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.
While it wouldn't be anything as extreme as bankruptcy, they might lose a lot of money, because men, taken as a group, drive more than do women, and if we were to make the insurance rates exactly equivalent to each other, who knows how much that would cost in the long run?
It's almost absurd to talk about establishing rates that are exactly the same. How would they set this rate in perfect balance? If they raised or lowered the rate, one group of the other would have the right to call bias. For example, it's unfair to women for their rates to be raised because even though they drive more carefully or get into fewer accidents, they still have to pay more money for insurance.
On November 23 2010 11:49 AAtwelve wrote: 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.
How so. Let's say this:
Classifying by Alchohol addiction: Is it unequal? You might say no. I would say"BUT EVERYONE'S EQUAL." But you would say "well, but they're statistically more likely to get involved in car accidents." Then you would normally agree with me.
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...
If it were shown that being white correlated to being in more accidents, then yes, white people should be charged more for insurance. If that correlation disappeared when other factors were considered then no, being white shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a cause for higher rates. To illustrate:
Suppose Starcraft players were shown to be more likely to get into accidents. At face value we would think it would be right to charge Starcraft players more for insurance. Now, later on, another study is done and it turns out that most Starcraft players are fine drivers, except the Terran players are more likely to get into accidents. Now the basis for charging more is not that a driver plays Starcraft, but instead that the driver is a Terran player.
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...
If it were shown that being white correlated to being in more accidents, then yes, white people should be charged more for insurance. If that correlation disappeared when other factors were considered then no, being white shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a cause for higher rates. To illustrate:
Suppose Starcraft players were shown to be more likely to get into accidents. At face value we would think it would be right to charge Starcraft players more for insurance. Now, later on, another study is done and it turns out that most Starcraft players are fine drivers, except the Terran players are more likely to get into accidents. Now the basis for charging more is not that a driver plays Starcraft, but instead that the driver is a Terran player.
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. women's underwear) 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.
I don't even... I regret posting in this thread...
Also, people really need to read through the entire thread before posting comments.
Let's say 99% of crimes are committed by black people in a given area and only 1% are white/miscellaneous. You still aren't allowed (it's illegal) to check every black person in that area on the hunch that they might be involved in a crime, even though its statistically backed. Yet in the case of insurance, that same kind of profiling is allowed. In a hypothetical where 99% of white males in their 20s cause accidents, suddenly I'm paying exorbitant rates, even if I personally have nothing that points to me being a bad driver. You're condemned because of those in a similar demographic.
I guess the argument is private versus public(?), but I still find it distasteful.
Your analogy really has no viable relation to the actual situation. Contrary to what you just said, law is very much enforced by statistics and probability. For example, areas of cities which have higher crime rates are assigned more law enforcement to monitor them. If someone who looks like a gang member is walking down the street, police have the right to issue a pat down.
Also, you left out an essential principle in your analogy. You created a situation where 99% of crimes were committed by african americans and 1% by whites. The reason police would not be allowed to check every african american in this situation is not due to some ethical reasoning. It is only because only a small percentage of the african american community would actually be committing the crimes previously mentioned.
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.
1) Yes, your examples fit the definition of sexism. You'll see that those types of basic social situations are discussed as sexism often by third wave feminists, but with reference to women being on the receiving end ("why does my boss always give me cosmetics as a company gift when the men get taken out to a bar?")
2) Your definition of sexism fits the above examples and the one you give about insurance.
3) Men get the same products, the same amount of coverage. Men pay higher rates for the same amount of coverage guaranteed by the insurer. That is the product that the person receives, and the price for it is disparate based on gender. Yes, the company will statistically pay more for males, but that's not the product that the consumer is receiving. They receive coverage that guarantees payment (of a certain amount) from an insurer in certain situations: it costs more for men than women.
My view on this thread is that the OP started with a weak unthought out complaint. Realized he got owned about 3 pages in and started citing the definition of sexism and changed his arguement to revolve around meeting it.
I thibk everyone can agree this is discrimination and further more since its sex based it is also sexism. But your original premise is that this is unjustified sexism which i think almost everyone here disagrees with.
The reason other discrimination forms have been removed is because they were unfounded or even worse they were self fulfilling profecies.
If you put segregation on education and offer worse schools to a group of people then your pining them down to failure.
Theres a number of other reason i can think of but the gist of my post is that you back peddled into "but guys it is discrimination" because your orginal point sucked.
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.
While it wouldn't be anything as extreme as bankruptcy, they might lose a lot of money, because men, taken as a group, drive more than do women, and if we were to make the insurance rates exactly equivalent to each other, who knows how much that would cost in the long run?
It's almost absurd to talk about establishing rates that are exactly the same. How would they set this rate in perfect balance? If they raised or lowered the rate, one group of the other would have the right to call bias. For example, it's unfair to women for their rates to be raised because even though they drive more carefully or get into fewer accidents, they still have to pay more money for insurance.
I didn't mean exactly equal, I just assumed that's where the market would trend once using gender as a discriminatory attribute was removed.
you must consider it from the insurance agency's point of view too. Its not just "OH HAHAHAH IM A GREEDY FAT CAT HERE TO LEACH YOU DRY," if insurance looses money, it means there is that much less money for other people who have accidents. So essentially, as a customer, you are paying them to discriminate as much as possible against all risks, so that as a whole customer base you get the best reimbursement for your money and risks. In other words, they are caring after other customers too, not just you.
Also, i doubt there are other competitors who can provide an equal level of service who do not gender discriminate. Good luck finding one though, it would be ideal not to have that discrimination, but I understand the reason for it.
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: [quote]
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.
While it wouldn't be anything as extreme as bankruptcy, they might lose a lot of money, because men, taken as a group, drive more than do women, and if we were to make the insurance rates exactly equivalent to each other, who knows how much that would cost in the long run?
It's almost absurd to talk about establishing rates that are exactly the same. How would they set this rate in perfect balance? If they raised or lowered the rate, one group of the other would have the right to call bias. For example, it's unfair to women for their rates to be raised because even though they drive more carefully or get into fewer accidents, they still have to pay more money for insurance.
I didn't mean exactly equal, I just assumed that's where the market would trend once using gender as a discriminatory attribute was removed.
The thing is, the market is trending this way on its own, and you're calling it sexism.
On November 23 2010 11:57 Railxp wrote: you must consider it from the insurance agency's point of view too. Its not just "OH HAHAHAH IM A GREEDY FAT CAT HERE TO LEACH YOU DRY," if insurance looses money, it means there is that much less money for other people who have accidents. So essentially, as a customer, you are paying them to discriminate as much as possible against all risks, so that as a whole customer base you get the best reimbursement for your money and risks. In other words, they are caring after other customers too, not just you.
Also, i doubt there are other competitors who can provide an equal level of service who do not gender discriminate. Good luck finding one though, it would be ideal not to have that discrimination, but I understand the reason for it.
Basing moral decisions on the potential losses to private companies should not be how our government and our society works.
As stated, though, the insurance companies wouldn't lose money: women would see a rise in rates, men would see a lowering. I'm guessing it'd even out.
On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote: [quote] 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: [quote] 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.
While it wouldn't be anything as extreme as bankruptcy, they might lose a lot of money, because men, taken as a group, drive more than do women, and if we were to make the insurance rates exactly equivalent to each other, who knows how much that would cost in the long run?
It's almost absurd to talk about establishing rates that are exactly the same. How would they set this rate in perfect balance? If they raised or lowered the rate, one group of the other would have the right to call bias. For example, it's unfair to women for their rates to be raised because even though they drive more carefully or get into fewer accidents, they still have to pay more money for insurance.
I didn't mean exactly equal, I just assumed that's where the market would trend once using gender as a discriminatory attribute was removed.
The thing is, the market is trending this way on its own, and you're calling it sexism.
That's not what I'm calling sexism. You know what I'm calling sexism, I don't need to repeat it.
On November 23 2010 11:03 Krigwin wrote: Oh man, and here I came in expecting a write-up on the rise of militant feminism, the social acceptance of misandry, lopsided legal statistics regarding domestic violence, divorce, and custody cases, and the various other societal and cultural difficulties facing young men in western society. Oh well.
I look forward to someone making this thread, things are getting crazy...
1) Yes, your examples fit the definition of sexism. You'll see that those types of basic social situations are discussed as sexism often by third wave feminists, but with reference to women being on the receiving end ("why does my boss always give me cosmetics as a company gift when the men get taken out to a bar?")
Your example is different from my example, because in your example, you show disparate treatment. My examples, which fit within the literal confines of the definition you're using, do not require disparate treatment. My point is that sexism is entirely about disparate treatment, rather than treating me as a man without regard to my individual preferences, which happens all the fucking time, because it's simply impossible for most people to know my individual preferences that well.
(Is it sexist to have urinals in men's bathrooms in complete disregard to every individual's desire to use a urinal?)
3) Men get the same products, the same amount of coverage. Men pay higher rates for the same amount of coverage guaranteed by the insurer. That is the product that the person receives, and the price for it is disparate based on gender. Yes, the company will statistically pay more for males, but that's not the product that the consumer is receiving. They receive coverage that guarantees payment (of a certain amount) from an insurer in certain situations: it costs more for men than women.
It's a different product, because the end result is that you receive something tangibly different as a man: MORE MONEY. Again, would you say a woman buying a happy meal and being satisfied is buying the same product as a man who buys a big mac meal and being satisfied? Even though both of them are labeled as dinner and the end result is caloric satisfaction (e.g. peace of mind from coverage)? No you wouldn't.
its just risk assessment. whether we like it or not, young male drivers tend to be in the most accidents (due to speeding, careless driving, and drunk driving). we pay the price.
On November 23 2010 11:56 Ruthless wrote: My view on this thread is that the OP started with a weak unthought out complaint. Realized he got owned about 3 pages in and started citing the definition of sexism and changed his arguement to revolve around meeting it.
I thibk everyone can agree this is discrimination and further more since its sex based it is also sexism. But your original premise is that this is unjustified sexism which i think almost everyone here disagrees with.
The reason other discrimination forms have been removed is because they were unfounded or even worse they were self fulfilling profecies.
If you put segregation on education and offer worse schools to a group of people then your pining them down to failure.
Theres a number of other reason i can think of but the gist of my post is that you back peddled into "but guys it is discrimination" because your orginal point sucked.
I wasn't trying to create the universal and omnipotent argument for men's rights or men's activism. I was merely trying to create a discussion concerning one aspect of sexism against men: insurance rates. A number of the arguments posted here were repititions, and I don't have time to reply to each and every single one.
At least you understood my original premise. This is unjustified. Discriminating solely on the basis of sex is immoral and is protected in the United States of America, yet they get away with it due to statistics.
I think we should consider that each one of us is Vanished131, the most careful driver. Do you deserve to have your rates raised just because a select 1 or 2 percent of your gender thinks they are the most macho piece that ever walked the Earth?
The fact that this is discrimination, I don't believe, has yet to be defeated by anyone here. Citing news reports and wikipedia articles is a bad habit.
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
EPT
