Sexism... Against Men - Page 8

On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:

Yea, I'm just going to say cz seems to get it.

Can we agree on this:
1) The definition of sexism is: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities (taken from dictionary.com)
2) Therefore, it is sexist to charge different rates for men and women.
and finally,
3) TLO is really handsome.

On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:


its sexist, but you can't sue them for that. That's how they do rates. If you asked them to do everything individually, then they'd go bankrupt. (have to spend tons of money figuring out how safe someone is...etc...).

It's acceptable sexism. There's a difference between saying "women get in less car accidents" and "men are worse drivers." The same difference between "black people are poor" and "more poor people in the US are black than white.".

On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:


its sexist, but you can't sue them for that. That's how they do rates. If you asked them to do everything individually, then they'd go bankrupt. (have to spend tons of money figuring out how safe someone is...etc...).

It's acceptable sexism. There's a difference between saying "women get in less car accidents" and "men are worse drivers." The same difference between "black people are poor" and "more poor people in the US are black than white.".

On November 23 2010 11:35 cz wrote:


Discrimination: "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

It is discrimination. It is based on sex. It is therefore sexism.

And they are receiving the same product: a certain insurance protection, which has whatever attributes you want. You get the same thing. One just pays more, and I understand why, but it's still sexism. And that's still wrong.

I don't feel that anyone should have their personal worth attacked or their fees raised solely because of their gender.

On November 23 2010 11:43 cz wrote:


They wouldn't go bankrupt, they'd just raise rates overall (women would face higher rates than previous, men the opposite). As for "acceptable sexism," I disagree. And why it's allowed is because there isn't enough push to get it changed against the ever strong tide of lobbyists and money from insurance companies on politicians.

On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:


So would it be "acceptable" for insurance companies to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds?
...
Sigh...

On November 23 2010 11:46 Vanished131 wrote:


It's something that is accepted and absolutely shouldn't be. This is not 1950. We are not seperate and equal.

On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:


So would it be "acceptable" to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds?
...
Sigh...

The wikipedia definition is not a definition at all, it's the beginning of an encyclopedia entry. If you consult the dictionary you'll see that sexism is essentially "discrimination based on sex."

I'm not disputing the reasoning behind insurance companies rate pricing: if I were a CEO driven to increase profits, I'd use the same system. But it's still sexism, per the definition (not wikipedia's long essay).

On November 23 2010 11:44 Pandain wrote:


I'm saying if you extend this cry of "sexism", they will go bankrupt. I mean, the reasons why men are more likely to get involved in serious accidents are grounded in studies(higher aggressiveness, more likely longer trips, higher alcohol use.) Basically if you're going to disavow this, grounded in science, you have to treat everyone as equal no matter what. And that would cause them to go bankrupt.

If it has studies behind it, obviously.

On November 23 2010 11:46 Risen wrote:
Simple answer. Different races are not physically different, genders are. Therefor sexism is allowed while racism is not in this case

On November 23 2010 11:46 Z3kk wrote:


I was posting under the opinion that "sexism" implies an actual attitude (as AAtwelve used the dictionary.com definition--I was subconsciously assuming the first definition) or belief. Literally, and by technical definition, it's "sexist" because there's a fundamental difference between the rates (as an example), but my point was that this isn't true sexism, because that would involve an illogical belief or attitude of debasing a particular sex.

My other point is that if we accept this sexism's definition, it means nothing, because it just means that we can empirically see that there's a difference, but it means nothing socially, because it doesn't actually mean that the companies have an attitude.

If you were a CEO who used the same system to increase profits, you wouldn't be sexist because you don't hold an attitude that men are poor drivers or anything of the like. You wouldn't have an actual belief in anything other than the fact that charging men more for insurance is the optimal way to increase profit.

On November 23 2010 11:47 cz wrote:


How would it cause them to go bankrupt? They'd just increase rates for women while lowering them for men as they can no longer use sex (a protected trait) to discriminate.

On November 23 2010 11:35 cz wrote:

Discrimination: "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

It is discrimination. It is based on sex. It is therefore sexism.

And they are receiving the same product: a certain insurance protection, which has whatever attributes you want. You get the same thing. One just pays more, and I understand why, but it's still sexism. And that's still wrong.