ability to pay was never actually investigated. She may have had another source of income. It is discriminatory to assume that a stay at home mother must be entirely dependent on her husband, and the assumption that a married woman has no right to spend the household money does relegate her to the status of child.

Slightly off topic, but as an aid to understanding - our married couples not treated as financial entities in Australia? Are the two partners always considered separately? does that have an impact on the number of stay at home parents?

yeah

that doesnt reflect reality very well. in a marriage both partners are on the hook for all the debts incurred no matter who incurrs them (there may be some way to have seperate finances but that requires some serious legal paperwork).


if the working husband racks up a huge debt and then they get divorced, she is on the hook for half that debt no matter that it was all HIS money or not.Exactly. Equal treatment is equal treatment. If she incurs debt, he must assist in paying it back. If he incurs debt, she must assist in paying it back. However, the housewife in this particular situation has no means of assisting the husband in paying back any debt that is created from this contract. It works both ways. :rolleyes:

But he has no liability to pay that bill because he's not on the contract.



now i obviously dont know the laws of australia but before you get married you better read up on them.

Exactly. Equal treatment is equal treatment. If she incurs debt, he must assist in paying it back. If he incurs debt, she must assist in paying it back. However, the housewife in this particular situation has no means of assisting the husband in paying back any debt that is created from this contract. It works both ways. :rolleyes:
what does that have to do with it?

when you are married its family money. she assists in paying it by making sure that it gets paid. by making sure that there is money to pay it.

people who have 2 wage earners depend on each other's money to get the bills paid. when a wife with a job gets a cell phone she still has to rely on her husbands money to make the payments since they have far more obligations than are covered by her paycheck alone. if he loses his job or she loses hers they will not be able to pay for the phone.

either both people need to show up in person to verify that they both are willing to take the debt or its OK for one or the other to do it. they are both obligated to pay the debt no matter which way is chosen.

Then sue for the interest as well. The point being, they don't get to pick and choose who to do business with.

WTF? H2, are you serious? Of course they get to pick and choose who they do business with.

if you are fine with wives being treated like children...well its your country.

Well actually it is a British company. So go figure.

Yes, but that has absolutely no bearing on what I just said.
She is a stay at home mom. She does nothing to earn money, other than be married to her husband. Who, conveniently, makes money. Therefore, he is a good line of credit for her, because he makes money with which he can pay his debts.
The mother lacks this particular ability. I would not give her a cell phone, either. Unless the husband (Who makes money, surprise surprise.) was consenting to pay the bill.

And who knows how much the income actually comes into the family as well. But I dare say some people would think this shouldn't matter, if he is on minimum wage then they should still be able to get a blackberry.

I doubt very much you would say the same if he were the one staying home.

Well I guess that's the definition of irony.

And if you of all people think it's fair enough, I can't believe the idiocy of the people who can't understand that the article and the mother's situation is ridiculous.

Sweetheart, I have a feeling you have no idea what's going on.

It's not discrimination. Did you even read the article? Did you even read the thread? Did you even read what you quoted? I don't think so.

You're being ludicrous.

She's not being treated like a child.


God, I can't handle the stupidity.

Plenty of women take care of their children and work. This woman chooses not to work. If she does not work, she does not have her own income. If she does not have her own income, she can not get a phone contract because she has no proof that she can pay for it. She can, however, get a phone contract in joint names.

Oh, and save the petty jokes for someone who thinks you're witty.



No, she wasn't.

She can go get a prepaid phone any time she likes. She can not, however, have a contract with a phone company if she doesn't earn any money.

No matter how big I write, you can't get it through your head can you?

You're not LISTENING to the facts. I'm telling the facts to you yet you refuse to listen.


Here, have some sand to stick your head in. It will make ignoring reality easier:
http://www.ataktrucking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/post.bank_run_sand_for_sale.jpg

If they aren't totally separate financially, then both their names should be on the contract.

Does reading comprehension trouble you, at all?

Apparently she believes there is some sort of magical money that will magically pay the bill in magical land.

headdeskheaddeskheaddesk

No.

You still don't get it do you? It's nothing to do with permission.

Have you had a god damn TIA or something?

I don't think that. You are having serious comprehension problems. I think I'll leave you to it. Remember, yogurt goes in the fridge not the cupboard.

Perhaps it's because they're not inbred. :/

I DID NOT SAY THAT.

My IQ is dropping ten points just reading what you write.

This is magical land of the magic money, remember?



The viewpoints of these people is starting to make me realise how the world got into this credit situation in the first place.

This is laughable.

my sister is in a similar spot. not that she WANTS to divorce her husband but he keeps racking up needless debt and he is of an age that he is going to die and leave her to pay all of it.

if she could figure a way to divorce him and have him take his own debt she would do it in a minute.

according to this unless her name is on the card ina joint a account spouses are not liable.
http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debtFAQ_olddebt.html

she could also freeze her credit to keep any new cards from being made out with her name joint or not.

according to this unless her name is on the card ina joint a account spouses are not liable.
http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debtFAQ_olddebt.html

she could also freeze her credit to keep any new cards from being made out with her name joint or not.
"I am married but have a credit card that is in my name only, which I have recently defaulted on. Can a creditor or debt collector go after my spouse for repayment of this debt even though his name isn't listed on the credit card?


Yes, marriage is like a partnership with each of you jointly liable for any debts incurred during the marriage. It doesn't matter if your spouse is or isn't listed on the card as a joint accountholder, he or she can still be sued, have his wages garnished, etc., just as if he incurred the debt."

"I am married but have a credit card that is in my name only, which I have recently defaulted on. Can a creditor or debt collector go after my spouse for repayment of this debt even though his name isn't listed on the credit card?


Yes, marriage is like a partnership with each of you jointly liable for any debts incurred during the marriage. It doesn't matter if your spouse is or isn't listed on the card as a joint accountholder, he or she can still be sued, have his wages garnished, etc., just as if he incurred the debt."

cant the divorce assign the debt like any other though?


family law attorny

cant the divorce assign the debt like any other though?


family law attorny
i assume it can if its obviously been run up for the benefit of one partner only. that has to depend on the jurisdiction, how good your lawyer is, and the judge involved.

and that doesnt help if instead of divorce he drops dead. if youre not married his debt dies with him, if you are married its yours to pay off.

because when you are married you have a financial bond with your spouse and if the son-of-a-bitch is ruining your credit rating you have an urgent need to know it.

Which can be established by running a credit check on yourself, no?

cant the divorce assign the debt like any other though?


family law attorny

I had an acquaintance who was divorcing his wife - who had run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt in her name only (her income was about twice what his was). At the proceeding he was told that he was eligible for $1200/mo alimony but had to take half her debt. The only way he could get out of taking her debt was to forego the alimony - if she agreed to it. (Fortunately, she was stupid enough to agree to it). But, the issue here is that, as far as I can see, the court can assign the debt only within the parameters set forth by the law and there must be a quid pro quo in order to change the assignment. (This was in California, a community property state - it might be somewhat different in, say, Louisiana, but I would venture to say, not by much).

And no, I'm not an attorney, but I've watched a lot of this stuff go down

I had thought Australia had ditched the '50s attitude towards women.

Bigoted attitudes aren't really ditched, just pushed down. And when vigilance wanes, they resurface.

I think their point was .. how were they to guarantee they would pay? I see no problem in that. It wasn't a conspiracy against moms man.

Exactly.

Sweetie, I'm retired. I worked for the same company for over 20 years and raised two kids - alone.

One of the reasons my ex and I divorced is because I realized that I was at his mercy financially - and that he enjoyed having me at his mercy.

1. This is relevant how, exactly?
2. It's not my fault you didn't choose wisely.

Well, strongly business-orientered contract, as I said... looks like Vodafone was right in not accepting a business contract with a person with no personal income. Why can't people use a bloody prepaid?

I have no idea why she couldn't just get a prepaid.



"Vodafone spokesman Greg Spears yesterday confirmed the no-housewives rule and said getting a man to buy the phone instead was the quickest fix."

I highly doubt the rule is explicitly called the "no housewives" rule.

Some folks here seem to be claiming that she was turned down because she couldn't prove her ability to pay for the contract, leaving aside the concept of household income for the moment, but it seems her ability to pay was never actually investigated. She may have had another source of income. It is discriminatory to assume that a stay at home mother must be entirely dependent on her husband, and the assumption that a married woman has no right to spend the household money does relegate her to the status of child.

If she did have proof of income of her own, don't you think this would have been mentioned in the article? She is dependent on her husband if she does not have her own income. This is why it would have been fine if they had both names on the contract. She is not being brought down to the status of a child: she is certainly entitled to spend the 'household' money, but the company needs to have proof that the bill will, in fact, be paid.

This is laughable.

Glad I could make you smile.

Bigoted attitudes aren't really ditched, just pushed down. And when vigilance wanes, they resurface.

It's not bigotry.

Fergi America;14325735'](In USA)
When I got my Sprint phone, they ran a credit check on me. So presumably, it's possible to be denied one if your credit is hideous enough.
However, there are several pay-as-you-go options from various companies, for those who don't qualify for the ongoing plans.

I do find it shocking that the company would care how you came up with the money, though! To be denied for being a mom is ridiculous.

Would you sell a phone to a homeless person? If you answered no then ask yourself if you would sell one to an unemployed person. If you again answered no then you would not sell one to a mom. (the homeless thing was just to draw you in)

I highly doubt the rule is explicitly called the "no housewives" rule.



If she did have proof of income of her own, don't you think this would have been mentioned in the article? She is dependent on her husband if she does not have her own income. This is why it would have been fine if they had both names on the contract. She is not being brought down to the status of a child: she is certainly entitled to spend the 'household' money, but the company needs to have proof that the bill will, in fact, be paid.




I think there is a gap between what you think is a rational explanation for what happened, and what the article reports the situation to be.

Once again, she was told there was a problem when she couldn't provide a work telephone number. The Vodafone shopworker said that their system wasn't set up to deal with people without a work number and their spokesman specifically suggested that she should get a man to purchase the phone. Despite your assertions, the article reports no attempt to check her ability to pay and no suggestion of a contract in joint names.

So their computers don't have a way to deal with a married housewife signing up to a contract, as she has no income. Ah, now I see how this is an evil conspiracy to keep down hard working women who sacrifice so much for their families.

Which can be established by running a credit check on yourself, no?
not necessarily.

So their computers don't have a way to deal with a married housewife signing up to a contract, as she has no income. Ah, now I see how this is an evil conspiracy to keep down hard working women who sacrifice so much for their families.

not quite :) their system, allegedly, doesn't have a way for people without a work telephone number to sign up for a contract, regardless of income.

not quite :) their system, allegedly, doesn't have a way for people without a work telephone number to sign up for a contract, regardless of income.
they should sue whoever sold them that piece of shit computer system. it has already brought embarrassment onto the company for seeming to discriminate against stay at home mothers.

not quite :) their system, allegedly, doesn't have a way for people without a work telephone number to sign up for a contract, regardless of income.

Close enough.

Close enough.

Except that it has nothing to do with married housewives, income, conspiracies or the pros and cons of sacrificing one's career and independence for one's family. Otherwise, spot on :P

I think there is a gap between what you think is a rational explanation for what happened, and what the article reports the situation to be.

Once again, she was told there was a problem when she couldn't provide a work telephone number. The Vodafone shopworker said that their system wasn't set up to deal with people without a work number and their spokesman specifically suggested that she should get a man to purchase the phone. Despite your assertions, the article reports no attempt to check her ability to pay and no suggestion of a contract in joint names.

Because everything the news says is correct, right? I think the article has deliberately skewed the facts.

So their computers don't have a way to deal with a married housewife signing up to a contract, as she has no income. Ah, now I see how this is an evil conspiracy to keep down hard working women who sacrifice so much for their families.

Evil conspiracy indeed.

they should sue whoever sold them that piece of shit computer system. it has already brought embarrassment onto the company for seeming to discriminate against stay at home mothers.

Oh yes, sue. That will fix all the problems.

Except that it has nothing to do with married housewives, income, conspiracies or the pros and cons of sacrificing one's career and independence for one's family. Otherwise, spot on :P

Yes, I was being sarcastic about the conspiracies bits.

Oh yes, sue. That will fix all the problems.

it will if they are being put up to public condemnation due to a programming error. if they are forced to turn away paying customers due to not being able to leave on space blank on the application form. it also affects those who do not HAVE a work phone number but have the wherewithall to pay. what about them?

it will if they are being put up to public condemnation due to a programming error. if they are forced to turn away paying customers due to not being able to leave on space blank on the application form. it also affects those who do not HAVE a work phone number but have the wherewithall to pay. what about them?

I don't see why they don't just put the home number down as the work number.

I don't see why they don't just put the home number down as the work number.
bad employee training i suppose.

or bad thinking on the boss' part.

or its not a software problem at all and they are trying to pretend it is so they dont look like fools.

Because everything the news says is correct, right? I think the article has deliberately skewed the facts.


Yes, you've been clear about what you think. The news article is still our only source of information, reliable or otherwise.

So their computers don't have a way to deal with a married housewife signing up to a contract, as she has no income. Ah, now I see how this is an evil conspiracy to keep down hard working women who sacrifice so much for their families.

she likely had to give them her husbands Identification number and she didnt know it.

hi iii

hi iii

Dude, what?