EPTit's not sexism. just like when they charge a 18year old more than they charge a 40 year old is not ageism.
Sexism... Against Men - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
it's not sexism. just like when they charge a 18year old more than they charge a 40 year old is not ageism. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On March 03 2011 04:17 buhhy wrote: Yeah, but there are also many other indicators of one's driving ability, like age, income, education, race, physical ability (eyesight, any illnesses), etc... Why should gender be the dominant factor? Why should it not be a factor, is the debate. Once you've decided it's a factor, if it happens to have a large impact on the statistics (which it does) then that's why it's quite a dominant factor. As I've said I believe a society that tries to remove responsibility will ultimately fail. Actions have consequences and people must face up to those consequences or else change their behaviour. The same applies to collective responsibility. We are collectively responsible for the fact that we are more likely to have a serious accident. We have to face the consequences of that because the consequences feed back so that we can learn to drive more safely and not be so reckless. When you fill out your insurance form and see how much more you have to pay. You think; dam I better be careful because I'm a high risk group. If there's no consequence then there's no reason to change and that helps no-one. The problem isn't insurance companies charging more. The problem is that young men are comparatively reckless. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Yeah, but there are also many other indicators of one's driving ability, like age, income, education, race, physical ability (eyesight, any illnesses), etc... Why should gender be the dominant factor? Age is also a huge factor for insurance rates. Gender is not dominant over age. Eyesight/Ability just seems odd because it's illegal to drive if any of those is lacking. I think the main reason these other possibilities aren't used is simply because their wishy-washy. "Race" is really poorly defined. I mean come on, Barack Obama is as much white as he is black... And with others they would again have to make arbitrary cutoff points which don't make much statistical sense. Gender is something that is quite crisply defined. It's overwhelmingly binary. If health insurance isn't allowed to discriminate against gender, then auto insurance shouldn't be allowed either. What makes you say they can't do that? Back that kind of statement up sir. Even if health insurance doesn't discriminate based on gender doesn't mean they can't. They probably just don't have statistics to back anything up. | ||
|
lofung
Hong Kong298 Posts
| ||
|
jw232
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
Oneoldfogie
United Kingdom61 Posts
I kinda do agree that men of a younger age should probably pay more than women of the same age just because men do tend to be the more aggressive gender. However, it has been ruled by a European court that they are no longer allowed to charge different for each gender starting 21 December 2012 (Isn't that the day the world is supposed to end?) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12608777 <- There is the article anyway. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On March 03 2011 04:31 Klive5ive wrote: Why should it not be a factor, is the debate. Once you've decided it's a factor, if it happens to have a large impact on the statistics (which it does) then that's why it's quite a dominant factor. As I've said I believe a society that tries to remove responsibility will ultimately fail. Actions have consequences and people must face up to those consequences or else change their behaviour. The same applies to collective responsibility. We are collectively responsible for the fact that we are more likely to have a serious accident. We have to face the consequences of that because the consequences feed back so that we can learn to drive more safely and not be so reckless. When you fill out your insurance form and see how much more you have to pay. You think; dam I better be careful because I'm a high risk group. If there's no consequence then there's no reason to change and that helps no-one. The problem isn't insurance companies charging more. The problem is that young men are comparatively reckless. Lol, I think I was being ambiguous with my argument. I'm not arguing against sexism in this context, I'm arguing against the sexism double standard. It's frankly quite annoying to see feminists gaining support for "equality" in wages and healthcare insurance, and in turn, seeing men trying to push the same "equality" in auto insurance and being dismissed. Personally, I support sexism when there are significant relevant differences between the sexes. Men do drive more aggressive and get into less frequent but more fatal and expensive accidents. Having an individualized plan would be great though. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On March 03 2011 04:35 DoubleReed wrote: What makes you say they can't do that? Back that kind of statement up sir. Even if health insurance doesn't discriminate based on gender doesn't mean they can't. They probably just don't have statistics to back anything up. Someone mentioned this a couple pages back but I don't remember the exact page. I did search google, and there are news about feminists pushing a bill that disallows healthcare insurance discrimination in the US. | ||
|
DisneylandSC
Netherlands435 Posts
On March 02 2011 22:32 Klive5ive wrote: Can't you see how stupid that would be? You've just completely removed responsibility and common sense from the system. You have to be able to discriminate against people more likely to crash. Starting with people who have crashed before, people with drink-driving convictions, speeding fines and ending with age, gender. Otherwise you have a ridiculous system where you can crash into a wall and face no consequences. Responsibility also means collective responsibility. In society everyone loses when they allow others to act stupidly. Almost every guy at some point has done something reckless and stupid, or egged someone on to do something stupid. We are collectively responsible for why our premiums are high, whether you like it or not. The higher premiums has created an awareness that young men are reckless. This stereotype is something a lot of young men want to fight against and so already it's made a difference. The collective responsibility filters down and helps to solve the route of the problem (that young men are more reckless). It certainly made me especially careful when I was younger. That's why a system based on responsibility is far better than one based on completely no responsbility. Dude I already adressed personal responsibility in my post. Try reading all of it. A bonus malus system does exactly that. In that it awards people with very few to no claims and makes people who behave badly pay more. The thing I am protesting against is that people are forced to pay higher insurance rates, NOT based on their actions, but instead based on who or what they are, i.e. factors which are completely out of their control. Also the idea of collective responsibility is against any modern principle on justice and freedom. | ||
|
TaG]SiG
United Kingdom53 Posts
in europe, im interested how long this can stay legal. the EU law has a number of 'protected characteristics' of which sex is one of them. And its illegal to discriminate on the grounds of protected characteristics, yet in the UK we even have female only insurers (sheilas wheels) | ||
|
Mazzoo
United Kingdom59 Posts
On March 03 2011 04:44 buhhy wrote: It's frankly quite annoying to see feminists gaining support for "equality" in wages and healthcare insurance, and in turn, seeing men trying to push the same "equality" in auto insurance and being dismissed. its quite different that men, who statistically cause more crashes than women, pay more for insurance while women, doing same hours and job, get paid less than their male equivilents. insurance works by statistics not by a person by person basis. if it did that would be excellent but it doesnt. i do agree that there shouldnt be the discrimination but to compare it to women asking for equal rights in employment is just a bit silly. | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
On March 03 2011 02:13 Keitzer wrote: it's not sexism... it's statistics It is quite possible to pull out bullshit statistics to rationalize racism and segregation as well (scientific racism anyone?). Does that make it okay? Just because it is not a stereotypical example of discrimination, it does not mean it is not discrimination. 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. Never quite understood why employers should bear the cost of the women's choice to reproduce. And they are not paid less, they simply work less. They are paid the same per hour. | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:01 cz wrote: That "risk assessment" doesn't constitute sexism is a dubious premise. It's discrimination based on gender. Yes, it is statistical, but racial profiling is considered illegal despite it also being based on the same premise. Same thing for not accepting women in certain positions because they are statistically more likely to perform at a lower level than men (e.g. as soldiers, firefighters, police officers, or anything where physical strength is often used). I suspect the reason that insurance companies aren't forced to disregard gender when giving rates is because of money: it's an established practice that would cost insurance companies large losses if it were to be outlawed, and there isn't a sufficient equality push from outside to overcome the money that these companies are feeding politicians and lobbyists to keep it legal. Money isn't really an issue if companies couldn't give different rates, they would just make a flat rate between men and women to stay cost neutral. Women would pay more than they do now and men less than they do now. I do not agree with your analogy which brings racial profiling into this argument. The key difference is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if my race performs more crimes per capita, until I'm found guilty by a jury of my peers I'm innocent and deserve no more suspicion than anyone else. I do not believe you could extend an innocent until proven guilty concept over to driving. | ||
|
Blackk
South Africa226 Posts
| ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On March 03 2011 06:29 revy wrote:I do not believe you could extend an innocent until proven guilty concept over to driving. Then why not charge racial minorities that are more likely to get into car accidents more then racial minorities that are less likely to get into car accidents? I'm sure that some statistical differentiation between the two exists. | ||
|
Blackk
South Africa226 Posts
On March 03 2011 06:44 Nightfall.589 wrote: Then why not charge racial minorities that are more likely to get into car accidents more then racial minorities that are less likely to get into car accidents? I'm sure that some statistical differentiation between the two exists. That should absolutely be done. In fact they should be able to charge you a different fee for dumb things like the coffee machine being broken, it being a rainy day or because they just feel like it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5806 Posts
On March 03 2011 06:12 Frigo wrote: It is quite possible to pull out bullshit statistics to rationalize racism and segregation as well (scientific racism anyone?). Does that make it okay? Just because it is not a stereotypical example of discrimination, it does not mean it is not discrimination. Never quite understood why employers should bear the cost of the women's choice to reproduce. And they are not paid less, they simply work less. They are paid the same per hour. Because it's only fair that way. Otherwise they would either choose to "work more" and the society would cease to exist or they would have to accept being at the disadvantage when it comes to reproduction (it's not like men don't choose to reproduce - they just don't suffer from such negative consequences). | ||
|
Hats
United Kingdom5 Posts
Bob sees John and his car ensurance buisness and wants to get in on the action. Bob noticed that 90% of people that claimed their $1000 from John had their eyes more than 5.6cm apart. 5% of the population had their eyes too far apart and Bob came up with a new payment plan. He would charge normal people $10pa and people-with-their-eyes-too-far-apart $20pa. Obviously, all the normal people instantly switched to Bob's company and none of the people-with-their-eyes-too-far-apart did. Bob collected $950,000 and only 100 of his customers claimed. Bob payed them a total of $95,000 and made a profit of a whopping $855,000. Get in! John didn't fair very well this year. He was left with the people-with-their-eyes-too-far-apart, 5000 of them. He collected $55,000 but 900 people claimed, he had to pay them $900,000. John made a loss that year of $845,000. Disheartened, John closed his car insurance buisness. Next Bob got everyone buying insurance from him. He collected $950,000 from the normal people and $100,000 ($1,100,000 total). 1000 people claim and he pays out $1,000,000. Bob gets a profit of $100,000 in his second year of buisness. Bob didn't raise his prices because he had anything against people-with-their-eyes-too-far-apart; instead he lowered the price for everyone else so he would get more custom. Bob doesn't hate people-with-their-eyes-too-far-apart; he is just a smart buisnessman. TL;DR: Insurance companies don't charge you more for having a dick. They charge women less for driving sensibly and not like a mong with their eyes too far apart. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
The real interesting things to talk about would be how this actually affects our society on a large scale. Does it discourage males from driving? Would that make males less able to do some jobs than others? Well, the answer to both those questions is that it is probably just not significant enough of an impact on one's expenses to really discourage them from driving, but these are the only things worth talking about regarding this subject. Right now all I can see from reading this thread is really vague moral arguments. It is right. It isn't right. But we do this too. But we don't do that. You have to answer the why to those questions if you want to learn anything. It's a fact that insurance companies depend on statistics to be able to maintain themselves, but there must be a point where we say 'that's wrong' and the government has to step in to run things at a deficit in order to stimulate social change. However, I think between men and women, our society isn't really crumbling because men have to pay a bit more than women. There's no real reason for the government to step in. On the other hand, regarding race, poor communities which have a disproportionate amount of one race over another will definitely be held back by increased insurance. Long term, that is not really good for a country, so it's reasonable to tell insurance companies 'stop screwing with the social hierarchy.' Big picture, yo. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
| ||
| ||
