|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem is they are too wreckful, not wreckless.
:-)
It kind of make a mockery of those sexist "tell him to slow down" driver saftey ads being shown in Aus (and, apparently, NZ). I wonder if the ppl behind these ads took into account the fact that men seem to do most of the driving on long drives involving a male and a female driver.
Maybe "Give him a break" would have been a more appropriate slogan.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't tell you how many times I've heard jokes about how bad female drivers are. And I laughed while my brother did 80 in a 55 zone. But now I realize that girls are reckless drivers- I can tell you that for a fact, since I'm 19 and still on my permit. I can never master the gas or the brake, or even remember which pedal is which. *urk*
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing that always irks me about insurance companies is they won't take into account individual driving records rather than sexist stereotypes. I've always driven well, better than either other boys or girls my age when I was first learning. There were girls in my high school who had three or four accidents per year, while I had zero, and yet my insurance was higher...
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They do take into account individual driving records -- but it takes quite a long time.
I doubt insurance companies make commercial decisions based on sexist stereotypes. They use statistics. Unfortunately, men, especially young men, are more prone to having accidents. Premiums reflect this.
It's not all bad. Because men have shorter lives on average they get a better deal on life annuities. I bet you can't wait. :)
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse the out of sequence reply, but I’m an ocean away and I just had to comment on the post from sd:
“I doubt insurance companies make commercial decisions based on sexist stereotypes.”
I’m not sure about US legislation but UK anti-gender-discrimination legislation is not aimed at there being no differences between men and women but instead focuses on it being inappropriate to make assumptions about a person simply because of their gender.
The idea is that state of mind is not gender dependent. So insurance companies conclusions that an ‘individual’ can be determined to be more or less reckless than another entirely on their gender should be entirely illegal ‘sexist stereotyping’.
It doesn’t matter that men in general are more one thing or women another. What may NOT be inferred is that an INDIVIDUAL will exhibit these gender ‘predicted’ traits.
The defense of the insurance agency is that they are in the business of making statistical predictions, as if being in the business of gender-discrimination made it acceptable.
As you can imagine this blatant discrimination against men by the insurance companies is not pursued by the UK’s EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission).
(Interestingly enough, but off topic, the EOC has recently determined that the selection process of who will stand for local election for a particular political party tends to exclude women. Their solution: legislate to exclude men. However, so called ‘positive discrimination’ is illegal in the UK so the government is having to change the law very specifically so that it is legal to discriminate against men in a selection process of a political party candidate in a local election.)
Br, Steve.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt insurance companies make commercial decisions based on sexist stereotypes. They use statistics.
That's interesting. I've asked several insurance agents why I had to pay higher rates than women who had more accidents than I do. Their answer: "You're a man. Men drive faster."
Sounds like sexist stereotyping to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think with insurance companies, all they have to go on is stereotypes and statistics.
It would seem unreasonable for them to conduct a 12 month study on each individual to assess how much they should pay in insurance.
They stereotype over many different categories though, so it is more of a 'personalised' stereotype. They include age, car type etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 11, @08:50PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Car type, I agree with. The rest no.
Because I do not have a higher chance of having an accident than my sister does. The insurance companies say so, but they are liars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They stereotype over many different categories though, so it is more of a 'personalised' stereotype. They include age, car type etc.?
My last auto insurance company didn't consider a man an "adult" until age 30. Then my rates went down. No matter that I was driving a "safe" car and not even a single speeding ticket.
Pretty damned insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't separate two people on anything other than their gender then you CAN'T separate them at all! That is what it means to be an individual! That is why we resist sexist stereotyping!
So you charge the two people the same rate until one of 'em has an accident.
It is truly amazing that some people can be brain washed into believing that it is reasonable to discriminate against them. That they are worse people in some way because of their genetic similarity to someone else. It may be true for bacteria but sentient human beings are differentiated by more than their gender.
This is why the men's rights organisation is the tiny organisation it is. The men of the west are convinced that they are automatons whose defective male behavior can be easily predicted by any feminist pseudo-sociologist.
How many times is it worth trying to shout at these men that they are individuals of value before we just give in trying to break their programming. I mean if we can’t get through to people who have been at this site for months what hope is there for anyone else????!!!!!!!
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many times is it worth trying to shout at these men that they are individuals of value before we just give in trying to break their programming. I mean if we can’t get through to people who have been at this site for months what hope is there for anyone else????!!!!!!!
Well said, stevenewton. And I must say that at this particular moment in time, I share your frustration and lack of hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ratio of miles driven per year by boys to miles driven per year by girls is 1.19. The ratio of number of accidents, per 1000 licensed drivers, for boys to number of accidents, per 1000 licensed drivers, for girls is 1.20. I'd bet that difference is well within their statistical uncertainty.
As for girls collecting fewer tickets and having fewer convictions for road infractions, we all know that would be the case even for an equal number of offenses. The females would simply be let off far more often than the males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What irritates me is that these statistics from the insurance companies do not actually show (or even suggest) which sex are worse drivers. They merely show which sex drives more frequently and longer distances. And they certainly don't suggest that I, being a male, am more likely to get in an accident. It is poor statistical reasoning to conclude that those who drive more are worse drivers, or that Joe is more likely to get in an accident than Jane because he is male.
Let me provide an example: suppose you have a partial deck of cards with only two black cards in the deck, and both full suits of red cards(for a total of 28 cards - 13 in each red suit, and two additional black cards). You shuffle them, and pick one at random. The chances of picking a red card are 26/28 - pretty good chance. However, the chance of picking a king of hearts (red) is the SAME as picking a king of clubs (black): (1/28). Likewise, all other things being equal, such as driving record, conditions, and other such variables, the chance of Joe getting in an accident is the SAME as the chance that Jane does. Being a male does not increase his chances or likelihood of being involved in an accident. It is all those other variables that matter, not sex.
Somehow, the insurance companies twist their stats around to say that if you are a male, you are more likely to get in an accident. Wrong. That is an example of doing your stats poorly - something MacKinnon and Naomi Wolfe like to do. In actuality, accidents are simply more likely to consist of males (there are more of them to "choose" from in the "deck"). The point is, sex really does not have as much to do with individual driver competence as the insurance companies say it does. Premiums should be based on the person, not the group to whom that person belongs to.
On a side note, one must assume that every race in the US was not involved in a proportionately equal number of accidents in the US in any given year. Why, then, aren't premiums also affected by the color of one's skin? I mean, hey, if blacks (for example) constituted 15% of accidents last year, but only make up 12% of the population, the insurance companies should hike the rates for blacks because they are bad drivers, right? (I hope everyone caught the sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another example:
Suppose a woman drives the same route to work every day. Then suppose her female friend down the road quit driving. At the same time, her male neighbor started driving. Did her likelihood of getting in an accident just decrease because, statistically, there are fewer female drivers?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
