Sexism... Against Men - Page 31

On March 03 2011 02:13 Keitzer wrote:
it's not sexism... it's statistics

On March 03 2011 02:13 Keitzer wrote:
it's not sexism... it's statistics

On March 03 2011 02:32 nekuodah wrote:


and what would be said if they charged different prices for different races because of 'statistics'

On March 03 2011 02:33 Nytefish wrote:


But a women is statistically more likely to go on paid leave (due to pregnancy) so surely it's only fair to pay women less than a man in the exact same job.

On March 03 2011 02:36 HunterX11 wrote:


I think there's a greater social value in raising children than in crashing cars.

On November 23 2010 22:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
An interesting recent example from Canada is that it's recently come to light that a person's credit score affects their home insurance rates. Using credit score to determine someone's car insurance has been illegal for 5 years, but there is no similar policy for home insurance. There are calls to change the law.

I'm sure there is definitely a correlation between bad credit and home insurance claims, but the government decided to draw an arguably arbitrary line beyond which insurance companies could not extend their actuarial calculations.

Again, anyone who doesn't think insurance companies are limited enough in their ability to discriminate should write their local representative and express their concern. Government regulates business, and you have to let the government know how much regulation you want.

On March 03 2011 02:56 buhhy wrote:


That's not the point... It doesn't matter what the social value is, statistics says women will take more sick leave and should be paid less, thus it isn't sexism according to that post. Either let statistics dictate the rule, or completely disregard statistics in favor of equality, don't put in double standards.

On March 03 2011 03:29 Klive5ive wrote:

Imagine if you paid staff purely by how many sick days they took. You'd be the worst employer ever.

For someone who claims not to be sexist you've done a great job of ignoring all the qualities a woman can break, despite their sick days!

On March 03 2011 03:39 buhhy wrote:


Your starting salary is set before you start working, there's no way to determine whether the person you hired is efficient or not. All you have are preexisting generalizations, just like with insurance rates. If women on average worked less and less efficiently, it is justified to pay them less, just like how men have to pay more insurance. Sure, the company can fire you if you aren't contributing, but the insurance company can drop you if you get into too many costly accidents.

I'm not saying that statistically, women take more sick days, since I have no sources. I'm assuming theoretically, that if they do take more sick days on average, women should be paid less. Also, where did I claim I wasn't sexist?

EDIT: how is an employer who pays an employee based on how many sick days were taken any different than the insurance company charging based on gender or age?

On March 03 2011 03:48 Krikkitone wrote:



Of course that means Salary... like insurance rates should adjust based on performance (ie if you take more sick days your employer should pay you less... if you get into accidents your insurance rates go up)

On March 03 2011 03:51 holynorth wrote:
Some people don't get the point. Gender is uncontrollable. You can not improve or prevent your gender. When insurance agencies consider your income, school grades, or past driving violations, those do reflect on you entirely, unlike gender.

On March 03 2011 03:39 buhhy wrote:


Your starting salary is set before you start working, there's no way to determine whether the person you hired is efficient or not. All you have are preexisting generalizations, just like with insurance rates. If women on average worked less and less efficiently, it is justified to pay them less, just like how men have to pay more insurance. Sure, the company can fire you if you aren't contributing, but the insurance company can drop you if you get into too many costly accidents.

I'm not saying that statistically, women take more sick days, since I have no sources. I'm assuming theoretically, that if they do take more sick days on average, women should be paid less. Also, where did I claim I wasn't sexist?

EDIT: how is an employer who pays an employee based on how many sick days were taken any different than the insurance company charging based on gender or age?

On March 03 2011 03:51 holynorth wrote:
Some people don't get the point. Gender is uncontrollable. You can not improve or prevent your gender. When insurance agencies consider your income, school grades, or past driving violations, those do reflect on you entirely, unlike gender.

On March 03 2011 03:51 holynorth wrote:
Some people don't get the point. Gender is uncontrollable. You can not improve or prevent your gender. When insurance agencies consider your income, school grades, or past driving violations, those do reflect on you entirely, unlike gender.

On March 03 2011 03:57 Klive5ive wrote:

Not true. You have lots of other methods to judge someones sick days on than their gender (like references).
But if that was the ONLY thing that affected their ability to work, it would of course be justifiable to pay them less.
Your argument doesn't make any sense though because as I said there's a million reasons to employ a woman over a man also.

It's not.
And they are both fine.

On March 03 2011 03:39 buhhy wrote:


Your starting salary is set before you start working, there's no way to determine whether the person you hired is efficient or not. All you have are preexisting generalizations, just like with insurance rates. If women on average worked less and less efficiently, it is justified to pay them less, just like how men have to pay more insurance. Sure, the company can fire you if you aren't contributing, but the insurance company can drop you if you get into too many costly accidents.

I'm not saying that statistically, women take more sick days, since I have no sources. I'm assuming theoretically, that if they do take more sick days on average, women should be paid less. Also, where did I claim I wasn't sexist?

EDIT: how is an employer who pays an employee based on how many sick days were taken any different than the insurance company charging based on gender or age?

On March 03 2011 04:19 FabledIntegral wrote:


Or you could just go the Japan route and set ridiculously low salaries, but pay out extremely high bonuses which are dependent upon your performance.