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
Just found this, which may support why men are charged more for insurance
Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior. Source: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11
Ok but like Kermit has pointed out he pays £400 quid more than his wife for his insurance yet has never had an accident. Is that right?
But for it not to be based on stats the insurance company would have to test every single persons driving.
BUt surely it should be generalised along experience not on the simple fact that I have a penis and my wife does not? We have equal driving records- completely clean, not even a speeding or parking ticket- and equal experience. Why does she therefore get quoted a price one third less than mine?
If black people were statistically more likely to crash, would it be acceptable to charge black people 1/3 more?
Or give them quotes in the first place which arn't based upon age and sex.
People who crash should pay for it. People who don't should not.
Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of some statistic? Why should I be discriminated against because of a statistic? Why is it OK for me to be discriminated against because of a statistic, but not women in the workplace?
What do I have in common with the boy racers except the fact that I have a penis? Why is making me pay not discriminatory?
And what do you mean about the 'but not women in the workplace'? That's why the thread got confusing.
Insurance has and will always work based on risk to the insurance company, that is based on statistics.
But that doesn't make it moral.
And it certainly doesn't make it any more morally justifable than discrimination in the workplace.
Of course it's the same level. Princples don't come with degrees of acceptability.
Either discrimination is okay, or it isn't.
Statistically women spend more time away from work giving birth to, and raising, children. Why is it illegal to take that into consideration?
Because women vote more than men, and most men generally accept they have to pay more for insurance.
I can see your logic, but it's totally flawed imo. Discrimination can have differing degrees, but whether it is okay or not is besides the point. Men on insurance and women in the workplace is not on the same level at all. Charging men more on insurance is not discrimination, it's based on statistical probablility. The chances of them having an accident is higher, so they have to pay for it. Next you'll be moaning that you need to pay more in insurance because you're being discriminated against for living in an inner-city area, which although you might live in a nice area, that postcode is known as having high rates of car theft. So what if women are more likely to spend time away from work due to childbirth etc, does that really matter? They lose out on proper pay, keeping up with their career, knowing waht's going on in their area of employment etc etc. Taking into consideration if a potential employee might have children is ridiculous (if it's taken into consideration on whether they get the job).
It is exactly the same principle. Principles don't come in varying levels- either you agree with the principle or you don't.
They do, they pay out for the accidents caused by males. And because the majority of accidents are caused by males, it's males who pay more, and the males who have accident pay even more than that.
This discussion is giving me deja vu I think!
I am not more likely to crash simply because I have a penis, there are no statistics that say I am. Some may possibly say that men have more accidents, but that has zero impact on the risk assessment of me.
I aren't bothered that women have maternal rights, that's the whole point. I am bothered that people think that this is unacceptable, yet are so willing to justify the discrimination employed by insurance companies, because they are both the same principle, and both just as morally abhorrent.
In terms of impact there are different degrees, but the principle is the same.
based on statistical probability any woman under the age of 35 is several times more likely to take time off to give birth (given the zero probability that a man will) and is more likely to take time off for childrens sickness/school leave etc.
Surely then that is relevant to her employment.
I'm not talking about degrees of impact, I'm talking about the principle of using statistics to discriminate.
You mean apart from the cost of recruitment, training, cover for leave etc? The fact that the higher your turnover of staff, the greater the costs and the lower the effectiveness?
So how did this topic get to 6 pages?!
Is the idea of necessary discrimination being thrown out?
If my employer (using the case i cited earlier) needs to employ another person but really can't afford to have that person take any more time off than the statutory holiday and few days illness, it's obvious that it is discriminating against late / twenties early thirties woman, but is this wrong?
The same way all P&D threads do. Tangents and obstinence.
Can I just add that my concern was never whether it was okay for insurers to use statistics. I have no problem with that at all. Risk analysis is important.
My question was more about why the same concept cannot be used elsewhere, if it is considered okay for insurance.
Its just were the focus is, women being kicked out of jobs while pregnant get sympathy, men moaning on about high insurance do not.
I guess its a sign that men are second class citizens.
Truest thing said on this thread so far.
But you're not figuring in the chances that a man will do the same (not have a baby, take time off) Ditto to I think it's fair
Skive, yup, deja vu for me too mate...
No it's not.
And why is that an acceptable risk assessment but in employment it is not?