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
Discrimination in insurance
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Teh_Gerbil wrote:Like Women getting cheapr car insurance than men, because it's "sexist" if they have to pay the same. x(
No, its because statiscally, women are a lower risk.
0
Comments
Statisically they are more likely to take time off from work to have/raise kids.
Why can't that be taken into consideration for employment purposes?
When discrimination based on sex acceptable?[/tangent]
Seriously?
It was taken from an often used response to gay bashing on Christian websites and the TV programme plagarised it... apparently.
Money.
Nice detailed response there mate, missing one factor.
Money applies to both.
I didn't really understand the question.
It's not considered sexist when an insurance company offers lower rates to women because statistically they are less of a risk.
It is considered sexist when the same company refuses to employ a mother because statistically she is more likely to take time off.
My question was, why defend one, when you would not defend the other?
And I'm with Blagsta on this one...
That is pretty much it.
In most families the man still remains the main driver, and so will drive more, further, and on faster roads. Therefore if he makes an error its more likely to be more expensive, which obviously costs the insurers more money.
Women, on the other hand, don't tend to drive further than Sainsbury's. If they make an error it will be at low speed, and cheaper to repair.
The sexism with car insurance is nothing short of a disgrace, as is the ageism.
Its just another part of the risk analysis that all insurance companies have to do to calculate the cost to them and the price. If they didnt discriminate on location, age, sex, weight, etc. they wouldnt know what to charge and would therefore charge more.
Since when has it been a "right"?
And that doesn't address the statistical element, why shouldn't an employer be able to take that into consideration? We're not talking about discrimination on the basis of "I don't like women", we're talking about evidence based discrimination.... in both cases...
Insurance firms have to deal with averages, if they didn't discriminate then the women would have to pay more not men less else the firms would make losses........
Errr...its the way the human race perpetuates itself.
I've answered why. Having kids is a basic human function, driving cars is not.
But not all can do it, so it isn't a "right" is it?
Working isn't either.
Your whole argument based on the fact is that women can have kids. But that doesn't explain why an employer shouldn't take that innto consideration when considering employment...
You've either got to have it fully one way, or fully the other - discrimination allowed, or discrimination disallowed. Anything else is illogical and unjust.
Well, no maybe "right" is the wrong term. "Rights" only exist within particular social contexts. It is, however, a basic human necessity to reproduce and to look after your offspring.
Well, yes it is under our current economic system. No work, no shelter, no food.
They should take it into consideration...by providing childcare and creche facilities and time off to those who need it.
Exactly. I'm no fan of insurance companies, but its an economic argument not a moral one.
Article 16 of the Human Rights Act
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage. During marriage and at its dissolution.
(3) The family is the natural and fundemental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the state.
Its a nonsense comparison, you're trying to compare apples with car tyres. Having babies is a basic human necessity, having a car isn't. End of.
No it isn't.
Not a necessity though.
In today's world, having babies is more choice than natural human function, we use contraceptives, we choose our partners, plan our families, I'm sure our ancestors never did this.
Errr...yeah it is, otherwise the human race dies out.
Its still a necessity for the continuation of the human race.
But yes, everybody has the right to raise a family and for the family's interests to be protected. It can be interpretted however people want it to be, but I think that a child's primary socialisation is very important.
So it's a necessity for the race, but not for each female - which is the point I am getting at.
So, the race needs to reproduce. Thta still doesn't explain why an employers whouldn't take it consideration the fact that a wome is more likely to take time off- as part of that process - than a man is.
It still doesn't justify why the employer should make provision for crech etc and allow "as much time off" as you suggested previously...
So, rather than offering the usual one line response, is there any possibility that you could actually support your postion for once?
And?
One of my friends (female) has had about four prangs in her car now, whereas I haven't had any. And I've been driving longer.
Guess who gets the cheaper insurance?
Same with old people. The old drivers are the most dangerous on the road- yes, 28mph on a trunk road is dangerous- but they get cheaper insurance. Why? They're less "risk"- the bloke who runs into them doing 28mph on a trunk road is at fault.
Everyone should pay the same, based on experience and crashes.