EPTSexism... Against Men - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kenderson
Canada280 Posts
| ||
|
Generic SC
New Zealand179 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:04 FuRong wrote: I finally finished reading the whole thread, and am of the opinion that this kind of discrimination should not be accepted. What if banks, based on statistical evidence that males more reliably repay their loans than females, decided to offer different interest rates to customers? A guy walks in and gets his loan at 6%, but when a female of the same demographic walks in she is charged 7% instead, simply based on the tendencies of her gender, despite having a better credit record than the aforementioned male. People may complain that this is sexist, but as the bank you can tell them to fuck off because you have statistical evidence to back up your policy so it's legit. Would this kind of policy fly? I highly doubt it, feminist groups would be up in arms overnight. I don't see how this is any different to the insurance dilemma. I used to work in a bank (selling insurance there as well) so I would just like to point out a flaw in your analogy. (Yea i'm in the high risk demographic too) When you are taking up an insurance policy they look at your driving/criminal history as well, and take that into consideration when determining your risk level. The comparison with a persons monetary history is a little flawed instead, simply based on the tendencies of her gender, despite having a better credit record than the aforementioned male its flawed because History IS taken into account - In both instances. It just means that as a guy you need to pay even higher premiums, or take out a policy which has crazy a high excess. Banks just are more likely to decline you, insurance firms are more likely to cover you, charge you huge amounts of $$$ and then not pay out because you forgot to disclose something when filling out the paperwork. Also as a bank their lending rates are mostly determined by their savings account/term deposit rates. High Savings % -> High Lending %, low savings % -> Low Lending. Its also funny how people are viewing it negatively. You could just as well say that it is positive discrimination. Anyone who fits into lower risk categories gets a discount. (is the glass half empty or half full?). Also how is it fair for everyone else in the insurance pool to have to pay more even though they are lower risk - because making excess and premiums the same will just increase costs across the board. Anyway, my final point is this: If you have a pool of people in a high risk demographic who are charged the same amount as everyone else, then the insurance company doesn't make any money off you, they make losses. So why bother to insure you at all? Its only because of the higher premiums/excess that you actually get to have insurance at all. There is not good way for insurance companies to asses your risk factor on an individual basis, banks have transaction statements to see what your spending patterns are like, and take security so they can get their money back. Insurance companies best bet is to sub brand with different insurance pools and to create higher costs for its higher risk customers so the insurance company doesn't lose money and go out of business. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
This is pretty much how insurance has always worked and why some people call it "gambling". The insurance company gives you their "odds" of you having an accident based on their own (considerable) data and you either take it or leave it. If women really are more responsible on roads (doesn't surprise me at all) then well done to them, their reward for being safer drivers is cheaper premiums. I honestly don't see the problem. I am male by the way. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:37 Generic SC wrote: Anyway, my final point is this: If you have a pool of people in a high risk demographic who are charged the same amount as everyone else, then the insurance company doesn't make any money off you, they make losses. So why bother to insure you at all? Its only because of the higher premiums/excess that you actually get to have insurance at all. There is not good way for insurance companies to asses your risk factor on an individual basis, banks have transaction statements to see what your spending patterns are like, and take security so they can get their money back. Insurance companies best bet is to sub brand with different insurance pools and to create higher costs for its higher risk customers so the insurance company doesn't lose money and go out of business. Paying higher premiums based off your personal history is legitimate while paying higher premiums because you are black/muslim/a woman should be ruled out as a discrimination. Insurance companies make money off their higher risk customers paying more versus low risk customers paying less, they will not go out of business for another million years just because they excluded gender profiling as a risk factor. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:38 vek wrote: So statistically men have more car accidents than women and you are surprised that the it costs more to get insurance because you are a male driver? This is pretty much how insurance has always worked and why some people call it "gambling". The insurance company gives you their "odds" of you having an accident based on their own (considerable) data and you either take it or leave it. If women really are more responsible on roads (doesn't surprise me at all) then well done to them, their reward for being safer drivers is cheaper premiums. I honestly don't see the problem. I am male by the way. --- So statistically blacks have more car accidents than whites and you are surprised that the it costs more to get insurance because you are a black driver? This is pretty much how insurance has always worked and why some people call it "gambling". The insurance company gives you their "odds" of you having an accident based on their own (considerable) data and you either take it or leave it. If whites really are more responsible on roads (doesn't surprise me at all) then well done to them, their reward for being safer drivers is cheaper premiums. I honestly don't see the problem. I am black by the way. --- Would that be OK with you? Because I'm sure you could find some racial trends and use those to profile people. Hell, if they charged women more, imagine the outrage. It's a ridiculous double standard and I really think that our society needs to start saying "Discrimination is wrong," rather than "Discrimination is wrong but only when it is against a group of people that we feel bad for discriminating against." | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:33 News wrote: First of all, I think your arguments were horrible, especially the useless "product vs service" one against micronesia. You jumped on something that wasn't even significant in relation to this discussion to begin with no matter how hard you tried to blow it out of proportion. Secondly, would you really agree to be discriminated just because you are 5.6, left-handed and major psychology? If you have no problem with sexism then you don't belong here because this whole debate revolves around "sexism or not". If this was your essay you would get an F for failing to address the subject. Ofc it is important to not mix products with services as they work very different. It also is definitly not the key problem of the topic in this thread. Secondly, yes. I have no problem beeing discriminated as a male driver as insurance works this way. I do not have a problem with beeing sexually discriminated in school sports because I have to jum 1.4m for a B and chicks only need 1m. I DO have a problem with sexism as I already said, but in other areas such as military payment or salary. I pay military chicks not, I get more money for the same work. If you were my teacher giving me a mark for my eassay you would be fired for not correctly reading my shit. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:47 Risen wrote: Whoops was at a volleyball event. Anywho, when I said not physically different I meant that people from different ethnic backgrounds are all the same "mentally" in a physical way. As in we all have the same brains, so shouldn't be discriminated based on that. Men and women do not have the same brains, do not have the same controllers men do, and can be held to something different. Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay? | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
For example, me and my girlfriend have both been driving for three years. Aside from me being male and and her being female, she is a year older and has also been in five car accidents to my one. I want you to guess who pays more for insurance, and by how much. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:47 Risen wrote: Whoops was at a volleyball event. Anywho, when I said not physically different I meant that people from different ethnic backgrounds are all the same "mentally" in a physical way. As in we all have the same brains, so shouldn't be discriminated based on that. Men and women do not have the same brains, do not have the same controllers men do, and can be held to something different. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Norway
United States341 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:20 TanGeng wrote: But you don't need to go purely by the statistics. That's what a face to face interview is for. If the banker decides that it is worth his time, he can meet his prospective client and try to get feel personally. Then the banker will have more information than what his statistics tell him. The same principle may go towards rejecting a potential client whose statistics are positive but gives off an irresponsible feel. The banker really doesn't give a shit whether or not they give off an irresponsible feel unless it's outrageous/suspicious. But how does this point compare with insurance? They don't meet down with you and try to get a feel whether or not they should give you a better deal. All they see are numbers - I've never had an accident, never had a ticket - yet I pay more and a friend who's a girl who has had an accident as well as a couple speeding tickets pays less. Do they call that the right gamble? | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4200 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:20 TanGeng wrote: But you don't need to go purely by the statistics. That's what a face to face interview is for. If the banker decides that it is worth his time, he can meet his prospective client and try to get feel personally. Then the banker will have more information than what his statistics tell him. The same principle may go towards rejecting a potential client whose statistics are positive but gives off an irresponsible feel. Bankers can be awesome. Recently, myself and another exec in our Starcraft club opened up a bank account for club purposes. Turns out the banker is into Starcraft Broodwar, and we've played a few games since then. lol. | ||
|
Norway
United States341 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:19 Typhon wrote: The bank does do credit checks on you though. They can get reasonable evidence of your ability to pay based on your credit card payments, your current income, your past loan payments. That's the only reason why they can assess the risk of lending you money. The insurance company usually doesn't have these statistics because the majority of people don't come in with a huge history of crashes on their record. So they have to guess. They are both very similar but one discrimates against sex and one does not. If you're going to go by stats then bring them all out. Don't bring out an absurd one such as sex and then forget major ones such as where do you live? (city driving vs country driving)... or how crime riddled your neighborhood is?... Or what about if you have some absurd disability that would have a small factor on driving such as having one eye? Or one arm? Wouldn't that increase the risk of getting into an accident more than what sex you are? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:50 matjlav wrote: Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay? It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race. Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain | ||
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
On November 23 2010 14:11 Risen wrote: It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race. Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain Science disagrees with that last statement. | ||
|
Norway
United States341 Posts
On November 23 2010 14:11 Risen wrote: It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race. Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain Crime Rates * Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. * When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife. * Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate. * The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. Interracial Crime * Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent. * Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black. * Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery. * Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa. Gangs * Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white. * Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely. Incarceration * Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million. * Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely. Not that it answers your question directly it does give an idea of some of the rates. Source(s): Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001 (USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002 (USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003 (USGPO, 2004), p. 288 | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 23 2010 14:14 Vanished131 wrote: Science disagrees with that last statement. Science agrees, you mean. On November 23 2010 14:14 Norway wrote: Crime Rates * Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. * When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife. * Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate. * The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. Interracial Crime * Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent. * Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black. * Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery. * Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa. Gangs * Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white. * Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely. Incarceration * Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million. * Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely. Not that it answers your question directly it does give an idea of some of the rates. Source(s): Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001 (USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002 (USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003 (USGPO, 2004), p. 288 Should I post statistics about how blacks are overrepresented in poor communities, and therefor much more likely to commit crimes? Should I post statistics of purely white communities in which the poor commit more crimes than the rich? Should I post statistics showing that more blacks are incarcerated for equal crimes than their white counterparts? Statistics are fun Edit: I've been reading too many business law books lately, forgive all prior, present, and future uses of therefor (in place of therefore) | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On November 23 2010 13:43 matjlav wrote: --- So statistically blacks have more car accidents than whites and you are surprised that the it costs more to get insurance because you are a black driver? This is pretty much how insurance has always worked and why some people call it "gambling". The insurance company gives you their "odds" of you having an accident based on their own (considerable) data and you either take it or leave it. If whites really are more responsible on roads (doesn't surprise me at all) then well done to them, their reward for being safer drivers is cheaper premiums. I honestly don't see the problem. I am black by the way. --- Would that be OK with you? Because I'm sure you could find some racial trends and use those to profile people. Hell, if they charged women more, imagine the outrage. It's a ridiculous double standard and I really think that our society needs to start saying "Discrimination is wrong," rather than "Discrimination is wrong but only when it is against a group of people that we feel bad for discriminating against." I wouldn't be surprised if they already did in some places. Why is it such a big deal anyway? Take your business elsewhere if it bothers you that much that insurance companies are (shock) trying to make money by having as competitive rates as they possibly can. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread there are so many other factors, conditions and statistics taken into account when calculating insurance premiums that this is just not worth getting worked up over. | ||
|
Typhon
United States387 Posts
On November 23 2010 14:06 Norway wrote: If you're going to go by stats then bring them all out. Don't bring out an absurd one such as sex and then forget major ones such as where do you live? (city driving vs country driving)... or how crime riddled your neighborhood is?... Or what about if you have some absurd disability that would have a small factor on driving such as having one eye? Or one arm? Wouldn't that increase the risk of getting into an accident more than what sex you are? they don't discriminate based on people who have one eye because, while it does impair vision (you get a notice printed on your license ) it isn't frequent enough to majorly affect their margins. As for area in which you drive, that does play a factor. I moved from in-city to right-outside and got a better premium. As an aside, my insurance application also asked things like how far away I live from work and whether I took the highway or not. I assume they have some factor in my premiums, but I haven't exactly filled out enough applications to tell. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 23 2010 14:11 Risen wrote: It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race. Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay? | ||
| ||
