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
No, as I said, I can do both. I just like to insist that we all recognise that one is false and based on arbitary made up stuff, the other is accurate. I can perceive the distinctions you claim. I can see them as arbitary distinctions though, and everyone else treats them as real, which disturbs me.
Yes, which is why I experiment instead. I find no evidence for the assertions that people are in groups (other then some people's insistence that it's the case) and conclude that it's in people's heads, and not in the world.
No, you came up with no points which addressed what I wrote. I wrote that any two individuals are totally seperate, unique and individual. You re asserted your original points BUT IN CAPS. No a response, a re-assertion.
Because it's accurate. if it was inaccurate, when we got to the fine detail then the point I make would fall down.
I can see the "big picture" and what it's made of. Which is why I point out that it's not really there. You've just got a "big picture" and you are stuck with it.
That's a lot of effort into saying you aren't going to put any effort in, mate. I am clever, so what? Idiots can be right or wrong by accident, so why not answer the point instead of this rambling on and on about how it's too much effort to answer?
Hmm probably both. Get's us no further though, does it? You think it's ok to discriminate against an individual because of claimed similarities i say people aren't that similar so you are out of order.
More wriggling? What's this sentence but pedantry to get you out of your apology? Oh and you said you weren't offended.
I meant no offence, why create it on your side?
I systematically destroyed all your arguments. You just kept bringing them back up in a rather affectionate fashion.
You know you are wrong and you still won't give up. Good luck to you I say.
Only because you seem to have difficulty reading.
I am opposed to all discrimination based on gender. You, on the other hand, are not. Simple really.
There is no such thing as a demographic. It is something created out of thin air in order to justify something to somebody. There is no causal link between individuals simply because of some random notion of a "demographic". Especially one as vague and meaningless as gender.
Experience and accident rates are what should determine who pays what. That makes perfect sense. The gender of a person has no effect on how good a driver they are. All statistics show this- oddly enough the insurance companies choose to ignore this.
No it isn't.
You go and show that men are inherently worse drivers, with genuine statistics not accident rates, and perhaps I will believe your argument a little bit more.
I don't expect you will find these statistics.
Also the things you are saying are completely different. There is a sensible reason why smoking will increase your chance of cancer, why parking your car on the street will make it more prone to being stolen, and why if you have not been driving long with less experiance you willpossibly not be as good a driver as someone who has been driving 10 years.
HOWEVER there is no logical reason why me having a penis in some way makes me drive a car in a different way to somebody who doesn't. A penis does not impede my ability to press the brakes. It does not stop me from turning the steering wheel. It does not affect my sight.
Now if you are comparing it to smoking and cancer and everything else I challenge you to explain the logical reason why a penis stops you from being able to drive as well as a woman?
Anyway, here we go (taken from a variety of sources, but mostly UK based. The general feeling is that men drive more than women, resulting in the disparity in the stats, but this is changing with women approaching male levels of distance. The thing that strikes me is that men are involved in more serious accidents. Anyway, make of this lot what you will...
From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=441
The greater use men make of cars may be one reason why they are more likely than women to be a casualty in a road traffic accident. In 2001 the annual casualty rate (those killed, or seriously or slightly injured) was over 44 per cent higher for men than women.
Men are more than twice as likely as women to be killed or seriously injured in a road accident: 99 per 100,000 men in 2001, compared with 44 per 100,000 women. The rates are higher for men irrespective of the mode of transport they are using.
From http://www.dft.gov.uk
Number of road accidents resulting in death or serious injury for males and females per year (1996 - 2003)
Males All age groups
9,772 '96
9,665 '97
8,894 '98
8,441 '99
8,572 '00
8,356 '01
8,222 '02
7,591 '02
Females: All age groups
5,241 '96
5,213 '97
4,945 '98
4,549 '99
4,122 '00
4,189 '01
3,796 '02
3,448 '03
From Carsource.com
Women, generally speaking, do have the same number of accidents as men but it's the severity of the accident that is very different between the sexes. Typically an insurance company has to pay out alot more to fix a car when a man has had an accident - the car has to be extensively repaired or even written off. Women's accidents tend to require less repair because their accidents are often caused by bumping into somebody, reversing into the garage - that type of thing.
And I found an article on this very discussion as well.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/womanandmoney/insuranceforgirls.html
Yeah, and having a penis does make you act differently bomberman. It might not affect your ability to physically operate a car, but it does/can affect your psychological ability to percieve events and risk it, 'oh, I'll just make that amber light', or 'there's enough space for me to squeeze in there', or 'there's just enough time for me to overtake this bus'.
From http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20001101-000035.html
The greatest risk-takers are young males in their adolescent years--a fact reflected in their high rates of auto accidents, binge drinking, drug use and pathological gambling. The military has always preferred younger men for soldiers, not only because of their physical strength but for their willingness to risk their lives in combat.
From http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11
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.
There you have it, for Kermit in particular. Male and female drivign patterns are different. Men take more risks. They are involved in more serious accidents. They drive more (typically, although the reports I read suggest this is changing), and their repair costs are typically higher. Being a man also affects your driving behaviour. It really is quite simple. Your gender is as worthwhile an indicator of insurance risk as what car you drive, your NCD, where you live and so forth. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'oh, this is discrimination', it's all based on the concept of risk. You might think this is some crazy conspiracy against men, but I personally think that the statistics and the reports bear out reality.
No, I asked for stats that showed that men were worse drivers.
Not that they were more likely to catch AIDS or were more likely to successfully commit suicide.
I don't think there is any great conspiracy. Insurance companies are allowed to discriminate in terms of gender, so they do so in order to make some extra profit. Especially as men tend to be the main driver on insurance policies.
Have you read the yahoo article? It's quite interesting. There was a court ruling about this very thing, and they found that it wasn't discrimination per se.
Still doesn't explain why it is illegal for employers to discriminate against women on the basis of statistical probability... which was the original question...
Just out of curiosity did you read what I wrote? I corrected you in your statement that men crash more than women and you then proceded to give a lengthy explanation that proved I was right and that they crash roughly the same amount of times.
You are trying to say something different than smoking and cancer though. You are now looking at a section of society rather than a male. It is not the same thing at all. You cannot give a reason why having a penis physically makes you a worse driver so instead you are saying now that boy racers cause accidents. Why then do you assume that men are likely to be boy racers? Surely we should discriminate against certain cars then and modifications rather than the male gender as a whole?
I still can't believe having a child is being equated with buying car insurance.... :no:
Oh FFS, it isn't, I can't believe the number of times I have said that.
The comparison is about the use of statistics, the only reason insurance is mentioned is because it's an area where we use statistics to assess risk and charge accordingly.
The question I raised is only about employment. It's not even about actually having a child, it's about the risk to the employer of a woman having a child.
The question is fairly simple.
Why is it illegal for an employer to consider the statistical probability that a woman will take time off for her children? I defy anyone to say that the "risk" is the same as with men, so why can't it be a consideration?
Because that kind of 'statistical discrimination' is necessary to having a viable insurance market.
It is not a necessity for standard employment relations..........
It isn't?
The fact that by employing someone I may open company up to maternity leave, reduced flexibility, increased chance of recruitment...?
I'd say it was necessary for me to be allowed to make that judgement...
Yep. that's the question....
How many companies or industries need to be able to discriminate in that way to survive?
As explained in the quote earlier, the insurance market must discriminate in order to have any chance of success and that is why that can be accepted but discrimination in employment cannot.........
Don't quote me, but I'm sure insurance companies have huge profit margins :chin:
Bloody insurance
They don't need to do it either, they do because it attracts customers because they can offer lower rates to some people. However, as discussed previously, risks only apply to groups not to individuals. Groups don't insure.
So, ignoring insurance, why is it illegal to use our knowledge that statistically women are more likely to have time off, when considering employment?
That would be a make and model argument rather than a gender one then.
I already pointed out that you don't need to dicriminate at all initially. Everyone pays the same and after you have had a crash the insurance can go north. Simple, effective, non discriminatory.
It's illegal because a group of people campaigned to make it so, same as most other laws. The sad fact is that men do not have the same lobbying as women, they are just assumed to have all the rights etc anyway.
What we have is a push for equality on one side using the various mechanisms that are in place from one group, but with no counter-push from another group. inevitably this pushes things too far one way.
It basically encapsulates the classical economic theory of insurance and states the fact that without the ability to discriminate between groups insurance companies would face being wiped out because it is impossible to carry out risk assessments of all individuals........
I am not advocating the removal of the ability to discriminate. I am pointing out that it can be done after claims. Penalising genuine shit drivers but not passing costs onto genuinely good drivers because they, for example, have a penis.
Once a person proves that they are "just another normal male driver" then by all means hike the price. Until they have had a crash they aren't a risk and should be treated accordingly. Simple.
As for insurance not working if they can't discriminate that's horse puckey. The world's largest insurance schemes have flat rates for all members.
Good idea if they could though innit. I smell a buisness opportunity.....
Your stats don't support that. Your stats are number of SERIOUS accidents and not number of accidents and they are not the same thing are they?
What you are now making is a generalisation. If you cannot give a physical reason why a penis affects your ability to drive then you are merely stereotyping that men drive worse with no real evidence than statistics on serious accidents. Also bear in mind that they are accidents that males are involved in and not accidents they have caused.
Those stats were actually from motorists. I know that! I've said countless times that it doesn't affect your physical ability. Why would it (unless you accidently sit on your balls). It's a mental issue. Men act differently in different situations than what women do, surely you've experienced this? Their behaviour is more risky, they're more aggressive, hence they're involved in more accidents. How many road rage incidents have you read about that have involved women? Very few. And what do you mean, no real evidence? You can't get any more real than the stats I've given you. And I'm stereotyping? I'm sure the stereotype is the other way around, that women are worse drivers. Anyway, I'm not stereotyping, I'm merely showing what I think, and what I think is supported by valid statistics made by an independent body. Personally I think you don't like reading that it might actually be the other way around, that men are worse drivers.
And I've been doing some reading. Females get lower annuties on their pensions because statistically they live longer lives. Men get bigger annuties cause statistically they have shorter lives. Is this acceptable? I take the whole sex/gender discrimination, and I honestly can't give a solid reason why women shouldn't get discriminated for the possibility of having a child, except to me it seems immoral.
I have never said women are worse drivers and I haven't implied it either. You are in fact again stereotyping from your own experiances that I think this purely because I disagree that you can judge somebodys personality by their gender. By your argument would it be OK to not allow women to do things because they are more timid and less risk taking?
Of course women are involved in road rage.
Statistics can be made to support any argument by carefully selecting data to show what you want. It's like if we had this sort of argument
Why is it acceptable to discriminate on some vague notion of "risk" when insurance companies do it, but not when employment companies do it?
Why is it acceptable to pre-judge entire groups of people when it comes to insurance, for argument's sake, but not acceptable to pre-judge when it comes to, say, schooling places?
It's the same principle in all cases. A supposed, but not genuine, "risk" to profit margins is allowed when it costs men more, but not when it prevents women from getting employment or stupid people from getting a place in a good school. What is the justification for only applying the principle when it suits you?
Why is it supposed?
I assume you have some good arguments as to why the threat is not genuine?