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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
ill put it another way then, would you see anything discriminatory if a guy got sacked from work for dubious reasons but mainly because he wanted more flexible hours to see his kids?
Of course.
One involves discrimination against women, the other against age and men.
How is it not discrimination?
The cost of my insurance is based upon what sex and what age I am, not on me me as an individual.
Men are more liley to hit a moving thing, such as get walloped by a car. Not making them worse drivers, as it takes SKILL to get a moving target.
Women capaigned for eqaulity. So, pay the same price, damnit! Taking time off work for a new Kid? Both parents should be allowed it, really... but meh, that doesn't make a company money, so men don't get it.
Sexism still exists against both sexes though. Annoyingly enough.
To drive on the road you it's a legal requirement that have insurance. For many people driving is a necessity.
However you look at it it's still discrimination.
Soem people shouldn't have the right to have kids. What is your point?
We've already established that having children is a 'social necessity', does that not apply to driving?
Because you missed the point of principle and got caught up in the whole "human necessity" angle.
It makes no difference if something is a necessity. Penalising someone, to any extent, purely on the basis of gender/sexuality/age is wrong. Or do you disagree with that sentiment?
[quote=-[MoonRat]-]So is not allowing a man in to an Anne Summer's party, so is not allowing women to fight in the front line of the armed forces[/quote]
So, are those two examples acceptable then? Perhaps, if you think it is, you can explain why.
And that will do for the hundreds of thousands of builders, engineers, plumbers, salesman etc etc ?
Would women NOT claim it's discrimination if the roles were reversed?
Whether it is or it isn't might not be the point. I am pretty certain that if women were the heftier payers then they would complain.
So on that basis, why should men not have a moan. As a group we can/might be bad drivers, but there are exceptions to every rule and that's discrimination based on arbitary grouping.
And Blagsta would be first to complain if it were blacks having to pay more.
I don't think that' a good example. You'd need to be more specific. If a disproportionate amount of black people where statistically being involved in accidents then you'd need to look at the backgrounds of the people in question. You'd probably find it would be the case that, for example, in the majority of the accidents the party at fault was Nigerian. You'd then probably be able to put that down to the fact that a driving test in Nigeria consists of a straight road and 3 strategically placed chickens you have to avoid (for the record: i've no idea what a Nigerian driving test consists of or whether Nigerians are statistically bad drivers
I have to pay more more my insurance than my wife, and we are equally good drivers. IF someone could explain how it is NOT discriminatory that she pays £400 less, then I'd be grateful to hear it.
I'm not interested in the "social necessity" argument. IT's a simple question.
How is it NOT discriminatory that I have to pay £400 more for my insurance simply because I have a penis?
Driving is a social necessity, too, if we're going to go down that road. Move to the Lakes and let us know how long you last without driving.
I don't think it is at all. Using the current insurance system, that'd just be like clasifying people into male and female and leaving it at that without any further break down, hence my explanation.
Although i do agree with you that that surely it would be easier to put everyone on the same scale as far as car insurance goes. Taking into consideration years driving experience, accidents and locality. It would mean however that if you had an accident your insurance would go up more considerably than it does now.
Which is effectively what happens.
Why else would me and my wife- identical driving record, identical years driving experience, same age, same house, same car- have such a gigantic difference in price?
As i've said before i don't dispute the wrongness of the situation. What i'm saying is that the current system does break it down further than simply age. Which is why i said that the black drivers example wasn't a precise one.
Because there is no reason to beleive that the colour of your skin has any effect on driving performance.
The differences between men and women do lead to differences in driving ability and style however........
So if the statistics did show that skin colour affected your performance, it would be alright to discriminate then?
It is. It's based on statistics gained from the ability of other drivers, not from my ability as an individual.