Turn on thread page Beta

Is it not sexiest to offer females cheaper car insurance? watch

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by khalaf)
    Like i said, it's nothing to do with anyone's sex or colour, it's just the probability of an accident happening. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, i think what you understood from this is "you're a girl, we're charging you less". That's not what's going on it's "you're less likely to cause an accident (whoever you are) so we're charging you less". Just like, as someone else mentioned above, people with more expensive cars have to pay more for insurance.

    EDIT: If the insurance company knows you drive like the maniacs in my signature, whether you're black or white, guy or girl, young or old, you'll still be charged a higher price..
    If they went "sorry your X colour, you are more likely to cause an accident"

    All you would hear is RACISTS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khalaf)
    Like i said, it's nothing to do with anyone's sex or colour, it's just the probability of an accident happening. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, i think what you understood from this is "you're a girl, we're charging you less". That's not what's going on it's "you're less likely to cause an accident (whoever you are) so we're charging you less". Just like, as someone else mentioned above, people with more expensive cars have to pay more for insurance.

    EDIT: If the insurance company knows you drive like the maniacs in my signature, whether you're black or white, guy or girl, young or old, you'll still be charged a higher price..

    But as I keep saying, its simply not true. Just because someone is a girl doesnt make them any better of a driver.

    No-one on this damn forum seems to understand statistics at all :facepalm2:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't it sexist that women on average still earn 50% of what men earn?
    Get over it!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.H.T)
    Its acceptable because its unlike most gender discriminations, this favours women. So in a way, this sort of even things up a bit for the centuries of discrimination that women have suffered.
    Thank you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    If they went "sorry your X colour, you are more likely to cause an accident"

    All you would hear is RACISTS.
    That will never happen, that situation there. Where the salesman actually says "i'm charging you more because you have a vagina".

    They ask you about all your personal information over the phone then give you a quote or whatever it's called.

    (Original post by py0alb)
    But as I keep saying, its simply not true. Just because someone is a girl doesnt make them any better of a driver.

    No-one on this damn forum seems to understand statistics at all :facepalm2:
    I didn't say that did I?! That's for the insurance company do decide, ask them for statistics not me :tongue:

    I'm just trying to explain how this works..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khalaf)

    I didn't say that did I?! That's for the insurance company do decide, ask them for statistics not me :tongue:

    I'm just trying to explain how this works..

    You said: "you're [ie females] less likely to cause an accident (whoever you are) so we're charging you less"

    As a scientist I can tell you that the phrase:

    "a female is less likely to have an accident that a male" does not automatically follow from the statement "females statistically have less accidents than males".

    It's ignorant discrimination based on a deliberate misapplication of statistics, pure and simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its actually just clever marketing, they do offer the insurance to men, they just dont tell you on the TV. If a man went to the Insurance company they would give him insurance - otherwise you would be correct in thinking that It is sexist. I used to work for an Insurance broker.....those were dark days lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    You said: "you're [ie females] less likely to cause an accident (whoever you are) so we're charging you less"

    As a scientist I can tell you that the phrase:

    "a female is less likely to have an accident that a male" does not automatically follow from the statement "females statistically have less accidents than males".

    It's ignorant discrimination based on a deliberate misapplication of statistics, pure and simple.
    Thanks for making my sentence into an oxymoron then criticising me for it mr scientist, well done :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares, women are sexiest!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kevin J)
    stfu
    no. i shan't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    But as I keep saying, its simply not true. Just because someone is a girl doesnt make them any better of a driver.

    No-one on this damn forum seems to understand statistics at all :facepalm2:
    You buy an insurance policy to cover risk. The risk assessment isn't based on you as an individual; its based on your category. If you take a random girl and a random guy and would have to bet on which one would be the first to have an accident, any sensible person would bet on the guy. It doesn't mean the guy necessarily will have an accident, but he is more likely to.


    There is no discrimination because the price difference isn't based on sex. Its based on risk, pure and simple. If a man does a better job than a woman, the fact that the man gets paid more wouldn't be discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You buy an insurance policy to cover risk. The risk assessment isn't based on you as an individual; its based on your category. If you take a random girl and a random guy and would have to bet on which one would be the first to have an accident, any sensible person would bet on the guy. It doesn't mean the guy necessarily will have an accident, but he is more likely to.


    There is no discrimination because the price difference isn't based on sex. Its based on risk, pure and simple. If a man does a better job than a woman, the fact that the man gets paid more wouldn't be discrimination.
    So if the statistics suggested that a black person was more likely to have an accident than a white person, you would be ok with the insurance company charging people different prices based on their skin colour? Seriously?

    The bottom line is this: dividing people into categories- be it race, sex, age etc - rather than assessing them as individuals is discriminatory by definition. Thats what discriminatory means.

    As a sensible male driver, I am being put in a box with all the boy racers, and being charged for their idiocy. Thats the same argument that says police should stop every black man in the street because they are statistically more likely to have committed a crime. You agree with that too?


    Your example of a man getting paid more than a woman is not comparable because it is based on an individual case: one man and one woman. A more comparable question would be this: if statistics suggested that on average, over all sectors, women performed marginally worse than men in 2009, does that mean that all women should be paid less than male counterparts in 2010?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mudya)
    Isn't it sexist that women on average still earn 50% of what men earn?
    Get over it!!
    It would be, if it was true.

    For full time employees - men on average earn 12.2% more
    For part time employees - women earn on average 2% more

    A lot of the gap is down to men being naturally more demanding in salary negotiations/applying for posts (if you don't ask you won't get) and more agressive in business generally. Not to mention lost progression due to maternity leave and the fact that a lot of women who went through school 40 years ago and weren't really encouraged to be ambitious are earning less than their more qualified male counterparts of the same age.

    I have at no point in my working experience witnessed anything I would regard as discrimination towards women.

    But then again, you're clearly a blazing sexist:
    (Original post by W.H.T)
    Its acceptable because its unlike most gender discriminations, this favours women. So in a way, this sort of even things up a bit for the centuries of discrimination that women have suffered.
    (Original post by Mudya)
    Thank you
    *facepalm*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    So if the statistics suggested that a black person was more likely to have an accident than a white person, you would be ok with the insurance company charging people different prices based on their skin colour? Seriously?
    ...
    The bottom line is this: dividing people into categories- be it race, sex, age etc - rather than assessing them as individuals is discriminatory by definition. Thats what discriminatory means.
    The dictionary.com definition is "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".

    Are Gillette discriminating when they aim their razors at men rather than women? Under your idea of discrimination, they are. The sensible answer is obviously no, because the distinction is based on people's need for razors rather than their gender - an objectively justifiable factor with nothing to do with race. It is the same here. The distinction is based on risk, not on gender.

    In fact, you are the one being discriminatory. Insurance is based on risk. Men are a higher risk than women. If men and women were charged the same, women would be subsidising men.

    As a sensible male driver, I am being put in a box with all the boy racers, and being charged for their idiocy. Thats the same argument that says police should stop every black man in the street because they are statistically more likely to have committed a crime. You agree with that too?
    You are missing the point. Its not about race. The fact that race/gender happens to map onto another factor is irrelevant. For insurance, what matters is risk. For policing, what matters is crime.

    If we take your "you can't have any differences if they map onto race/gender" position to its logical conclusion, bizarre things happen. Any sensible use of Police resources focuses on fighting crime. For historical reasons, any given Black person is more likely to live in a high crime area than any given White person. Are you really saying that equal amounts of Police money should be spent on virtually crime-free suburbs as on drug-ridden estates?

    Your example of a man getting paid more than a woman is not comparable because it is based on an individual case: one man and one woman. A more comparable question would be this: if statistics suggested that on average, over all sectors, women performed marginally worse than men in 2009, does that mean that all women should be paid less than male counterparts in 2010?
    The answer is obviously yes. It stands to reason that people who are more productive should get paid more. If men in the Engineering industry are 10% more productive than women, then if pay is based on individual merit you can expect men to be paid 10% more on average than women. If they are getting paid the same, then men are effectively subsidising women: this is discriminatory. Obviously it works both ways.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sync)
    It's a fine line really. It could be claimed that charging younger people more is ageism. But, the statistics say they're more likely to crash, so it's fair enough. If the statistics also show women's claims are likely to be cheaper, then I suppose it's fair enough to charge them less.

    But, I wonder what would happen if it could be proven that a certain race of people were a high liability? I presume no company would be able to discriminate on race grounds, so why on age or gender?
    Statistically men are more employable than women, but it is still seen as sexist to discriminate in such a way when choosing an employee.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The dictionary.com definition is "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".

    Are Gillette discriminating when they aim their razors at men rather than women? Under your idea of discrimination, they are. The sensible answer is obviously no, because the distinction is based on people's need for razors rather than their gender - an objectively justifiable factor with nothing to do with race. It is the same here. The distinction is based on risk, not on gender.

    In fact, you are the one being discriminatory. Insurance is based on risk. Men are a higher risk than women. If men and women were charged the same, women would be subsidising men.


    You are missing the point. Its not about race. The fact that race/gender happens to map onto another factor is irrelevant. For insurance, what matters is risk. For policing, what matters is crime.

    If we take your "you can't have any differences if they map onto race/gender" position to its logical conclusion, bizarre things happen. Any sensible use of Police resources focuses on fighting crime. For historical reasons, any given Black person is more likely to live in a high crime area than any given White person. Are you really saying that equal amounts of Police money should be spent on virtually crime-free suburbs as on drug-ridden estates?


    The answer is obviously yes. It stands to reason that people who are more productive should get paid more. If men in the Engineering industry are 10% more productive than women, then if pay is based on individual merit you can expect men to be paid 10% more on average than women. If they are getting paid the same, then men are effectively subsidising women: this is discriminatory. Obviously it works both ways.
    Agree with the above.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    So if the statistics suggested that a black person was more likely to have an accident than a white person, you would be ok with the insurance company charging people different prices based on their skin colour? Seriously?

    The bottom line is this: dividing people into categories- be it race, sex, age etc - rather than assessing them as individuals is discriminatory by definition. Thats what discriminatory means.

    As a sensible male driver, I am being put in a box with all the boy racers, and being charged for their idiocy. Thats the same argument that says police should stop every black man in the street because they are statistically more likely to have committed a crime. You agree with that too?


    Your example of a man getting paid more than a woman is not comparable because it is based on an individual case: one man and one woman. A more comparable question would be this: if statistics suggested that on average, over all sectors, women performed marginally worse than men in 2009, does that mean that all women should be paid less than male counterparts in 2010?
    That's not what they're doing...You're missing the point, basically what jacketpotato said.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    It would be, if it was true.

    For full time employees - men on average earn 12.2% more
    For part time employees - women earn on average 2% more

    A lot of the gap is down to men being naturally more demanding in salary negotiations/applying for posts (if you don't ask you won't get) and more agressive in business generally. Not to mention lost progression due to maternity leave and the fact that a lot of women who went through school 40 years ago and weren't really encouraged to be ambitious are earning less than their more qualified male counterparts of the same age.

    I have at no point in my working experience witnessed anything I would regard as discrimination towards women.

    But then again, you're clearly a blazing sexist:



    *facepalm*


    Maybe I am, does it annoy you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To start with, you deliberately avoided answering the questions I posed. Could you make sure you answer them if you choose to reply again? Anyway, lets go through this piece by piece and I'll show you where you are wrong.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The dictionary.com definition is "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".

    Are Gillette discriminating when they aim their razors at men rather than women? Under your idea of discrimination, they are. The sensible answer is obviously no, because the distinction is based on people's need for razors rather than their gender - an objectively justifiable factor with nothing to do with race. It is the same here. The distinction is based on risk, not on gender.


    .
    That definition is fine for this discussion. But your gillette example is completely ludicrous. A five year old could see the non sequitor:

    Men and women both want cheap car insurance. Men and women do not both want the same razors. If women did want the same razors, and gillette refused to sell razors to them purely because of their gender, then that would be a comparable example to the insurance case; and yes, that would be discrimination as well.

    In fact, you are the one being discriminatory. Insurance is based on risk. Men are a higher risk than women. If men and women were charged the same, women would be subsidising men.
    Insurance is based on risk, sure. But to make an assessment of a person's risk, you need to look at them as an individual. To simply make a judgement based on a single characteristic such as sex or race is discriminatory because it " makes 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".

    Please don't try and deny that. It doesn't get much clearer. It fulfills your criteria exactly.

    and no, women are not subsidising men. Good drivers are subsidising bad drivers. We're all subsidising boy racers. By all means the insurance firm should charge more to people with faster cars, previous crashes, speeding tickets, or other factors that people can choose for themselves. But basing an assessment of risk on a biological characteristic that people have no chioce over is intrinsically discriminatory.


    You are missing the point. Its not about race. The fact that race/gender happens to map onto another factor is irrelevant. For insurance, what matters is risk. For policing, what matters is crime.

    If we take your "you can't have any differences if they map onto race/gender" position to its logical conclusion, bizarre things happen. Any sensible use of Police resources focuses on fighting crime. For historical reasons, any given Black person is more likely to live in a high crime area than any given White person. Are you really saying that equal amounts of Police money should be spent on virtually crime-free suburbs as on drug-ridden estates?
    You honestly appear to believe that treating people differently based on their race is perfectly fine. That would make you a racist... Do you even deny this?

    The answer is obviously yes. It stands to reason that people who are more productive should get paid more. If men in the Engineering industry are 10% more productive than women, then if pay is based on individual merit you can expect men to be paid 10% more on average than women. If they are getting paid the same, then men are effectively subsidising women: this is discriminatory. Obviously it works both ways
    Thats not the same thing though is it? Some women may choose to go and have a family, as is their right, taking them out of the workforce, and skewing the statistics. A woman who doesn't go and have a family is just as productive as a man. However the statistics now show that on average women are not as productive as men.

    You think that because of the statistics, a woman should be paid less than her male counterpart regardless of her individual productivity. I think she should be paid the same, or at least judged as an individual. That's the difference between our two stances in a nutshell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khalaf)
    That's not what they're doing...You're missing the point, basically what jacketpotato said.
    Clearly that is what they are doing. They're basing their risk assessment on somebody's skin colour. I think you've missed the point: saying "they're basing it on risk" isn't an answer, it's just rephrasing the question.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,194

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.