It's not really sexism. Sexism is unwarranted judgements, but this is justified, males do tend to drive more aggressively and is a higher risk.
If I were to say "Females have smaller brains"
Althought it sounds sexism, and probably is, given the right context, we cannot classify the statement itself as a sexist statement by itself.
If I were to say "Females have smaller brains therefore they are not eligible for a certain job" in the context of a hiring process, that will be sexism as that it is not a measuring for job competency, and my judgement on the competency of females are not justified. That is to say, unless I can prove smaller brains leads to lower job performance in a convincing way, that statement will not be correct.
In your case, they do have hard data that say males tend to be higher risk, and so it's logical for them to raise your price.
That being said, the take away point is that we should bear in mind that male and female ARE different, they are different with pros and cons, which needs different treatments and different accomidations. It is correct to acknoledge these differences, and it will be wrong to ignore these differences. What is wrong, in term of sexism, is that you infer extra differences between male and female in place where there is no difference.
1) Yes, your examples fit the definition of sexism. You'll see that those types of basic social situations are discussed as sexism often by third wave feminists, but with reference to women being on the receiving end ("why does my boss always give me cosmetics as a company gift when the men get taken out to a bar?")
Your example is different from my example, because in your example, you show disparate treatment. My examples, which fit within the literal confines of the definition you're using, do not require disparate treatment. My point is that sexism is entirely about disparate treatment, rather than treating me as a man without regard to my individual preferences, which happens all the fucking time, because it's simply impossible for most people to know my individual preferences that well.
(Is it sexist to have urinals in men's bathrooms in complete disregard to every individual's desire to use a urinal?)
3) Men get the same products, the same amount of coverage. Men pay higher rates for the same amount of coverage guaranteed by the insurer. That is the product that the person receives, and the price for it is disparate based on gender. Yes, the company will statistically pay more for males, but that's not the product that the consumer is receiving. They receive coverage that guarantees payment (of a certain amount) from an insurer in certain situations: it costs more for men than women.
It's a different product, because the end result is that you receive something tangibly different as a man: MORE MONEY. Again, would you say a woman buying a happy meal and being satisfied is buying the same product as a man who buys a big mac meal and being satisfied? Even though both of them are labeled as dinner and the end result is caloric satisfaction (e.g. peace of mind from coverage)? No you wouldn't.
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
I understand that A) men are more likely to use their insurance plan and B) thus the insurance company pays more per insurance plan given to men, but that isn't the PRODUCT that is being bought.
Take two people: they both by insurance, the same plan, same thing in every way. Same guarantees, same payouts, etc. The plan is for one year. One person crashes his car and claims his insurance, the other doesn't and never "uses" it. They both bought the same product, though.
I think we should consider that each one of us is Vanished131, the most careful driver. Do you deserve to have your rates raised just because a select 1 or 2 percent of your gender thinks they are the most macho piece that ever walked the Earth?
If that were the actually the case, then that would be unfair, but insurance companies would climb all over themselves to figure out how to determine who that 1-2% are. But when it comes to gender and insurance payouts, actuaries cannot find a third variable that better explains the correlation, though they've been trying for decades.
The fact that this is discrimination, I don't believe, has yet to be defeated by anyone here. Citing news reports and wikipedia articles is a bad habit.
It's not discrimination because as a man, you receive more money from insurance companies.
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
Yes, men are charged more for making more claims and receiving more money than women. So, yes, they do get more. If women want more, they can simply make more claims and the insurance company will charge them more. If men want less, they can simply make less claims and the insurance company will charge them less.
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
You don't "use the insurance more often," it's the insurance company that decides when to pay. And they pay men more than they pay women. That is by definition receiving more.
What do you mean by "they pay men more than they pay women." Do you mean that per claim filed men are paid more or that mend tend to make more claims per person per annum?
On November 23 2010 12:08 AAtwelve wrote: I was citing wiki for a definition, feel free to use any sort of dictionary to determine the definitions of sexism...
Anyways, I'm going back to TLO fanclub page, cya. GL HF.
I didn't have any problems with your definition of sexism.
On November 23 2010 12:02 da_head wrote: its just risk assessment. whether we like it or not, young male drivers tend to be in the most accidents (due to speeding, careless driving, and drunk driving). we pay the price.
its just risk assessment. whether we like it or not, black clients tend to not be reliable financially (due to bad education, careless spending habits, and history of drug-related problems). we pay the price.
On November 23 2010 12:03 evanthebouncy! wrote: If I were to say "Females have smaller brains therefore they are not eligible for a certain job" in the context of a hiring process, that will be sexism as that it is not a measuring for job competency, and my judgement on the competency of females are not justified. That is to say, unless I can prove smaller brains leads to lower job performance in a convincing way, that statement will not be correct.
In your case, they do have hard data that say males tend to be higher risk, and so it's logical for them to raise your price.
Your argument: In your case, they do have hard data that say males tend to be higher risk, and so it's logical for them to raise your price.
Anti-segmentation argument: On average, females know less graduate-level physics than males. But it's unfair to pay female professors less because of that.
Pro-segmentation argument: Well, because you can look at the professor's qualifications before you hire them. Most drivers start off with a clean history, and your premiums do go up if you've gotten into accidents before. If you had to hire professors based on demographics and no interview or reviewing their publications, you'd probably go for the old bearded guy in thick glasses too.
Anti-segmentation argument: And why should old bearded guys have the advantage?
On November 23 2010 12:02 da_head wrote: its just risk assessment. whether we like it or not, young male drivers tend to be in the most accidents (due to speeding, careless driving, and drunk driving). we pay the price.
its just risk assessment. whether we like it or not, black clients tend to not be reliable financially (due to bad education, careless spending habits, and history of drug-related problems). we pay the price.
This is true of people from bad socio-economic backgrounds. Black people tend to be disproportionately represented in these groups. This is an example where other factors are more important.
It is a FACT that men, on average, have more accidents than females.
"Discriminating solely on the basis of sex is immoral and is protected in the United States of America, yet they get away with it due to statistics."
The logic of this statement leads me to believe that on a fundamental level you do not understand how and or possibly why insurance rates are calculated the way they are. Perhaps instead of taking a tongue lashing from this forum you should have first informed yourself on the subject. My advice which by no means do I expect you to take, however others that may agree with you might, is to watch this lecture by Robert Shiller on the subject of insurance.
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
You don't "use the insurance more often," it's the insurance company that decides when to pay. And they pay men more than they pay women. That is by definition receiving more.
What do you mean by "they pay men more than they pay women." Do you mean that per claim filed men are paid more or that mend tend to make more claims per person per annum?
I believe it's both, but regardless, over the lifetime of a policy, men receive more money than women. Hence, the products are not the same and it would in fact be discriminatory to charge women and men the same amount, because women would end up receiving much less.
The whole point of insurance is to trade constant small payments in place of unpredictable large payments. Women have less unpredictable large payments. It would be like if because of uncontrollable factors, there was a men's lottery and women's lottery. The men's lottery pays more money with a higher probability of winning, and the women's lottery pays less money with a lower probability of winning. Charging them the same price would in fact be discriminatory, because women are getting something "inferior."
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
You don't "use the insurance more often," it's the insurance company that decides when to pay. And they pay men more than they pay women. That is by definition receiving more.
What do you mean by "they pay men more than they pay women." Do you mean that per claim filed men are paid more or that mend tend to make more claims per person per annum?
I believe it's both, but regardless, over the lifetime of a policy, men receive more money than women. Hence, the products are not the same and it would in fact be discriminatory to charge women and men the same amount, because women would end up receiving much less.
The whole point of insurance is to trade constant small payments in place of unpredictable large payments. Women have less unpredictable large payments. It would be like if because of uncontrollable factors, there was a men's lottery and women's lottery. The men's lottery pays more money with a higher probability of winning, and the women's lottery pays less money with a lower probability of winning. Charging them the same price would in fact be discriminatory, because women are getting something "inferior."
The point is how the product is used is not relevant from the consumers point of view. You buy the same piece of paper that gives you the same protections, man or women, but more expensive for a man. Yes, the man is statistically more likely to cost the insurance company more money (via that piece of paper), but from the consumer's point of view that is not part of the product.
On November 23 2010 12:03 evanthebouncy! wrote: It's not really sexism. Sexism is unwarranted judgements, but this is justified, males do tend to drive more aggressively and is a higher risk.
It's not really racism. Racism is unwarranted judgements, but this is justified, blacks do tend to commit more crimes.
If I were to say "Females have smaller brains"
Althought it sounds sexism, and probably is, given the right context, we cannot classify the statement itself as a sexist statement by itself.
If I were to say "Blacks have lesser cranial capacity"
Althought it sounds racist, and probably is, given the right context, we cannot classify the statement itself as a racist statement by itself.
That being said, the take away point is that we should bear in mind that male and female ARE different, they are different with pros and cons, which needs different treatments and different accomidations. It is correct to acknoledge these differences, and it will be wrong to ignore these differences. What is wrong, in term of sexism, is that you infer extra differences between male and female in place where there is no difference.
That being said, the take away point is that we should bear in mind that blacks and whites ARE different, they are different with pros and cons, which needs different treatments and different accomidations. It is correct to acknoledge these differences, and it will be wrong to ignore these differences. What is wrong, in term of racism, is that you infer extra differences between blacks and whites in place where there is no difference.
On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote: Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics.
That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them.
On November 23 2010 10:54 Fa1nT wrote: They do the same with age, problem? Statistically, male and females, young and old, have different rates of accidents, and thus should be charged separately.
I'm sure members of different ethnicities have higher rates of accidents too. They do not ask for your race when recieving a quote.
What's the difference? Seperate but equal is okay now?
On November 23 2010 10:55 NathanSC wrote: They base their rates entirely on risk assessment, which is just statistical analysis. I'm sorry, but it's not sexism.
Why do they refrain from requesting one's race then? Wouldn't it just be statistical analysis? You realize something is wrong, and you know it.
I don't it's fair to take an all or nothing approach. Let's be reasonable here, mate.
Sure they could take into account other factors like race if they wanted. But they are not obliged to merely because they take into account sex and age. The insurance companies have to draw a line at some point where they think they've individualised the risk analysis enough as a matter of business efficacy.
There is nothing hypocritical or wrong about taking into account sex but refraining from taking into account other data such as race. It's just stats, risk and business.
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women.
You don't "use the insurance more often," it's the insurance company that decides when to pay. And they pay men more than they pay women. That is by definition receiving more.
What do you mean by "they pay men more than they pay women." Do you mean that per claim filed men are paid more or that mend tend to make more claims per person per annum?
I believe it's both, but regardless, over the lifetime of a policy, men receive more money than women. Hence, the products are not the same and it would in fact be discriminatory to charge women and men the same amount, because women would end up receiving much less.
The whole point of insurance is to trade constant small payments in place of unpredictable large payments. Women have less unpredictable large payments. It would be like if because of uncontrollable factors, there was a men's lottery and women's lottery. The men's lottery pays more money with a higher probability of winning, and the women's lottery pays less money with a lower probability of winning. Charging them the same price would in fact be discriminatory, because women are getting something "inferior."
The point is how the product is used is not relevant from the consumers point of view. You buy the same piece of paper that gives you the same protections, man or women, but more expensive for a man. Yes, the man is statistically more likely to cost the insurance company more money (via that piece of paper), but from the consumer's point of view that is not part of the product.
its a fucking service not a god damn product. people in the service sector always use "product" to describe their service to catch dumb people not understanding what a service is. So please stop using product to describe the thing the insurance company gives you.
This case seems to be currently going through the EU at the moment. Basically the EU Advocate General has said it is discrimination, however her view is not binding. A decision is expected in 2011
EPT
