|
On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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.
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.".
|
I can imagine that if women were statistically more prone to accidents and were thus charged higher insurance that this would be a big deal, and it would be considered sexism.
|
On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.".
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 11:40 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.".
So would it be "acceptable" for insurance companies to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds?
...
Sigh...
|
On November 23 2010 11:35 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:33 domovoi wrote:On November 23 2010 11:30 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote:There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? That's like saying women and men should be charged the same for meals even though women tend to eat less than men. Because it's discrimination based on a protected trait (sex). It's illegal to make decisions based on that in many situations. In Canada, for example, a landlord can't refuse a potential renter based on their gender, race, religion, etc. Women are also in general less available workers (they have longer maternity leave, work less on average) but you can't discriminate in your hiring based on sex by law. It's not discrimination based on sex. Men and women are not receiving the same product, because women receive less insurance payouts than men over the life of their policy. It would in fact be discrimination to charge them the same rates, because now women are putting more money into it than what they take out relative to men. 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.
As an observer to the thread (Full disclosure: also an active anti-feminist) from the definition of discrimination it seems obvious that insurance rates are an example of sex-based discrimination.
It should be obvious it is a bad thing insurance companies use cherry picked aggregates (often those legally allowed) and apply them to individuals. It should also be obvious that doing it based on individuals is a million times more complex. Where that leaves us is up in the air. It gives us a goal, at the least.
|
To me it seems like insurance companies are doing the sensible thing. Perhaps not a great thing, and certainly not the best thing, but the sensible thing.
Yes, rates are determined by statistics. Does gender happen to be one of those statistics? Yes. Why? Because it's pretty easy to follow who's a dude and who's a dudette. For the people arguing "Why not use race?", implying that it is discriminatory, I'd actually suggest insurance companies could use that data. Follow along with me though, let's go further. What about personal history?
I'd argue that if companies could collect and compare and then use individual data feasibly, that they should do so. Leave no stone unturned. Get each person their own quote.
Oh, wait a minute. That means everyone pays differently. So obviously, my higher rates must be discriminating against my poor celestial fortunes when it comes to driving.
Well, that last part was entirely sarcastic, but to sum up my point, these companies offer a service to cover you in case of accidents. That's a good thing, right? They also have to provide this service relatively quickly. If they had the ability to just snap their fingers and make everything just right, don't you think they would?
I'm assuming they don't require race as information because of the outcry it would cause, even though statistics are merely cold hard numbers. This male-female thing slipped under the radar, most likely because of the "women had to put up with it, so you should be fine with discrimination too" argument general apathy we have about it when it comes to the male side of discrimination.
I think we're all getting worked up over something minor. At the end of the day, the OP wasn't championing male rights and equality. He just wanted to save some cash. Unless of course he was going to use the refunded premiums in support of charities for discriminated men everywhere.
Also:
I don't feel that anyone should have their personal worth attacked or their fees raised solely because of their gender.
I find it quite absurd that anyone's personal worth can be attacked through an insurance policy.
|
On November 23 2010 11:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". 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.
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.
On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". So would it be "acceptable" for insurance companies to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds? ... Sigh...
If it has studies behind it, obviously.
On November 23 2010 11:46 Vanished131 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". So would it be "acceptable" to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds? ... Sigh... It's something that is accepted and absolutely shouldn't be. This is not 1950. We are not seperate and equal.
:/
You see, this is different. Segregation and racism has no backing to it. Black people can be just as smart as any white person. This is different :/
|
I'm surprised no one tried to sue over this yet.
|
On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". So would it be "acceptable" to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds? ... Sigh...
It's something that is accepted and absolutely shouldn't be. This is not 1950. We are not seperate and equal.
|
Simple answer. Different races are not physically different, genders are. Therefor sexism is allowed while racism is not in this case
|
One thing that I think is a misconception about the "Men's Rights" movement is one of mutual exclusivity. People (women especially) seem to think that if you support men's rights issues (e.g. insurance rates, custody bias, etc) then you must not also support female right's issues.
It's not like that. Yes, there are a lot of angry men in the "movement," but there are a lot of well balanced individuals who are both feminists and support men's rights. When we see something with a women being discriminated against, we say "that's wrong, how can we fix this?" and when we see men being discirminated against, we say the same thing. It's not mutually exclusive: you can write to your senator about custody bias on behalf of men in the morning and attend an anti-rape vigil in the evening.
|
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).
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.
|
Insurance companies also charge a different amount depending on the model of the car and the locale in which it is typically parked. Do you wish to charge them with classism as well?
|
On November 23 2010 11:44 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:43 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". 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. 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. Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". So would it be "acceptable" for insurance companies to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds? ... Sigh... If it has studies behind it, obviously.
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 11:46 Risen wrote:
Simple answer. Different races are not physically different, genders are. Therefor sexism is allowed while racism is not in this case
Wrong. Different races are physically different. Skin pigmentation. And have you ever seen an asian's eyes, or an african's nose?
|
On November 23 2010 11:46 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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.
As you say, by the technical definition (e.g. the actual one), it's sexist. True sexism = fits the technical definition, not what some wikipedia page says. That's all I wanted to get across, besides the moral position that sexism is wrong (which you may or may not share).
|
On November 23 2010 11:47 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:44 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:43 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". 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. 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. On November 23 2010 11:43 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:40 Pandain wrote:On November 23 2010 11:37 AAtwelve wrote:On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue. 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. 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.". So would it be "acceptable" for insurance companies to discriminate between people of different ethnic backgrounds? ... Sigh... If it has studies behind it, obviously. 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.
Again, I'm saying if you continue the basis for this "sexism" that EVERYTHING IS EQUAL NO MATTER WHAT. The fact is men ARE more likely to be involved in crashes, and that that in that regard is NOT equal.
If you go by this logic, then insurance has to consider EVERYTHING equal, no matter how aggressive you are(everyone's equal), addition to alcohol(everyone's equal). Then they would go bankrupt.
|
Ok, how about this:
1) There is a difference between determining insurance rates by cars/driving history/locale and by sex.
2) There is a difference between determining insurance rates by cars/driving history/locale and by ethnicity.
3) TLO is freaking handsome.
|
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.
I don't know where you got that stupid definition of discrimination, but taking it literally, the fact that, for example, I get handed ads in Las Vegas for female prostitutes because of my gender rather than anything to do with my individualized preference for prostitutes (as someone with a girlfriend, I have no interest in prostitutes) would be sexism. Or how about a doctor recommending that I check myself for testicular cancer because I'm a man rather than because of my individualized propensity for testicular cancer. Sexism too, amirite?
A better definition is disparate treatment of a person despite the same results. In the context of consumer goods, it's stupid to say a good targeted at a gender rather than the individual's preference (e.g. lingerie, which not all women desire to wear) would somehow be sexist. Instead, we would say charging a man more than a woman for a certain product would be sexist. I can agree to that.
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.
You do not get the same thing. Men get more money from their policies than women on average so it makes perfect sense to have men on average pay more for such policies. That they have the same label does not mean it's the same product except in the same naive sense that a woman buying dinner is the "same" as a man buying dinner.
It would be sexist to charge women the same as men, because only then are women paying more for what they get relative to men. It would be like saying men and women should always pay the same amount for dinner, even though women eat less.
|
Slightly off topic, theres a program in hong kong which is Mr.Hong Kong, and surpsingly, Miss.Hong Kong.
Mr.Hong Kong features male contestants trying to show some talent (and muscles >>) to be crowned Mr.Hong Kong, this show features thousands of women in the audience who will reach out and grab/touch the contestants. But whats interesting to note is males are BANNED from buying tickets to go to this show.
However, the Mrs.Hong Kong show features all the female contestants, tickets are available to both men and women, and of course (as expected) theres nobody reaching out and grabbing at the women (obviously this would be sexual harassment).
Just interesting how sexism exists in so many different forms across the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
