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 ✨

Sheila's wheels, sexist or not?

12346

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Well answer my question about employment. I don't think you can disagree with the fact that men are statistically stronger than women, and therefore would statistcally be more productive in a physically demanding job. If were to advertise a job for labourer, would I not be justified in making gender a serious consideration when interviewing people.

    No, because you would be assessing each person individually, and so you would always choose the best person for the job, regardless of gender. You wouldn't turn down a woman who was 6'0 and could carry 150lb for some bloke who was 2 stone dripping wet and couldn't carry a feather, and if you did it clearly wouldn't be based on risk assessment.

    Insurance companies can't assess individually. It's not fair that we have to pay more because we belong to a statistical class that's more at risk, but that's the way it is. If young men, and men as a whole, started driving better, the financial risk would decrease, and premiums decrease. The reason young men pay more is not because of man-hating insurance companies, its because young men drive badly, far more so than women do.

    It isn't discrimination because the decision is not made based on gender, it's made on financial risk. Age, location and what car you drive are far bigger variables than gender for insurance.

    If it's OK to "discriminate" based on what car you drive (the more expensive the car, the more expensive the claim) why is it not OK to "discriminate" on other financial variables?

    Treating everyone the same, regardless of financial risk assessments, will result in higher premiums for everyone. And, to be quite honest, will actually be "discriminatory" against those who drive better- women would be paying for the testosterone-fuelled incompetent driving favoured by a lot of men.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    No, because you would be assessing each person individually, and so you would always choose the best person for the job, regardless of gender. You wouldn't turn down a woman who was 6'0 and could carry 150lb for some bloke who was 2 stone dripping wet and couldn't carry a feather, and if you did it clearly wouldn't be based on risk assessment.

    Exaclty I'd assess them as an individual.
    Kermit wrote: »
    Insurance companies can't assess individually.

    Of course they can. No claims bonus, endorsments, value of car, milage????
    Kermit wrote: »
    If it's OK to "discriminate" based on what car you drive (the more expensive the car, the more expensive the claim) why is it not OK to "discriminate" on other financial variables?

    Again it's an individual assesement and of course the value of your car is something you choose.
    Kermit wrote: »
    Treating everyone the same, regardless of financial risk assessments, will result in higher premiums for everyone.

    Why would it? It may result in higher premiums for women and older people and lower premiums for younger men and it stop insurance compaines using younger drivers to subsidise older drivers. Either way it would become fair.
    Kermit wrote: »
    And, to be quite honest, will actually be "discriminatory" against those who drive better- women would be paying for the testosterone-fuelled incompetent driving favoured by a lot of men.

    At the moment I'm paying for the 'testosterone-fuelled incompetent driving favoured by a lot of men' despite the fact I've never claimed and have given them no reason for them to believe I'm more likely to claim than the bird next door.

    And you think it's testosterone that means young men are more likely to claim?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can i just point out that Sheilas wheels, and all of these women only insurance companies have never given me a cheap quote. In fact they've all been double what i pay now, and same goes for my mates. I'm not sure where people get the idea it's cheaper.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Lacy wrote: »
    Can i just point out that Sheilas wheels, and all of these women only insurance companies have never given me a cheap quote. In fact they've all been double what i pay now, and same goes for my mates. I'm not sure where people get the idea it's cheaper.

    Women do get a better deal than men on motor insurance.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Women do get a better deal than men on motor insurance.

    Lol i must be the exception to that rule.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just a quick and dirty survey - just changed names and gender, all other details were the same...

    More Than Insurance:
    Man = £651.80
    Woman = £692.48

    Sheila:
    Man = £602.08
    Woman = £455.35
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anyone notice that in adverts which have 'real' women in them (like Sheila's Wheels) there's always a load of foxy women with at least one oldie and a token fat bird?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just a quick and dirty survey - just changed names and gender, all other details were the same...

    More Than Insurance:
    Man = £651.80
    Woman = £692.48

    Sheila:
    Man = £602.08
    Woman = £455.35

    Both of which are wrong imo. But it goes to show the real reason companies are worried about such legislation to prevent them doing this. It's to do with them being able to target particular customer types, rather than genuinely using it as a risk assessment. Assuming MoK you used your own details for this, I find it no surprise that you (a married man of probable homeowning age) got a cheaper quote off the insurance company that also offers home insurance, pet insurance and life insurance, and presumably has some pretty tasty deals if you buy more than one of these off them. Just for the record, I got quoted £1992.90 by More Than for my car insurance so obviously young men aren't exactly the market they're looking for.

    Incidentally, I looked at my car with my details on Tesco's website for fully comp, and got £1125.60 for my actual details, £823.20 for simply changing Mr. to Miss.

    But I checked on comparethemarket.com to find the cheapest quote I could, and the male me got £1188.24, whereas the female me got it for 828.99, ironically at the same company. And there were fully 16 companies willing to quote a female less than the cheapest male price. And with every company that quoted, the price was significantly greater for men than women. Incidentally, one quote on Tesco got me cheaper insurance than 30 quotes on a search site - fat lot of good they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know that one of the biggest factors (if not the biggest) is the profession of the driver don't you?

    There was a good article on it about a year ago. The whole thing made fuck all sense, like saying you are middle manager of a certain industry would save you literally hundreds of Pounds per year compared to being a middle manager for another industry.

    The bottom line is this: insurers are scum and will try to stick it to people in every way possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and performing artists are one of the groups that get shit quotes I think- how does being a ballet dancer make a person a greater risk, it's nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    how does being a ballet dancer make a person a greater risk, it's nonsense.

    Presume it's driving in those shoes :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    chortle
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    and performing artists are one of the groups that get shit quotes I think
    You try driving home from the circus with pie all over your face...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Presume it's driving in those shoes :)

    Driving in them has got to be easier than dancing in them :p
    You'd think being a dancer would help, what with co-ordination and timing skills.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Yes, it is sexist, because the fact prove it WRONG.

    Women are not safer drivers, they are cheaper drivers. Because they hit moer stationary, inanimate objects, that don't claim back. Like trees.

    Men hit more moving objects, like other cars. Which is understandable.

    I think they should start a Male-only insurance company, and wait for the cries of sexist to appear to prove the point. If anyone does cry sexist, point out Shelia's Wheels.

    I bet Male-only insurance would be ace.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't be bothered about a male only insurance company. But technically, with men hitting more moving objects like other cars, it's more than their own life that's put at risk - so more dangerous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Of course they can. No claims bonus, endorsments, value of car, milage????

    Without sitting a test to get insurance they're just making assumptions.

    Why is one assumption better than another?
    It may result in higher premiums for women and older people and lower premiums for younger men and it stop insurance compaines using younger drivers to subsidise older drivers. Either way it would become fair.

    Treating everyone the same isn't fair, you know that.
    And you think it's testosterone that means young men are more likely to claim?

    I think testosterone leads to more dangerous driving, and that leads to more claims.

    The reason young girls pay less is because young girls generally don't go racing down the A68 at 100mph in a car they can't control.

    Gerbil, why do you think nobody has made a male-targeted insurance company? There's clearly the market for it. Perhaps its because men are less profitable, because they crash more?
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    Without sitting a test to get insurance they're just making assumptions.

    Ajusting premiums for no claims bonus, endorsments, value of car, milage etc means ajusting premiums for statistical evidence gathered from that individual. Can't you see the the difference?
    All these variable are constantly being tested as you drive.

    Kermit wrote: »
    I think testosterone leads to more dangerous driving, and that leads to more claims.

    It's intesting to hear you say that. When some of us made the claim that biological differences between men and women mean there will always be differences in the way the two sexes behave, you argued otherwise.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't personality play a part? I remember in Psychology about something where if you have a Type A personality you are more likely to have more accidents.

    Just thought I'd add my useless information :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Ajusting premiums for no claims bonus, endorsments, value of car, milage etc means ajusting premiums for statistical evidence gathered from that individual. Can't you see the the difference?

    To an extent that's true, but it's still a generalisation.
    It's intesting to hear you say that. When some of us made the claim that biological differences between men and women mean there will always be differences in the way the two sexes behave, you argued otherwise.

    Biological differences do make a difference, although culture and environment make more of a difference.

    I should be mroe exact, I was being lazy; the whole culture of boy-racing and driving fast is male-orientated, and testosterone plays a part in that, as does environment and social background.

    It isn't sexism because it's not targeted at gender, that's the long and the short of it. I can't believe this conversation is still going on. They're saying that women are less of a risk to them so women pay less; I fail to see the problem with that.

    If you want to argue that all insurance companies are robbing twats regardless of gender, then I'll agree with you 100%.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    Treating everyone the same isn't fair, you know that.

    I'm not saying treat everybody the same though. I'm saying premiums should be ajusted for statistical evidence gathered on an individual basis. That's what is fair.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal wrote: »
    Doesn't personality play a part? I remember in Psychology about something where if you have a Type A personality you are more likely to have more accidents.

    Just thought I'd add my useless information :)

    snot useless.

    What's a type A, and are they more frequently male, female, or other?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    snot useless.

    What's a type A, and are they more frequently male, female, or other?

    I don't actually know apart from that it's a personality characteristic.

    There was just a study done that involved Italian police drivers (Magnavita 1997) and it found that the drivers with the Type A behavior had a greater risk of traffic accidents.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    To an extent that's true, but it's still a generalisation.

    Should we be judging people based on their gender or judging people as individuals? You had the answer when I asked about interviewing people for a job.
    Although statistically men would be more productive through being naturally stronger, I would STILL make a judgement on an indvidual basis because it might be unfair to the 6 ft female equivalent of Jeff Capes.
    Kermit wrote: »
    It isn't sexism because it's not targeted at gender, that's the long and the short of it.

    Descrimination based on gender. That's sexism - even if there are statistics to proove it.
    Kermit wrote: »
    I can't believe this conversation is still going on. They're saying that women are less of a risk to them so women pay less; I fail to see the problem with that.

    But you can see a problem with my employment anology? You say that insurance companies can't ajust premiums on an individual basis, they can.
    Kermit wrote: »
    If you want to argue that all insurance companies are robbing twats regardless of gender, then I'll agree with you 100%.

    They are robbing bastards, they rob everybody, but they'd rob me less if I had cunt.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I'm saying premiums should be ajusted for statistical evidence gathered on an individual basis.

    You mean something like 30% off for not claiming in the first year rising to 60/70% over a period of four/five years? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Women are not safer drivers, they are cheaper drivers.

    Isn't that the point being made, that it's a financial risk issue?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't that the point being made, that it's a financial risk issue?

    We know it's a financial risk issue. The point being argued is whether it is morally justified. Using child labour in the far east is a financial decision. It says nothing about the morality of it. That's where the law comes in, because obviously companies are going to do anything legally possible to maximize their profits. Anyway, I think we're going round in circles, so fuck it.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Isn't that the point being made, that it's a financial risk issue?
    But they are making false claims...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    shadow wrote: »
    No i dont think sheilas wheels is sexist at all there are so many around to choose from. As someone said its not like there arn't any around for men.
    Precisely. Quite surprised to see this topic, as I thought it had been done to death. I had this same discussion a few months back, and the 'what if it were based on race instead' ish came up then, too.

    Many years back, on the AOL politics message board, someone announced that he was going to apply for insurance from Diamond and claim discrimination if he was refused. I told him that in my opinion, he might get insurance, but he would pay a premium based on being a man, and therefore higher risk. He might, though, suffer because the company was demonstrably geared towards serving female clients rather than men.

    The point is that if a company, whatever it's selling, specialises in serving a certain part of the community, that group will benefit more than anyone else. Women would get better premiums than men, all else being equal, from any insurance provider, but they probably do slightly better with Sheila's Wheels.

    I'm only up to about page 4 of this discussion. I wonder how far I'll have to read to see 'Who's looking out for white, able-bodied young men?'...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    z- wrote: »
    cant be fucked reading it all but id just like to let you all know how much satisfaction id get from crushing that stupid car with those stupid fuckin bimbos in it into a lovely cube

    yea.. i hate that ad :mad: :mad: :mad:
    Yeah, and you notice how sometimes the car is driving backwards?

    Grr.
Sign In or Register to comment.