Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Sheila's wheels, sexist or not?

24567

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lea_uk wrote: »
    Male or female only? what else could there be? unless I read it wrong.
    Male only OR female only. Not either/or.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lea_uk wrote: »
    Male or female only? what else could there be?

    Rubberskin?

    He looks like Bella Emberg, apparently ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hahar! actually it wasn't, big boy, get your facts right. I said women who consent sex with men, then later feel like a slut and call rape, are sluts!

    liberal huh? if i had it my way there would be less freedoms in the world and if you're trying to say i think rape is ok, damn, you just look like a tit.

    Oh yeah, I got it slightly wrong. You think that more women claim false rape than are there are men who get off on rape charges. Something like 94% of women cry rape because they feel like "sluts". That was it wasn't it?
    I have a lot of friends who are "out there" and like to get sleep around without a relationship, or short term relationships. It's shocking but true, the amount of times i've heard of women feeling like a slut and calling rape, but not actually going to the police(because they know it's untrue) is more than the actual amount of men who actually rape and get off with it.

    Oh yeah, you also think that a woman who gets raped while drunk probably wanted it, or she'd have fought harder. I can quote you if you like.

    Scumbag.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think it's fair that Yorkies ain't for girls!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I got it slightly wrong. You think that more women claim false rape than are there are men who get off on rape charges. Something like 94% of women cry rape because they feel like "sluts". That was it wasn't it?



    Oh yeah, you also think that a woman who gets raped while drunk probably wanted it, or she'd have fought harder. I can quote you if you like.

    Scumbag.

    He did say that many years ago when he was young and foolish. Its not fair to keep dragging that up just like most people on these boards wouldn't want you to drag their opinions of the past up either.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    When it becomes an issue, let's discuss it.

    Surely it's relevant, so why dodge the question? I'm intrested in what you think that all.
    I don't see any complaints about the age discrimination which already happens, we seem to accept that.

    Does that make it right though?

    If you can justify insurance descrimination through statistics then as Spliff said, surely we can let companies justify descrimination against against women & ethnic minorities based on statistics?

    Can we make obese people contribute more towards the NHS?
    Get over it guys, if this is something which really drives you nuts then let's face it you must have pretty cushy lives. So you have to pay more for car insurance, big deal.

    It's doesn't 'drive me nuts'. I accept that insurance relies heavily on descrimination, I think it's means things are generally pretty fair.
    Try living with lower wages, paying tax on sanitary products or a sexist society who doesn't castigate a father for leaving his kids but will happily ask how a mother could leave hers. We live in a sexist world and TBH me paying a very slightly higher insurance premium is pretty fucking small fry.

    I'm not denying that women face far more descrimination then men, but that doesn't mean that when men are descriminated against it should be ignored.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lipsy wrote: »
    He did say that many years ago when he was young and foolish. Its not fair to keep dragging that up just like most people on these boards wouldn't want you to drag their opinions of the past up either.

    He said it last November.

    I find it scary that someone with such dodgy views can be working in a role with vulnerable people around discrimination.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    Male only OR female only. Not either/or.
    Hehe it's been a long day.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    or some insurance company will not insure a driver under 25 so the employer has a legal reason to ask for only 25 year old drivers on an advertisement.

    sorry, who is the employer in this scenario?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've not really got a problem with the existence of Sheila's Wheels. There are many insurance companies which cater specifically for a certain audience. Just look at the TV advertising to see what I'm talking about. Certain companies give discounts to those with a four years or more no claims bonus - clearly an attempt to aim at more experienced drivers. There's nothing illegal in that, is there?

    However, I would love to see someone set up a company that only sells car insurance to us men. I'd personally call it Car Insurance 4 Men, (a meek attempt to aim at the youth market, methinks) and start an advertising campaign which takes the piss out of women for (allegedly) being unable to park their cars. Why do I think feminists wouldn't tolerate that for very long? :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    However, I would love to see someone set up a company that only sells car insurance to us men. I'd personally call it Car Insurance 4 Men, (a meek attempt to aim at the youth market, methinks) and start an advertising campaign which takes the piss out of women for (allegedly) being unable to park their cars. Why do I think feminists wouldn't tolerate that for very long? :p

    Do it then, fair bit of moolah to be made in insurance resellin'. Only, why would you need or want to 'take the piss' out of one group in order to cater to another niche market? Sounds a bit pathetic to me. What you'll find is that, in terms of insurance, the fact that woman may have varying degrees of spacial awareness depending on hormone levels typically dictated by their hormone levels, the minor bump that result from these slow speed accidents are less likely to be claimed for, and when they are, cost less to the insurers than high speed crashes involving multiple cars and deaths that I assume are more male territory.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Do it then, fair bit of moolah to be made in insurance resellin'. Only, why would you need or want to 'take the piss' out of one group in order to cater to another niche market? Sounds a bit pathetic to me.
    When it comes to advertising, taking the piss out of your rivals is a technique that works. Many of Tesco's adverts in the newspapers, for example, contain digs at rival supermarkets. I think that an ideal advert for my (currently) fictional car insurance company would be one taking the piss out of the three girls in the Sheila's Wheels adverts. Put three drag queens in the car, and you've got a brand new adve... oh wait, that's what they did in the first one. :p
    What you'll find is that, in terms of insurance, the fact that woman may have varying degrees of spacial awareness depending on hormone levels typically dictated by their hormone levels, the minor bump that result from these slow speed accidents are less likely to be claimed for, and when they are, cost less to the insurers than high speed crashes involving multiple cars and deaths that I assume are more male territory.
    Hey, I don't doubt that the cost of claims for women is often less. All I'm saying is that, if there are companies that only insure women, why not have companies that insure just blokes?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    er, yeah. I'm saying why not too. Although, we have already been informed in this thread that the companies only advertise to women, presumably because they have a spiffingly good reinsurance deal thingy on them, but they do actually cover all genders (do they have trans tick boxes on those forms?)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nothing is stopping companies from insuring blokes only. It's the companies themselves that don't want to.

    Similarly there are companies willing to insure the over 50s only but few willing to insure 18 year old boy racers only. Funny that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Similarly there are companies willing to insure the over 50s only but few willing to insure 18 year old boy racers only. Funny that.
    Exactly. I wouldn't want to insure a 17-year old bloke who'd just passed his test. The risk is far too high, for my liking. It's the cost of insurance at that age which put me off learning to drive for another five years.

    I suspect, though, that a company willing to offer insurance to men aged 25 and over would do pretty well. My god, I'm in a very entrepreneurial mood tonight!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    never noticed any small print, but I ent seen that on no yorkie wrappers neither.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not sure on the whole car insurance thing, but i know that if Jobcentreplus were to advertise like that, they would probably be in the courts getting sued!

    It does seem strange that they advertise as female only though, or maybe there is some small print indicating that it's welcome to all applicants.
    About two years ago, the EU was considering banning car insurance companies from only selling to women. Thankfully, such a stupid and crass idea was soon abandoned in a rare outbreak of common sense in Brussels.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you go on diamonds website, last time I checked anyway, you can't get a quote unless the policy holder is female.

    At the end of the day it is sexism, and I think the argument 'well women have it worse off in all these areas so lets stop whinging' is a poor one because it implies we should have double standards. It's ok to champion the cause of womens rights when your female colleague gets paid less than you for the same job (although hasn't happened to me or anyone I know as of yet), but it's not ok to champion mens rights when they are given higher premiums.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Surely it's relevant, so why dodge the question? I'm intrested in what you think that all.

    Why would I have a problem with it? There is an evidence base for charging women less for insurance than men, just as there is for charging salesmen more, F1 drivers more, sportsmen more, young people more etc etc

    If such evidence exists for race then why would we have a problem with it?
    Can we make obese people contribute more towards the NHS?

    Don't we pay VAT on food?
    I accept that insurance relies heavily on descrimination, I think it's means things are generally pretty fair.

    :confused:

    So why the complaint?
    I'm not denying that women face far more descrimination then men, but that doesn't mean that when men are descriminated against it should be ignored.

    Hang on. There isn't a situation where men cannot get insurance, more that because they are asking someone else to take a financial risk then that person asks for a greater contibution. It's worth noting that the rate will increase if you have some driving convictions even though you may never drive stupidly again.

    I'm not ignoring discrimination against men, I'm pointing uot that evidence is that men cost insurance companies more - even you admit that it is fairly therefore to ask them to pay more...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not ignoring discrimination against men, I'm pointing uot that evidence is that men cost insurance companies more - even you admit that it is fairly therefore to ask them to pay more...

    But surely there has to be proof that them being men is actually a factor in them being more likely to be a risk? I mean there is statistical evidence that black people don't do as well as asian people at school, but that is in no way proof that their skin colour is in any way a factor in them achieving less at school. There could be hundreds of reasons why men are more likely to make bigger claims. I'm only speculating here, but perhaps women tend to do more town driving, for example, whereas in a family, men are more likely to do the long distance driving at higher speeds, so when they crash, the claim is much more? I have no evidence that this is the case, but I'm just demonstrating that statistics don't prove causality, in the same way that we know that black kids do worse in school on average, because more of them come from lower income families, not because they're black (but if "statistical evidence" was taken seriously, it could be used to justify all types of discrimination against black children).

    We all know that insurance is based on unproven statistics and discrimination, but the point some of us are making is that it shouldn't be. It should be based on factors the individual has control over, such as past driving convictions, choice of vehicle, where they choose to park it, driving experience, etc. And ironically, these changes wouldn't affect the majority of people's insurance costs anyway. New drivers (and therefore young drivers in the main) would still pay more, it's just that new drivers of any age would start on the same level.

    Your attitude seems to be that women are the victims of discrimination in other areas, so men should just shut up and accept this discrimination. Wow what a fucking attitude. Maybe victims of human rights abuses in China should shut up because it's much worse in Zimbabwe? Maybe we should be allowed to torture terrorist prisoners, because the terrorists torture their prisoners much worse? Using one injustice to validate another is pretty much the weakest justification I've ever heard.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not ignoring discrimination against men, I'm pointing uot that evidence is that men cost insurance companies more - even you admit that it is fairly therefore to ask them to pay more...

    And there may be evidence that people called Dave costs insurance companies more, it still doesn't prove that it's any sort of a factor in how likely an individual is to make a claim.

    Incidentally, I would be much more inclined to agree with you if car insurance was optional. I couldn't give a shit about health insurance companies discriminating, I'd just tell them to fuck off and wouldn't buy their product. With car insurance though, I'm required to have it. And anything which is a legal requirement shouldn't be discriminatory.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    perhaps women tend to do more town driving, for example, whereas in a family, men are more likely to do the long distance driving at higher speeds, so when they crash, the claim is much more? I have no evidence that this is the case, but I'm just demonstrating that statistics don't prove causality

    Again, causality isn't the relevant point, it's financial risk.

    Even if you are not at fault there will be a bill to pay.
    Your attitude seems to be that women are the victims of discrimination in other areas, so men should just shut up and accept this discrimination. Wow what a fucking attitude.

    No, my attitude is that evidence shows that men represent a bigger financial risk to insurance companies and should there contirbute more in terms of premium to help cover that cost.

    My link to discrimination against women was to point out that it's interesting how the blokes on these boards get so angry about this and yet there don't seem to be any threads about discrimination against women - especially when you consider that it's a shit load worse and it's done without an evidential basis. This isn;t the first of these threads now, is it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My link to discrimination against women was to point out that it's interesting how the blokes on these boards get so angry about this and yet there don't seem to be any threads about discrimination against women - especially when you consider that it's a shit load worse and it's done without an evidential basis. This isn;t the first of these threads now, is it?

    The huge difference is that discrimination against women isn't the formal policy of any company, it's more complex than that, and so are the solutions. Whereas this discrimination against men (and young, or very old people) could be fixed with one simple law. It's one thing to have racism or sexism that is ingrained in society (which is very hard to combat), it's quite another to actually allow someone to legally discriminate on the basis of sex. In fact I think a law preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of sex almost made it through the European courts and just got voted out, so it's obvious that plenty of people feel the same way, and I suppose it's only a matter of time.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again, causality isn't the relevant point, it's financial risk.

    I'm fully aware of that. I don't blame the insurance companies one bit, they're just trying to make as much money as they can, like any other company. My point is that in order to even consider it to be legal to use gender as a factor in insurance costs, causality must be proven, in my opinion. You can't use statistical evidence alone as definitive proof that this isn't discrimination that under any other circumstances would be illegal. Even with causal evidence, there'd still be a debate. Without it, there is no argument that justifies it imo.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    They do however get a better deal when it comes to night clubs and clothes.
    How?

    Because there are more women's clothes shops than mens?

    Because some clubs let women in free so they can be oogled by men and attract more paying male customers?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tanman wrote: »
    simply as above, is shielas wheel sexist? is sayin they will only insure women sexist? do you think if there was one for guys that said they would only insure men the femenists would be up in arms? (i do)

    lets hear opinions

    About Sheila's Wheels

    It is aimed at women, it doesn't say that men aren't allowed to use it. I guess that it is just considered 'women friendly' plus the staff are women too and some women would me more comfortable with that?

    Oh come on, there's far more sexist shit out there than Sheila's Wheels... Look at some magazines for example.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    It is aimed at women, it doesn't say that men aren't allowed to use it.

    I dunno about when you ring them up, but if you go onto confused.com it says "the following insurer declined to give a quote because of the applicants gender" or something like that. Saga says the same, but swaps gender for age.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smartly dressed is considered discrimination now.


    No its not.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Namaste wrote: »
    Because there are more women's clothes shops than mens?

    Generally mens fasion is more expensive.
    Namaste wrote: »
    Because some clubs let women in free

    Yes + they often get all the best drink promotions. But all this is besides the point, I know women face more descrimnition than men, but that's not the point of this thread.
    There is an evidence base for charging women less for insurance than men, just as there is for charging salesmen more, F1 drivers more, sportsmen more, young people more etc etc

    If such evidence exists for race then why would we have a problem with it?

    OK. So if you can justify insurance descrimination through statistics then surely we can let companies justify descrimination against against women & ethnic minorities based on statistics elswhere?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Supposing for the sake of argument that it is discrimination, it's hardly the most serious, most insidious, most damaging form of discrimination present in our society. If people genuinely cared about discrimination in society, they'd get far more upset about the experiences of racism, sexism and homophobia that are daily ocurrences for many people, rather than expending their energy fretting about whether men have to pay an extra few quid a year on their car insurance. Which makes it seem like it's not the discrimination that actually bothers them, and that they are raising the issue of car insurance to try and detract attention from more serious issues. I don't think the fact that some companies offer cheaper car insurance to women, on the basis that they are a better bet to insure as they have less serious accidents, is evidence that women now have it better than men in our society and that men are in danger of becoming an oppressed group. Get some perspective and worry about a genuine, serious issue. There's plenty of them out there to choose from.
Sign In or Register to comment.