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?

12467

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Statistically women are more likely to take time off.

    Why do you think that is?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a great attitude. :yeees:

    What?

    For whatever reason, you're never going to get every social group being treated equally - never. If anything it's actually a good thing that we get gay pride marches and things like the WI, which celebrate the fact that we're all different.

    As has been said, certain groups of drivers get cheaper car insurance because they're seen as being lower risk. It's not a big conspiracy against men and it's not women fighting back against decades of oppression - it's just cause they're statistically less of a risk and I don't have an issue with drivers who're seen as less of a risk getting cheaper car insurance.

    Plus it's not just that woman get cheaper car insurance and that's that. It's far more to do with how careful a driver you are during the life of the policy, age, the state of your health and where you live. At renewal time, sex is way down the list of things that'll affect the price of your quote anyway - but it's a chance for people to whine about being discriminated against so it'll be the one that crops up the most.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Why do you think that is?

    Women are more likely to suffer injuries in the military during training meaning they're less productive. I think that's a good example.

    If it's acceptable to descriminate against men with insurance on the basis of statistics, surely it's acceptable to descriminate aginst women with regards to employent roles where men are statistically going to more productive?
    As they're not so productive in these particular roles where strength and stamina are so imporant, maybe a lesser salary is justified, or maybe employers would be justified on not employing them at all?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Bri-namite wrote: »
    What?

    For whatever reason, you're never going to get every social group being treated equally - never. If anything it's actually a good thing that we get gay pride marches and things like the WI, which celebrate the fact that we're all different.

    As has been said, certain groups of drivers get cheaper car insurance because they're seen as being lower risk. It's not a big conspiracy against men and it's not women fighting back against decades of oppression - it's just cause they're statistically less of a risk and I don't have an issue with drivers who're seen as less of a risk getting cheaper car insurance.

    Plus it's not just that woman get cheaper car insurance and that's that. It's far more to do with how careful a driver you are during the life of the policy, age, the state of your health and where you live. At renewal time, sex is way down the list of things that'll affect the price of your quote anyway - but it's a chance for people to whine about being discriminated against so it'll be the one that crops up the most.

    It's descriminaion mate, however much it affects your premium it's still sexism. And the question is if you can justify it through statistics in insurance why can't we justify it through statistics in employment or elsewhere?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Women are more likely to suffer injuries in the military during training meaning they're less productive. I think that's a good example.

    I can think of a better one, considering the % of women in the armed forces and the % who work in other sectors....

    Armed forces is actually a shit example given that.

    Can you think of a better reason why women are more likely to take time off work?
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    I can think of a better one, considering the % of women in the armed forces and the % who work in other sectors....

    Armed forces is actually a shit example given that.

    No it's not. Would the military be justified givign women a lesser salary or not employing them at all considering the statistics that proove that women are more likely to be injured during training?

    If I was going to hire a 'lad' to work for me, to help me fit carpets, would I be justified in placing and ad specifying male applicants?
    Can you think of a better reason why women are more likely to take time off work?

    You're on about maternity leave yes?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    No it's not. Would the military be justified givign women a lesser salary or not employing them at all considering the statistics that proove that women are more likely to be injured during training?

    No, the key word there is training, as in liability on employer...
    You're on about maternity leave yes?

    Nope, but you can include that one if you like.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It is sexism by definition, for a start.

    It isn't, though. It is a financial decision based on financial risk assessments. Gender is not the issue, the financial risk is the issue. Your premium is determined by your risk to the insurer, which is how life is, unfortunately. I am married, drive a low-powered car, have six years experience, no claims, and live in a good area- I am less of a risk than a single 17-year-old chav in a Scooby, so I pay less. It's not discrimination, because it isn't a deliberate ploy targeted at one particular gender or ethnic group. It's not that hard to grasp the difference.

    Comparing it to the workplace is simply not relevant, because gender has nothing to do with suitability for a position.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    Comparing it to the workplace is simply not relevant, because gender has nothing to do with suitability for a position.

    Sometimes it does though, unless your goign to dispute the clear physical difference between men and women. I don' think you can argue that men arn't going to be more productive than women in jobs that are so physically demanding.

    If I was going to hire a 'lad' to work for me, to help me fit carpets, would I be justified in placing and ad specifying male applicants only? And if not why not?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It isn't, though. It is a financial decision based on financial risk assessments. Gender is not the issue, the financial risk is the issue. Your premium is determined by your risk to the insurer, which is how life is, unfortunately. I am married, drive a low-powered car, have six years experience, no claims, and live in a good area- I am less of a risk than a single 17-year-old chav in a Scooby, so I pay less. It's not discrimination, because it isn't a deliberate ploy targeted at one particular gender or ethnic group. It's not that hard to grasp the difference.

    Comparing it to the workplace is simply not relevant, because gender has nothing to do with suitability for a position.

    :yes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    If I was going to hire a 'lad' to work for me, to help me fit carpets, would I be justified in placing and ad specifying male applicants only? And if not why not?

    Women not able to lay carpets then?
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Women not able to lay carpets then?

    I'm sure they'd have no problem fiiting the carpet, but in what I do there is a serious amount of lifting - 120lbs rolls of underlay up and down stairs all day long. Men are stronger and have more stamina generally, so would I not be justified in advertising male applicants only?
    Descrimination based on the statistical fact that men are stronger than women?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No.

    You have made a judgement that no woman could complete that job, and that is discrimination.

    The insurance companies have suggested that men are a higher risk - they can still have insurance but at a higher price.

    NB You still haven't said why you think women are more likely to take time off work... other than maternity leave. It goes much, much deeper than just the pregnancy stage.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    You have made a judgement that no woman could complete that job, and that is discrimination.

    But these compaines are advertising 'women insurance', why can't I advertise a job for 'male applicants'?
    The insurance companies have suggested that men are a higher risk - they can still have insurance but at a higher price.

    Ok how about I let women apply but they can expect to get paid less?
    NB You still haven't said why you think women are more likely to take time off work... other than maternity leave. It goes much, much deeper than just the pregnancy stage.

    You didn't originally direct that question at me, but I'd guess you getting at the menstrual cycle?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if she could do the job then why not?
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Ballerina wrote: »
    But if she could do the job then why not?

    If I employ somebody I'm taking a financhial risk, as are insurance companies when they insure you.

    If they're allowed to ajust their premium based on statistical evidence that women are less likely to claim, why shouldn't I be able to do the same with pay given that statistically men are stronger and more likely to be more productive in this role?
    It's not just gender either,. Why shoudln't I pay a younger employee more considering there more likely to be more productive?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    If I employ somebody I'm taking a financhial risk, as are insurance companies when they insure you.

    If they're allowed to ajust their premium based on statistical evidence that women are less likely to claim, why shouldn't I be able to do the same with pay given that statistically men are stronger and more likely to be more productive in this role?
    It's not just gender either,. Why shoudln't I pay a younger employee more considering there more likely to be more productive?

    Because for insurance companies, *everything* is taken into consideration when they're giving you a quote; it is all about statistics and financial risk. So it isn't just gender, you have age, the car you drive, your previous experience, where you live, your occupation, etc. etc. that is taken into account. If you were to apply that to the job field, that would mean that for every individual you employed you would have to carry out a full statistical analysis based not just on gender but on all other relevant aspects of their lifestyle, as insurance companies do.

    So if in terms of jobs you're going to start employing only young men because you believe they are statisitcally stronger and more able to carry your carpets around, you should also take into account whether young men are statistically more likely to call in sick than young women, whether young men from area A are more likely to turn up for work/work harder than young men from area B, whether young men with their own transport are going to be more reliable than those without. And if we're only going to recruit young men because they are stronger than any other group, then surely you'll want the strongest young man available to you because statistics would suggest that they will be most suited for your job, so throw in a health and fitness test too.

    I guess my point is in terms of jobs there are just too many variables that affect performance to be able to make the statistical generalisations that can be made for car insurance. When you employ someone you do so on the basis of how well suited you think they are to the role and how productive they are going to be, whereas in terms of insurance it is necessary to carry out a full analysis of how much of a risk that individual is going to be to the company.

    If companies stop taking gender into consideration, then why should they be allowed to take age into consideration? Or where you live? If those factors all fall under "discrimination", then surely it becomes discriminatory to give cheaper insurance to more experienced drivers, as the company would be making the generalisation (based on the same statistics that are used when considering gender) that more experienced drivers have less accidents than inexperienced drivers.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you phone them up and tell them you will take them to a tribunal if they don't give you their cheap insurance, they will give you it, even if you are a man.

    .


    Don't be daft.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    If I employ somebody I'm taking a financhial risk, as are insurance companies when they insure you.

    If they're allowed to ajust their premium based on statistical evidence that women are less likely to claim, why shouldn't I be able to do the same with pay given that statistically men are stronger and more likely to be more productive in this role?
    It's not just gender either,. Why shoudln't I pay a younger employee more considering there more likely to be more productive?

    women are paid less anyway
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    women are paid less anyway

    really? bullshit, you mean on average or in general? or everywhere? in the same job as men? wtf kinda statement is that anyway?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, women are paid less than men on average in many if not most industries and sectors tanman. As study after study has proven.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tanman wrote: »
    really? bullshit, you mean on average or in general? or everywhere? in the same job as men? wtf kinda statement is that anyway?



    there is an unexplained pay gap between men and women who have similar levels of education, union representation and similar jobs which is usually put down to discrimination
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tanman wrote: »
    really? bullshit, you mean on average or in general? or everywhere? in the same job as men? wtf kinda statement is that anyway?

    a true one :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, and everyone that's arguing for equality in the cost of insurance also recognises that women being paid less is another issue that needs addressing (albiet one that is much more complicated to solve). What's your point?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, and everyone that's arguing for equality in the cost of insurance also recognises that women being paid less is another issue that needs addressing (albiet one that is much more complicated to solve). What's your point?

    Skive was asking why he wouldn't be able to pay a woman less because they're 'less productive', I was just pointing out that in general women are already paid less anyway.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't know that :O

    i thought men and women were paid the same?

    Is that from the same job? or is it like on average across the UK because it could be that there are more men in higher paid jobs than women? 9i don't know though)

    I'm not sure, i think they show that even with a similar education/qualifications, men are more likely to be getting paid more. Probably because employers are more likely to employ them over a woman with the same qualifications/skills. But even in the same job, i think women are usually still paid less? I don't know details. I'm sure someone will be able to link you to a study.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not challenging it or anything, i'm just bit surprised, i thought this country was past all that!

    women are everywhere! can't git rid of em! jokin

    I'm surprised there are people that didn't know. It's talked about alot. I think alot of it bubbles down to that women are likely to take maternity leave/take time off for kids/work less hours, so they are paid less so employers don't lose as much.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Ok how about I let women apply but they can expect to get paid less?

    Already happens, in spite of a law which says that it mustn't.

    Women also get refused jobs/applications based partly on what leads my other question about time off...
    You didn't originally direct that question at me, but I'd guess you getting at the menstrual cycle?

    You are right, i didn't. You are the only one brave enough to expose yourself with your replies.

    This on is interesting, in so far as it gives an insight into your thought process.

    How about the actualy answer which has something to do with childcare...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It would be interesting to see that if a woman without kids, who could prove that she will never have kids would be paid equally then?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I heard a few times that men have a cycle though too, like 4 times a year or something, there are times if ind myself very highly strung and stuff.

    I get really pissed off when the lining of my womb disintegrates as well. Doofus.

    You know, that comment really sums you up. As if the menstrual cycle can be dismissed as a time when women are "highly strung and stuff", without recognising that if women take time off because of their cycle it's gonna have bugger all to do with emotions and a shit load more to do with cramps...
Sign In or Register to comment.