EPTIndeed. I.Q Tests in the past have "scientifically proven" women and certain ethnicities to be dumber than caucasian males. Science isn't always objective.
Sexism... Against Men - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
Indeed. I.Q Tests in the past have "scientifically proven" women and certain ethnicities to be dumber than caucasian males. Science isn't always objective. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
Actuarial science is discrimination, except it's an awesome kind that allows us to have insurance. | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:06 Vanished131 wrote: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09279.pdf This isn't a grammar debate. You started a sentence without capatilizing the first letter. You also have a comma splice in the middle of your sentence, but you would probably get paid more if you knew that. Sources without relevant discussion are worthless. Please revise your post. i get paid enough to not have to complain about how much my insurance costs sources: women get paid less relevant discussion: quit acting like an entitled baby because they pay 10 bucks a month less on car insurance | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:08 cz wrote: This isn't about what was, this is about what is. In this country. I think the Men's Rights movement is going through the same phases that the feminist movement had to go through: being categorized as a bunch of angry losers who are complaining about something that is normal and isn't a big deal. The men's rights movement already went through that phase in America. We won the Revolutionary War—that was a while ago. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Take it up with the actuarial profession if you disagree with their data. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
Males are a higher risk statistically. It's just facts. edit: beaten by like 100 ppl ^^ | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:08 nozh wrote: Nevermind the hundreds of years of exploitation that women have faced.... What those crazy feminazis don't understand is that MY INSURANCE is more important. Can I get a HELL YEAH, BROS????????? We are talking about now. Here. Now. And while you are trying to lampoon men as angry people calling women feminazis, you are inadvertently revealing yourself as the same: someone with a lot of anger towards a movement that wants gender equality. | ||
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:08 zeppelin wrote: i get paid enough to not have to complain about how much my insurance costs sources: women get paid less relevant discussion: quit acting like an entitled baby because they pay 10 bucks a month less on car insurance My insurance is very low actually. This is not a material debate; it's a social debate that concerns all of us. Go look at the quotes for your own car insurance, sometimes the difference is more than $10, it can be hundreds or thousands. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:08 Kwidowmaker wrote: Actuarial science is discrimination, except it's an awesome kind that allows us to have insurance. Yeah, and slavery is an awesome system that allows us to get our crops in. Just calling something "awesome" and saying that its profitable / does a service doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
The point of insurance is because people are risk-averse. We would much rather pay $100 every month for 100 months rather than face a 10% probability of losing $100,000 during those 100 months, even though the expected loss ($10,000) is the exact same. We prefer the constant low payments so much more, that we're willing to pay someone to provide it. That's where insurance companies come in, who might for example charge me $101 per month for 100 months and promise to cover the $100,000 loss if it occurs, and I would probably accept it. Now why would an insurance company do this? Shouldn't they hate the $100,000 loss as much as anyone else? Normally, they would, but they can become nearly "risk-neutral" by offering the $101/month insurance product to a lot of people. So let's say they have 10,000 customers with that product. Now, through the magic of statistics, they expect around 10 people every month to hit that $100k loss, and it won't be much more or less than that. So to the insurance company, this is basically a guaranteed loss of around $1,000,000 every month in exchange for the guaranteed gain of $1,010,000 every month, and of course they'd take that deal. So why do auto insurance companies charge you more for being a guy? Because as a macho guy, the probability of you getting into an accident is higher than if you were a girl. (So in my example, maybe you have an 11% chance of losing $100,000.) Either your individual rate would have to go up to cover the increased probability, or the insurance company can spread it out over all its customers; basically, women pay more relative to what they should pay given the probability of them getting into an accident and men pay less. The problem with this latter approach is that a competing insurance company could just come along and discriminate, charging women less and men more rather than charging them the average. All the women from the first company will go to the second, and now the first company is screwed because now it's entire clientele is men being charged rates that are lower than they should be. This is called adverse selection. Thus, in a perfect world, insurance companies charge you a perfectly personalized rate that fits your chances of getting into an accident, plus extra to cover administrative fees and to make a competitive profit. Unfortunately, insurance companies don't know you perfectly, so instead they use your gender as a proxy. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
It's not sexism because women get into accidents less. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:06 cz wrote: Would you agree the same based on racial metrics? Would it be fair to charge different races different rates, as they must have different accident rates? Zzoram I feel you're making that up. I think that might be part of it, but to paint a simple picture without at least observational research, if not experimental research, and the creation of some kind of regression to isolate correlations it's useless. Or even a source who already did the work for you. And cz, I wouldn't agree that different races are more aggressive or drive faster, but as mentioned above other factors due to the current socioeconomic distribution of different races will lead to a whole slew of identifiable statistical differences. But the genetic difference between races is insignificant, and I could provide sources if you really wanted, or you could get on Wikipedia or Google. Not that I'm suggesting you're saying it's genetic. And also, all the insurance rates are based on STATISTICS ONLY. So again, it has nothing to do with why, just the numbers. Like BNet 0.2 ranking, only win/loss, not APM, game knowledge, etc. matter. | ||
|
smashczar
Australia2 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:05 smashczar wrote: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bUhva.jpg) reminder that i cannot imbed images properly to save my life and also that women are literally the nigger of the world | ||
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:12 jalstar wrote: I wouldn't even mind if they did this with races, it's not bad if there's statistics backing it up. It's not sexism because women get into accidents less. I accept this as a valid assertion. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:12 smashczar wrote: reminder that i cannot imbed images properly to save my life and also that women are literally the nigger of the world This is the Western world, not the rest of the world: yes women are in a lot of shitty places worldwide, but we are talking about this country, not Saudi Arabia. | ||
|
Kakera
United States419 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:08 MonsieurGrimm wrote: Indeed. I.Q Tests in the past have "scientifically proven" women and certain ethnicities to be dumber than caucasian males. Science isn't always objective. IQ tests are objective, and caucasian males score about average. | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:12 smashczar wrote: reminder that i cannot imbed images properly to save my life and also that women are literally the nigger of the world but you dont understand their car insurance so cheap | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bUhva)
