|
This is a subject that interests me, and since you clicked on this, I hope it interests you.
Here is an email that I sent Geico concerning my policy.
To whom it may concern,
I have been driving for more than X years, and I have been with Geico for X years now. Recently, I submitted my information to request another quote with my gender selected as female (given that I am male). I noticed that the quoted price was substantially lower than that of a male. I find this type of discrimination incredibly hurtful and unwarranted. I don't feel that anyone should have their personal worth attacked or their fees raised solely because of their gender.
Given this, I would like to request that my policy for this term be refunded the difference between the quoted genders. Else, I would like my policy to be refunded the maximum amount and immediately canceled.
I appreciate your consideration,
XXXXX
Update:
After speaking with a Geico representative, they told me that I am going to be refunded the difference between the quoted policies. Which happened to be about a 15% discount.
I must mention that the reason for the difference in the quoted policies, according to the nice lady on the phone, was not because I changed my gender--rather it was because they have a "new way" of calculating how much to charge a specific person for their policy. Either way, I now pay 15% less for standing up in what I believe in!
![[image loading]](http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3342/10155986.jpg)
Numbers in parentheses signify a negative balance. But you already knew that.
Show nested quote +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.
|
They do the same with age, problem? Statistically, male and females, young and old, have different rates of accidents, and thus should be charged separately.
|
I'm pretty sure this is based on scientific research though (ie. males are proven more likely to get into car crashes than females.) Is that really sexism? Otherwise, the different female and male leagues in sports would be sexist too.
...But don't mind me, I'm the lurker with the low post count lol
|
They base their rates entirely on risk assessment, which is just statistical analysis. I'm sorry, but it's not sexism.
|
On November 23 2010 10:54 Fa1nT wrote:
They do the same with age, problem? Statistically, male and females, young and old, have different rates of accidents, and thus should be charged separately.
I'm sure members of different ethnicities have higher rates of accidents too. They do not ask for your race when recieving a quote.
What's the difference? Seperate but equal is okay now?
On November 23 2010 10:55 NathanSC wrote:
They base their rates entirely on risk assessment, which is just statistical analysis. I'm sorry, but it's not sexism.
Why do they refrain from requesting one's race then? Wouldn't it just be statistical analysis? You realize something is wrong, and you know it.
|
Statistically Men are in more accidents because we are cocky and like to race.
Genetically Men are better drivers due to the development of the spatially thinking side of the brain caused by the high levels of Testosterone during development.
|
I remember hearing that the accident rate isn't so much greater for men. Rather, men tend to get into more expensive accidents. Not sure if that is true, but it could explain this.
|
men get paid a lot more than women on average so if your income as a man doesn't more than make up for the difference in insurance premiums you should spend less time pretending to be a victim and more time improving your career skills
|
That is incredibly silly.
EDIT: That is, the OP is being incredibly silly, not that men pay more for insurance premiums.
|
On November 23 2010 10:56 Raiden X wrote:
Statistically Men are in more accidents because we are cocky and like to race.
Genetically Men are better drivers due to the development of the spatially thinking side of the brain caused by the high levels of Testosterone during development.
On November 23 2010 10:57 zeppelin wrote:
men get paid a lot more than women on average so if your income as a man doesn't more than make up for the difference in insurance premiums you should spend less time pretending to be a victim and more time improving your career skills
Heresay. Please post sources or refrain from posting in this thread.
|
And they say women are bad drivers..
|
I don't consider this to be a substantial complaint. Insurance companies determine rates based on statistics and males are statistically worse drivers. Should women pay more because men drive worse?
There could be a real discussion about sexism against men. How courts deal with divorce and custody cases would be a good topic, how domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously would be a good topic, male body image would be a good topic, insurance rates are not. Perfectly good young drivers pay huge rates because their demographic is statistically much worse at driving.
|
i know more women who get into social car crashes then men, offen with stupid things like doing makeup.
the main reason this above stats are true (men are in more) is because of the social imbalance of number of owners beging mostley males, getting better paid jobs..
|
On November 23 2010 10:58 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I don't consider this to be a substantial complaint. Insurance companies determine rates based on statistics and males are statistically worse drivers. Should women pay more because men drive worse?
There could be a real discussion about sexism against men. How courts deal with divorce and custody cases would be a good topic, how domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously would be a good topic, male body image would be a good topic, insurance rates are not. Perfectly good young drivers pay huge rates because their demographic is statistically much worse at driving.
I agree completely. What gives them the right to discriminate against men though?
We won't win in court. Women are more likely to recieve custody of children AND recieve alimony; this is known.
|
Men drive more, so pay more for insurance.
Say what you want about higher accident rates, that's a point which is up in the air.
The interesting point here is that they are not asking for race, but are asking for gender. This isn't really sexism.
|
|
|
On November 23 2010 10:55 NathanSC wrote:
They base their rates entirely on risk assessment, which is just statistical analysis. I'm sorry, but it's not sexism.
That "risk assessment" doesn't constitute sexism is a dubious premise. It's discrimination based on gender. Yes, it is statistical, but racial profiling is considered illegal despite it also being based on the same premise. Same thing for not accepting women in certain positions because they are statistically more likely to perform at a lower level than men (e.g. as soldiers, firefighters, police officers, or anything where physical strength is often used).
I suspect the reason that insurance companies aren't forced to disregard gender when giving rates is because of money: it's an established practice that would cost insurance companies large losses if it were to be outlawed, and there isn't a sufficient equality push from outside to overcome the money that these companies are feeding politicians and lobbyists to keep it legal.
|
I always wondered what it must be like to see the world through a haze of privilege and self-entitlement. Now I know! Thanks, "Vanished131"!
|
Actuarial science. Not sexism.
|
On November 23 2010 10:58 TibblesEvilCat wrote:
i know more women who get into social car crashes then men, offen with stupid things like doing makeup.
the main reason this above stats are true (men are in more) is because of the social imbalance of number of owners beging mostley males, getting better paid jobs..
I do believe it's percentage-based, which completely nullifies your reasoning.
In any event, I wouldn't really call this sexism, but I also don't approve of being statically lumped into a group and being forced to pay that amount when you know you might be better than someone paying less or worse than someone paying more.
Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). -Wikipedia
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
