|
racism does not work like sexism, imo.
the difference between men and women can be seen throughout our society, as mentioned previous by other posters. however race does not behave the same way. when you say "black people cause more crime than white people" it has more to do with the environment that person is in. the upbringing of the person determines the person's mindset towards driving. race has nothing to do with how a person drives unlike the difference between women and men.
most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh.
people who bring up black vs white crime, why dont you factor in their income, location(environment) and age then see if the color of their skin matters.
|
if they charge less for men the fact is they would have to start charging more for women. same goes for any demographic that they charge more or less for
|
On March 03 2011 09:31 jinorazi wrote:
racism does not work like sexism, imo.
the difference between men and women can be seen throughout our society, as mentioned previous by other posters. however race does not behave the same way. when you say "black people cause more crime than white people" it has more to do with the environment that person is in. the upbringing of the person determines the person's mindset towards driving. race has nothing to do with how a person drives unlike the difference between women and men.
most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh.
people who bring up black vs white crime, why dont you factor in their income, location(environment) and age then see if the color of their skin matters.
You don't think that the fact that we paint baby girls' rooms pink, make them play with Barbies and socially pressure them to be prissy and « feminine » might have something to do with it? I mean, you're talking about upbringing and it seems to me these are all the factors that make it so that women in general end up uninterested in cars.
I highly doubt young girls in the caveman era had pink loincloths and played with rock Barbies. I also highly doubt young boys in the same era behaved the opposite way. Were there gender roles? Most likely. But if you take a look at a lot of non-Western societies before they were westernized (Aboriginal people of the Americas for example) women held as much power as men did. Did they stay at home, make clothes, cook and raise children? In a lot of cases yes. But they were also respected because of this. When making clothes allows you to survive winter, and only women know how to do it, their opinion suddenly matters a lot more.
What I'm trying to say is that sex (or race for that matter) itself is not the reason specific groups of people might drive differently. However, the way society treats these people is. In other words, if I'm a guy who was well brought up not to race my car, I'm still getting royally fucked in the ass because everyone else thinks I did. Somehow, the moronic blonde in my class, who's always trying to the males that she's better than they are does decide to drive 140kph in an 80kph zone, and not only does she not pay anywhere near as much insurance as me, but when she does get pulled over, she just plays the crying card and gets off practically free.
Yeah, I don't know how it is anywhere else, but I'll give you my personal example:
I drive a 2002 Honda Accord, 4-door, grandpa dark green with grandpa beige interior. 2.3L 4-cyl motor. I still live with my parents, and in order to save money, I go through their insurance plan to drive the car I paid for. It costs me roughly 3500$ CAD a year, or almost 300$ monthly to be insured. I'm 20, took the accredited driving school test (which has reduced my insurance by about 300$ a month my insurance company told me) and have had my full licence (''G'') for 2 years (as long as I've been eligible basically), which also reduces insurance costs, but I've been driving since May 2006.
My girlfriend drives a 2002 Chrysler Sebring 4-door. I'm not sure about the engine displacement size, but I know that it's bigger than my 2.3L and that it's a V6. It's shiny silver, and overall is a much sportier car than what I drive. Like me, she still lives with her parents and does the same thing I do for insurance. The difference is, she pays something like 900$ to be insured. She got her full ''G'' licence after I did (something like 6 months).
How is this seriously supposed to be fair? We're both university students. I don't about you guys, but 2500$ difference is equal to half a year's tuition around here. Over the course of my 4-year B.A. it'll have cost me 10 000$ more than her just to get to school. (The busride to school is literally 2 hours long from my home, though it's only like 15km away... hence why I chose to drive and just work more. I did the math, I end up saving money driving and working the difference in transit time).
|
On March 03 2011 09:31 jinorazi wrote:
racism does not work like sexism, imo.
the difference between men and women can be seen throughout our society, as mentioned previous by other posters. however race does not behave the same way. when you say "black people cause more crime than white people" it has more to do with the environment that person is in. the upbringing of the person determines the person's mindset towards driving. race has nothing to do with how a person drives unlike the difference between women and men.
most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh.
people who bring up black vs white crime, why dont you factor in their income, location(environment) and age then see if the color of their skin matters.
I think you're confusing sex with gender. Sex is purely biological, gender has a lot more to do with the environment that person is in.
|
on a related Canadian note, how about those new under 21 driving laws in Ontario? the justification is basically "statistically, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by those 21 and under... so let's increase the alcohol restrictions against those people." It's really quite a weak argument, and doesn't acknowledge any other potential factors to the stats such as the amount of years you've had a license or the fact that you don't have kids. Furthermore drawing the line is rather arbitrary...
To shed some more light... hypothetically let's say in texas or some state where guns are legal... that statistically the majority of shooting crimes were performed by single black people aged 25-30. Should we increase the gun restrictions upon that group?
|
On March 03 2011 10:08 Dugrok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 09:31 jinorazi wrote:
racism does not work like sexism, imo.
the difference between men and women can be seen throughout our society, as mentioned previous by other posters. however race does not behave the same way. when you say "black people cause more crime than white people" it has more to do with the environment that person is in. the upbringing of the person determines the person's mindset towards driving. race has nothing to do with how a person drives unlike the difference between women and men.
most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh.
people who bring up black vs white crime, why dont you factor in their income, location(environment) and age then see if the color of their skin matters. You don't think that the fact that we paint baby girls' rooms pink, make them play with Barbies and socially pressure them to be prissy and « feminine » might have something to do with it? I mean, you're talking about upbringing and it seems to me these are all the factors that make it so that women in general end up uninterested in cars. I highly doubt young girls in the caveman era had pink loincloths and played with rock Barbies. I also highly doubt young boys in the same era behaved the opposite way. Were there gender roles? Most likely. But if you take a look at a lot of non-Western societies before they were westernized (Aboriginal people of the Americas for example) women held as much power as men did. Did they stay at home, make clothes, cook and raise children? In a lot of cases yes. But they were also respected because of this. When making clothes allows you to survive winter, and only women know how to do it, their opinion suddenly matters a lot more. What I'm trying to say is that sex (or race for that matter) itself is not the reason specific groups of people might drive differently. However, the way society treats these people is. In other words, if I'm a guy who was well brought up not to race my car, I'm still getting royally fucked in the ass because everyone else thinks I did. Somehow, the moronic blonde in my class, who's always trying to the males that she's better than they are does decide to drive 140kph in an 80kph zone, and not only does she not pay anywhere near as much insurance as me, but when she does get pulled over, she just plays the crying card and gets off practically free. Yeah, I don't know how it is anywhere else, but I'll give you my personal example: I drive a 2002 Honda Accord, 4-door, grandpa dark green with grandpa beige interior. 2.3L 4-cyl motor. I still live with my parents, and in order to save money, I go through their insurance plan to drive the car I paid for. It costs me roughly 3500$ CAD a year, or almost 300$ monthly to be insured. I'm 20, took the accredited driving school test (which has reduced my insurance by about 300$ a month my insurance company told me) and have had my full licence (''G'') for 2 years (as long as I've been eligible basically), which also reduces insurance costs, but I've been driving since May 2006. My girlfriend drives a 2002 Chrysler Sebring 4-door. I'm not sure about the engine displacement size, but I know that it's bigger than my 2.3L and that it's a V6. It's shiny silver, and overall is a much sportier car than what I drive. Like me, she still lives with her parents and does the same thing I do for insurance. The difference is, she pays something like 900$ to be insured. She got her full ''G'' licence after I did (something like 6 months). How is this seriously supposed to be fair? We're both university students. I don't about you guys, but 2500$ difference is equal to half a year's tuition around here. Over the course of my 4-year B.A. it'll have cost me 10 000$ more than her just to get to school. (The busride to school is literally 2 hours long from my home, though it's only like 15km away... hence why I chose to drive and just work more. I did the math, I end up saving money driving and working the difference in transit time).
of course the upbringing has so many factors. i wanted to add some of the possibilities but it would have made the post too long so i left them out. i was purely generalizing when i said girls vs boys when it came to cars but it stands true for most, at least in my experience.
i was merely trying to point out racism does not play a factor when comparing assessment of race vs gender. typical upbringing of a girl/boy plays a role whereas race does not.
i'm all for individualized assessment. driving record (tickets, accidents, etc), experience in driving, driving education, etc. should play a bigger role than gender, job, location, age, etc.
i for one pay ~$150/m(US) for a subaru impreza sti, which isn't much to be honest(i'm 26) but its more than what i'd pay for bmw m3, mercedes, audi equivalents thanks to people who drive recklessly. $150 was the cheapest i can find, esurance.com. rest of the companies like AAA, Geico, Allstate etc quoted me 2500 to 3000 a year, ~200 to 250/m for same coverage.
On March 03 2011 10:15 shinosai wrote:
I think you're confusing sex with gender. Sex is purely biological, gender has a lot more to do with the environment that person is in.
i still dont know what you mean. english isn't my first language, care to explain?
|
i still dont know what you mean. english isn't my first language, care to explain?
Sure. What I'm trying to say here is that your distinction between sexism and racism doesn't make any sense. You argue that the differences between men and women can be seen throughout society (it's "biological"), however, the differences between white people and black people are purely based on different factors (it's "environmental").
While sex differences are in fact purely biological, in the sense that men have dicks and women don't, gender differences are the ones we are talking about here. Environmental stuff. The reason women don't get in serious accidents could have a lot to do with their age, upbringing, and so on. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their estrogen levels. If we raise women to be the "fairer" sex, to like pink and fluffy things, and to be cautious because of the importance of their reputation... well, how is that any less environmental than the differences between whites and blacks?
most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh.
But men loving cars and women not is purely an environmental cause. Estrogen doesn't cause women to think cars are lame. Society teaches women to value other things in our particular culture. So is crime. Being black doesn't cause black people to think crime is cool. Your argument is faulty.
Also, I'm pretty damn sure there are discrepancies between races in car accident statistics. We can't use these because racial profiling is illegal.
|
it should be equal to both genders in ALL fields no matter what the subject/issue!
|
On March 03 2011 10:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +
i still dont know what you mean. english isn't my first language, care to explain?
Sure. What I'm trying to say here is that your distinction between sexism and racism doesn't make any sense. You argue that the differences between men and women can be seen throughout society (it's "biological"), however, the differences between white people and black people are purely based on different factors (it's "environmental"). While sex differences are in fact purely biological, in the sense that men have dicks and women don't, gender differences are the ones we are talking about here. Environmental stuff. The reason women don't get in serious accidents could have a lot to do with their age, upbringing, and so on. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their estrogen levels. If we raise women to be the "fairer" sex, to like pink and fluffy things, and to be cautious because of the importance of their reputation... well, how is that any less environmental than the differences between whites and blacks? Show nested quote +most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh. But men loving cars and women not is purely an environmental cause. Estrogen doesn't cause women to think cars are lame. Society teaches women to value other things in our particular culture. So is crime. Being black doesn't cause black people to think crime is cool. Your argument is faulty. Also, I'm pretty damn sure there are discrepancies between races in car accident statistics. We can't use these because racial profiling is illegal.
:/ i thought thats the message i was trying to portray to those who claimed if sex is assessed, race should too. i guess my english is pretty bad >_<
i was trying to say comparing sex/gender and race doesn't work.
|
@jinorazi Sorry if I misunderstood you then! Just trying to demonstrate the same as you! English isn't my first language either, so I know how it can feel writing something, only to have someone tell you your argument is flawed haha.
Also, sex is tied directly to what's in between your pants. You have a penis, you are male and it ends there. You can't refute it. Gender however is more loosely defined. Generally males identify as men and females identify as women, but this isn't always the case. Some tend to cross over to the other side, mix both up, or even chose no gender whatsoever.
On March 03 2011 10:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +
i still dont know what you mean. english isn't my first language, care to explain?
Sure. What I'm trying to say here is that your distinction between sexism and racism doesn't make any sense. You argue that the differences between men and women can be seen throughout society (it's "biological"), however, the differences between white people and black people are purely based on different factors (it's "environmental"). While sex differences are in fact purely biological, in the sense that men have dicks and women don't, gender differences are the ones we are talking about here. Environmental stuff. The reason women don't get in serious accidents could have a lot to do with their age, upbringing, and so on. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their estrogen levels. If we raise women to be the "fairer" sex, to like pink and fluffy things, and to be cautious because of the importance of their reputation... well, how is that any less environmental than the differences between whites and blacks? Show nested quote +most men loves cars, most women does not care.
races? there's no difference between them all. it just matters on their age/location tbh. But men loving cars and women not is purely an environmental cause. Estrogen doesn't cause women to think cars are lame. Society teaches women to value other things in our particular culture. So is crime. Being black doesn't cause black people to think crime is cool. Your argument is faulty. Also, I'm pretty damn sure there are discrepancies between races in car accident statistics. We can't use these because racial profiling is illegal.
Pretty sure gender profiling is too though. I know at least here it is.
On March 03 2011 10:24 Gak2 wrote:
on a related Canadian note, how about those new under 21 driving laws in Ontario? the justification is basically "statistically, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by those 21 and under... so let's increase the alcohol restrictions against those people." It's really quite a weak argument, and doesn't acknowledge any other potential factors to the stats such as the amount of years you've had a license or the fact that you don't have kids. Furthermore drawing the line is rather arbitrary...
To shed some more light... hypothetically let's say in texas or some state where guns are legal... that statistically the majority of shooting crimes were performed by single black people aged 25-30. Should we increase the gun restrictions upon that group?
Tell me about it. I finally turn 19 in 2009, and I can finally have a SINGLE drink with my girlfriend when I take her out for supper. A few months later the Ontario government goes all trollface on my ass and I'm back to ordering water when we go out. Meanwhile, the town drunk gets to stay slightly under his legal limit, swirving all over the road. Logic at its best.
I don't know, it seems to me that the legal drinking age being 19 should regulate everything else. It's not like being 22 suddenly means you stop drinking and driving. If you already were, it won't change anything.
|
The primary argument is completely fallacious. Its not sexism, its staticism, and its legal.
|
Sexism against men is best displayed in divorce courts. This is not sexism.
|
On March 03 2011 11:41 Crushgroove wrote:
The primary argument is completely fallacious. Its not sexism, its staticism, and its legal.
But then why is it illegal to use certain statistics such as racial profiling? It's not racism, it's staticism, and it's.... oh wait, it's illegal.
|
On March 03 2011 10:24 Gak2 wrote:
on a related Canadian note, how about those new under 21 driving laws in Ontario? the justification is basically "statistically, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by those 21 and under... so let's increase the alcohol restrictions against those people." It's really quite a weak argument, and doesn't acknowledge any other potential factors to the stats such as the amount of years you've had a license or the fact that you don't have kids. Furthermore drawing the line is rather arbitrary...
To shed some more light... hypothetically let's say in texas or some state where guns are legal... that statistically the majority of shooting crimes were performed by single black people aged 25-30. Should we increase the gun restrictions upon that group?
Honestly, I'm in favour of more restrictive drinking and driving laws, period. There have been studies that show any form of distraction increases the likelihood of crashing a motor-vehicle, so it makes sense to prevent people from drinking. Otherwise you get the idiots who say "but one drink makes me a better driver" just before they kill someone.
On a personal note, I am within those age limits, so its not like I'm speaking harshly, knowing I have an immunity to the repercussions. However, I wouldn't trust any of my friends to have any liquor before driving, no matter how well they hold it.
|
On March 03 2011 11:52 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 10:24 Gak2 wrote:
on a related Canadian note, how about those new under 21 driving laws in Ontario? the justification is basically "statistically, most alcohol-related accidents are caused by those 21 and under... so let's increase the alcohol restrictions against those people." It's really quite a weak argument, and doesn't acknowledge any other potential factors to the stats such as the amount of years you've had a license or the fact that you don't have kids. Furthermore drawing the line is rather arbitrary...
To shed some more light... hypothetically let's say in texas or some state where guns are legal... that statistically the majority of shooting crimes were performed by single black people aged 25-30. Should we increase the gun restrictions upon that group? Honestly, I'm in favour of more restrictive drinking and driving laws, period. There have been studies that show any form of distraction increases the likelihood of crashing a motor-vehicle, so it makes sense to prevent people from drinking. Otherwise you get the idiots who say "but one drink makes me a better driver" just before they kill someone. On a personal note, I am within those age limits, so its not like I'm speaking harshly, knowing I have an immunity to the repercussions. However, I wouldn't trust any of my friends to have any liquor before driving, no matter how well they hold it.
You know, you probably have a point. The fact remains that if this was really the problem, why wasn't the law applied to the entire population instead of only those who are 21 and below?
On March 03 2011 11:47 TwoPac wrote:
Sexism against men is best displayed in divorce courts. This is not sexism.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't sexism, though you do have a point in saying that it's probably a lot worse in divorce courts. I never understood why a mother would automatically have rights to a child despite being a less fit parent. I've seen a few cases of this in just people I know... I mean of course I don't know all the details about these cases; I'm not an insider or anything... the fact remains that often proof that the mother is also unfit surfaces.
And yeah, there probably is a larger tendency of men that abuse their children than women... still it seems to me that cases should be based individually...
|
There's a difference between gender roles and gender identity. Gender roles are the stereotypes or "accepted social norms" for a particular gender. These include females not being mathematically inclined, not being interested in cars, teachers are more likely female, doctors are more often male, counselors are more likely female, etc. Gender identity are the traits that are more common shown in one gender than the other. The biggest one is the motherly instinct for women. All women have it, but not all use it nor do they need to unless they want to be a mother. Women as a whole are more in touch with their emotions and nurturing. This genetic disposition is reinforced by the toys, games, and play that society teaches little girls.
|
As a former actuary from a healthcare consulting company, one thing I want to stress is that the "statistics" behind pricing policies are subject to an unbelievable level of mathematical scrutiny and precision. Insurance companies have claims databases that are that large - millions or billions of claims - with sometimes thousands of variables all accounted for. (though more often it is less than a hundred) When they determine that one sex is healthier than the other, or that it will cost less to insure a member of that sex as a driver, that policy has gone through a rigorous testing process. If insurer X had a bad model, insurer Y can easily steal a huge chunk of their customers by using a more accurate model. Y will maximize their profits, X will not (or might turn a loss even), and we know where it goes from there.
The same level of scrutiny does not exist in employee salaries. In most situations, an employer has to guess what an employee's value to the company is. Claims like "men are more productive workers than women" are largely anecdotal. Your typical employer doesn't have access to literally billions of data points that allow him to filter out the effects of all known confounding variables and make a meaningful comparison of one sex (or race/etc) versus another.
For the purposes of making this particular distinction, I'm not saying that employers are guaranteed to be incorrect in believing that a man is more valuable to the company than a women when other variables are equal. I'm stating that there isn't the same level of mathematical rigor going into that decision. The two practices aren't really comparable. Furthermore, history shows that in the past (at the very least) such salary decisions have typically been made out of biased and irrational behavior. Computerized insurance models are incapable of irrational bias.
Similarly, I'm not aware of any studies comparing levels of violence between different races when age, income, occupation, education level, location, homeowner status, family size/marital status, etc etc etc are all taken into account. And even if there were, there is no way for a police officer to know all of that when he sees a random person on the street. He cannot profile people in such a precise manner; an insurance company can.
There is also a structural difference between racial profiling and insurance premiums. With insurance, you pay an amount that covers your expected costs. If you don't have an accident, it isn't considered an injustice that you paid money for services not received; conversely, if you end up totaling your car, we don't look at it as if you ripped off the insurance company by getting them to pay an amount higher than your premium. Contrast this to the legal system - if you go to prison and didn't do anything illegal, we consider this a social injustice. If you don't go to prison despite committing a crime, then the legal system may be failing to protect other innocent people from you. Insurance is about averages and expected values, law enforcement/justice is about trying to be right every time and treating people fairly.
|
The number of mathematical models and variables is irrelevant.
You could make similar models for cities where races that are 5% of the population are somehow responsible for 70% of the crime.
Yet we have decided that discriminating against someone for something they have no control over is not fair, and that just because someone of a certain race is statistically more likely to commit a crime, it is unfair to assume they will, that they deserve a fair chance.
People who have more accidents already pay more for insurance, there is no reason to charge a certain gender more than another simply because of their gender. They should be judged on their record.
You could easily make similar statistical links between race and accidents, one race has to have more accidents than another! However this would not be accepted by the courts or by the population, no matter how many mathematical models you have.
|
On March 03 2011 13:08 Jones993 wrote:
You could make similar models for cities where races that are 5% of the population are somehow responsible for 70% of the crime.
Prove it. Make such a model.
|
Demanding outragous things is not a valid debate strategy.
Do you seriously think a model linking crime to race could not be made?
Create a simple neural network > feed it examples of crime taking into account race, etc. -> check the weighting given to race at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
