Sexism and car insurance - Not dead yet

MagicSean

Principal Skinner wrote: »

This is just pc gone mad. Males are more likely to crash and be involved in accidents. Full stop. End of. Why shouldn't they have to pay more?

If black men are causing most of the accidents then they should be charged higher prices. Same if its white men.

Insurers use details like your address to decide your premium so it's really just an extension of that.

I don't understand people getting up in arms about this.... It's like when airport security give special focus to Islam passengers and people say it's racist. It's not, statistically they're more likely to be terrorists so what's the point wasting time on an 80 year old irish woman?

If you compare the number of islam terrorists convicted in Ireland to the number of protestant/catholic terrorists convicted in Ireland I think you would find your assumption to be wrong.

lightspeed

Sandwlch wrote: »

Well it is just a little racist:
- they are people, not just a sport
- African-American is their preferred term in the USA

"It's not racist to say that 78% of NBA players are African American" would have been preferable.

It would be racist if there policies prevented people of other skin colour playing within the NBA.

Adolf Hitler was not happy when a black guy won an event in the Olympics. People felt certain that white people were superior in areas such as sports and athletic abilities and given the level of racism across the world, im sure Adolf could have have presented statistics at least in Europe validating his opinion that black people are inferior when it comes to sports. So should that black guy have even been able to participate in them Olympic games?

Should white people be able to play basketball?

lightspeed

ash23 wrote: »

Black males don't rob their own houses.

Now you are really stereotyping. What statistical evidence do you based the above conclusion?

judgefudge

lightspeed wrote: »

Should white people be able to play basketball?

Can't help but think the thread has gotten a bit ridiculous.

As a woman, I don't particularly want to see my boyfriend, brother, dad or male friends pay more than me for the same service.

However, the idea that insurance premiums can be discriminatory just opens a whole can of worms. Your personal premium is calculated based on what risk categories you fall into... If you don't agree that people should be judged off these "risks" (like sex, age etc) then everyone should have the same flat rate. Including elderly and young people.

In an ideal world each person would have their individual driving skills tested and be quoted based on that. But this world is far from ideal. So yeah, I think it's pretty stupid for this legislation to come in. And that's not based on some desire to stick it to men.

aaronjumper

What about someone that changes gender, do their rates change?
Or do they stay the same?

lightspeed

Just seen that they are not the only insurance company discriminating

http://www.zurichinsurance.ie/car-insurance/ladystar.htm

http://www.libertyinsurance.ie/car-insurance/women_driver.html

http://topquote.ie/womens-car-insurance/

http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

I am shocked that this has not been highlighted in the media and these companies feel that they can just opt to not follow the law.

Bad Santa

Wibbs wrote: »

It might be more accurate to say women have less serious and in the case of insurance companies less expensive accidents. I read a study a while back, I'll try and dig up a link.

Was most likely the John Hopkins one, as I remember that causing a little stir at the time in the media:

Women Drivers Crash More Than Men

According to a controversial study by researchers at the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, women are more likely to be involved in car crashes than men - despite the fact that men are three times more likely to be killed when they do crash.

As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed.

"Although risk-taking behaviours may contribute to the excessive injury mortality among men and younger drivers, up to now age and sex discrepancies in death rates from motor vehicle crashes have not been well understood" says lead author Guohua Li, associate professor of emergency medicine.

Using crash statistics gathered by the Fatal Accident Reporting System, the General Estimates System and the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the researchers developed an innovative method called "decomposition" to break down the data into new categories and weigh the relative contribution of three variables: crash fatality, incidence density (number of crashes per million miles) and exposure prevalence (annual average miles driven per driver). Until now, the death rate ratio has always been based on just two factors: fatality and accident rates.

The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts.

tritium

Just for kicks I looked for a quote off the site. It looks like I get the same quote whether I'm male or female (love to know if other boardsies had a different experience)

On that basis it looks like they're compliant with the law in not using gender to calculate premiums.

Looks like fairly blatant false advertising though since they imply (falsely) that they'll give a better rate to women drivers. Anyone know if this is within the remit of the ASAI?

lightspeed

judgefudge wrote: »

Can't help but think the thread has gotten a bit ridiculous.

As a woman, I don't particularly want to see my boyfriend, brother, dad or male friends pay more than me for the same service.

However, the idea that insurance premiums can be discriminatory just opens a whole can of worms. Your personal premium is calculated based on what risk categories you fall into... If you don't agree that people should be judged off these "risks" (like sex, age etc) then everyone should have the same flat rate. Including elderly and young people.

In an ideal world each person would have their individual driving skills tested and be quoted based on that. But this world is far from ideal. So yeah, I think it's pretty stupid for this legislation to come in. And that's not based on some desire to stick it to men.

I couldn't agree more it is ridiculous to use statistics to discriminate against people and allow for stereotyping.

I again make the argument that statistics show that irish people have a much higher alcohol consumption rate than other european nationalities so based on this factual collection of data, i again ask the question should employers be able to refuse hiring irish people?

In your argument, you are using statistical data to legitimise discriminating against a group of people. How would employers refusing to hire irish people due to the statistical data showing that irish people are more likely to have issues with alcohol dependancy be any different?

Would you support employers being able to make this argument and thus refuse hiring irish people?

Perhaps we could have such a system in place where irish people would be employed at lower wages and each year they prove that they dont have any alcohol issues they would get a pay increase until eventually they would be getting paid the same as other workers of different nationalities doing the same job.

Can you confirm that you would like to see such a system in place?

Grayson

I know a woman who drives an ambulance for a living. She hates women drivers. She says there are two drivers that she has noticed are more unsafe. Women drivers and old blokes.
This is of course anecdotal, but it's probably just as accurate as half the drivel posted here.

judgefudge

lightspeed wrote: »

I couldn't agree more it is ridiculous to use statistics to discriminate against people and allow for stereotyping.

I again make the argument that statistics show that irish people have a much higher alcohol consumption rate than other european nationalities so based on this factual collection of data, i again ask the question should employers be able to refuse hiring irish people?

In your argument, you are using statistical data to legitimise discriminating against a group of people. How would employers refusing to hire irish people due to the statistical data showing that irish people are more likely to have issues with alcohol dependancy be any different?

Would you support employers being able to make this argument and thus refuse hiring irish people?

Perhaps we could have such a system in place where irish people would be employed at lower wages and each year they prove that they dont have any alcohol issues they would get a pay increase until eventually they would be getting paid the same as other workers of different nationalities doing the same job.

Can you confirm that you would like to see such a system in place?

No I can't confirm that. You say that Irish people have a much higher consumption rate of alcohol than Europeans, and then that they have higher dependence rates? Which is it? Or both?

The fact that Irish people drink more than most Europeans does not necessarily mean that they have more problems with drink. Meaning problems that interfere with work. The beauty of hiring someone is that when they show that they are incompetent at their job they can be fired.

Besides which my argument was only in relation to insurance, which is calculated based on risk. Unless willing to individually assess each individual it has to be based on statistics. Even then it is still a risk.

For the record I agree that women should have to pay higher annuities than men.

The King of Moo

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It's only sexist if it favours men.

This always comes up but I don't think anyone thinks like this. Whenever there's a thread on sexism, someone invariably asks why feminists only care about women's rights, and many of those who identify themselves as feminists point out that they also care about men's rights, often to the point of campaigning against discrimination against men in areas like family law.

Yet "it's only sexist if it's against women" gets trotted out again and again.

Complaints about sexism against men, which does happen, would be taken more seriously if one got the sense that those complaining were concerned with more than points-scoring or wanting to be seen as victims.

circadian

Insurance is discriminatory on principle. Get over it.

As for calling an agent for a row. Catch yourself on. Big man. Do ye really think they give a toss? You do realise the easiest way to get on with customer service is to be level headed about an issue and not an aggressive reactionary tool.

Jimoslimos

Wibbs wrote: »

....Women also drive fewer miles. So for miles driven women are actually more likely to have an accident....

This is probably one of the most important points for insurance companies. The more miles you drive, the likelihood of being involved in an accident approaches 1, for EVERYONE, regardless of how good a driver you are.

It is easier for insurance companies to apply the blanket logic (men on average drive more miles = men will have accidents sooner than women) than it is to accurately determine each individual's actual level of risk. Statistics not sexism.

Doc Ruby

What if I was a woman trapped in a man's body, would that qualify me for a discount. Or say a lesbian woman trapped in a man's body. Do they have a sliding scale based on how attracted to women you are or what.

Doc Ruby

lightspeed wrote: »

I again make the argument that statistics show that irish people have a much higher alcohol consumption rate than other european nationalities

Utter bollocks.

Amirani

circadian wrote: »

Insurance is discriminatory on principle. Get over it.

Discriminatory based on justifiable risk-factors, otherwise it's illegal.

Males have more serious accidents because there's more male drivers that drive dangerously, not because being male makes you more likely to be involved in serious car accidents.

You can use averages to discriminate against any sub-section of society, in many different ways. People shouldn't be discriminated on based on their sub-section of society. Taking this to n-extremes would be how eugenics works. Why not elimate a race altogether because they're far more likely to commit crimes?

Amirani

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is probably one of the most important points for insurance companies. The more miles you drive, the likelihood of being involved in an accident approaches 1, for EVERYONE, regardless of how good a driver you are.

It is easier for insurance companies to apply the blanket logic (men on average drive more miles = men will have accidents sooner than women) than it is to accurately determine each individual's actual level of risk. Statistics not sexism.

That's a completely ridiculous argument. It makes far more sense in that case to charge more based on how many miles someone drives rather than their gender. If an insurance company was concerned about risk minimisation, that's what they'd do.

Brian201888

lightspeed wrote: »

Just seen that they are not the only insurance company discriminating

http://www.zurichinsurance.ie/car-insurance/ladystar.htm

http://www.libertyinsurance.ie/car-insurance/women_driver.html

http://topquote.ie/womens-car-insurance/

http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

I am shocked that this has not been highlighted in the media and these companies feel that they can just opt to not follow the law.

Every single one of those as well as every itsforwomen policy is completely available to male drivers.

Wibbs

Bad Santa wrote: »

Was most likely the John Hopkins one, as I remember that causing a little stir at the time in the media:

That's the one. Basically women have more accidents but they're minor, men have fewer but they're major and men drive more miles so they cost more to insure. Per mile driven though men once they get beyond their young man I'm craaaazy stage are actually less likely to have accidents than women per miles driven. Personal experience wise I've found there are good and bad, safe and unsafe in both genders. About the safest drivers I know is a woman, a tenner a year would cover her and about the worst driver I know is a man. He follows the "female" model. Never had anything close to major, but there isn't a straight panel on his car. He keeps hitting static objects with alarming regularlity and that gimp pays less than me.

lightspeed

judgefudge wrote: »

No I can't confirm that. You say that Irish people have a much higher consumption rate of alcohol than Europeans, and then that they have higher dependence rates? Which is it? Or both?

The fact that Irish people drink more than most Europeans does not necessarily mean that they have more problems with drink. Meaning problems that interfere with work. The beauty of hiring someone is that when they show that they are incompetent at their job they can be fired.

Besides which my argument was only in relation to insurance, which is calculated based on risk. Unless willing to individually assess each individual it has to be based on statistics. Even then it is still a risk.

For the record I agree that women should have to pay higher annuities than men.

Why cant you confirm a yes or no answer to the question i posed?
Its a very simple question, Should employers be able to use statistics to discriminate against a bunch of people the same way as the insurers were able to until recently.

"Over half of all Irish drinkers have a harmful pattern of drinking, that’s 4 in 10 women and 7 in 10 men who drink"

The above statistic can be found here
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

If irish people consume more alcohol then obviously they are more likely to experience the health side effects of alcohol consumption and judging from the statistics they seem to have also coincendantly not only a high rate of alcohol consumption but also issues with alcohol dependency. So based on the logic of using statistics, an employer could come to the conclusion that if they hire an irish worker, he or she is more likely to come to work with a hangover and so to mitigate such a risk they could claim that they should not have to hire irish workers or be able to pay them lower wages to compensate the risk inferred from the statistics gathered.

You are either of the opinion that this is right or wrong so which is it?

But if you would prefer we can stick with insurance and forget the argument i was making about employers.

"Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 - that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland".

Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007: that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland

A higher proportion of Irish women who drink compared with women in other European countries (77% compared to 68%)"

The above statistics can be seen by clicking on the link below
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

So the facts are that a high consumption of alcohol leads to an increased risk of suffering health related side effects.

Therefore based on statistics, do you feel that irish women should have to pay higher health insurance than women of other nationalities?

lightspeed

Eoghan_2 wrote: »

Every single one of those as well as every itsforwomen policy is completely available to male drivers.

Yes can you show me where they advertised that on thier websites?

Why are they not complying with consumer law and and advertising that women drivers will get a better deal?


"Womens Car Insurance - Get A Better Deal This Month!"

"Competitive car insurance for women – we reward safe drivers"

http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

Jimoslimos

NiallSparky wrote: »

That's a completely ridiculous argument. It makes far more sense in that case to charge more based on how many miles someone drives rather than their gender. If an insurance company was concerned about risk minimisation, that's what they'd do.

They do factor in how many miles you drive (which can work both in your favour and against) but people can lie about how often they drive - they can't lie about their gender. When calculating premiums it is easier to attribute weight to those factors which are not subjective (or can be easily verified) - age and gender.

Brian201888

lightspeed wrote: »

Yes can you show me where they advertised that on thier websites?

Why are they not complying with consumer law and and advertising that women drivers will get a better deal?


"Womens Car Insurance - Get A Better Deal This Month!"

"Competitive car insurance for women – we reward safe drivers"

http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

Where does that say they'll get a better deal than males? Just says they'll get a good deal. Can't even begin to fathom the problem here every company you've listed doesn't discriminate in any way between male and female drivers.

Feathers

judgefudge wrote: »

Can't help but think the thread has gotten a bit ridiculous.

As a woman, I don't particularly want to see my boyfriend, brother, dad or male friends pay more than me for the same service.

However, the idea that insurance premiums can be discriminatory just opens a whole can of worms. Your personal premium is calculated based on what risk categories you fall into... If you don't agree that people should be judged off these "risks" (like sex, age etc) then everyone should have the same flat rate. Including elderly and young people.

There's a million & one ways they could be covered in the case of risk while giving people a fairer deal — why not take a larger payment as a deposit on the driver but allow them to carry it forward:

For arguments sake, if young male & female drivers, both 22 and both with 2 years full clean license were quoted £2000 & £400 respectively. Let the man pay 5 times what women do up front, but if the first year he has no claims, only the £400 is deducted & the £1600 is carried forward — with a year's clean driving, he's proven himself slightly more reliable that the statistical average, though he's still covered for 4 times the amount of the woman in year 2.

He has to put the money in up front, but if he can show himself to be a safe driver, isn't penalised.

Though as other posters have pointed out, the single biggest statistic to affect likelihood of an accident is miles driven, so really they should probably do a blanket rate — scrap private insurance & put a tax on a litre of petrol/diesel to cover insurance publicly. Would also get rid of the premium everyone has to pay to cover uninsured drivers!

Bad Santa

The King of Moo wrote: »

Yet "it's only sexist if it's against women" gets trotted out again and again.

It gets "trotted out" as there is an element of truth in it. People don't just pluck it out of their arse and maybe if you paid closer attention to those making that particular point you would see that they quite often give genuine examples of it.

Complaints about sexism against men, which does happen, would be taken more seriously if one got the sense that those complaining were concerned with more than points-scoring or wanting to be seen as victims.

That's a very sexist thing to say. Perhaps you need to take a close look at why it is precisely that you see those men who have made such complaints as only doing so as a means of "point scoring" and / or wanting to be seen as "victims".

PhlegmyMoses

It's weird to me that anyone would bother to argue that any group should be charged more for insurance. Insurance companies make a fecking fortune either way, it's only really them who should be concerned. It's nice for everyone to get decent rates. You could maybe say that they'll make it up on the premiums women pay but my missus' premium hasn't disimproved at all. She's still paying a relative pittance, the kind of price that you can pay off easily in one go.

The King of Moo

Bad Santa wrote: »

It gets "trotted out" as there is an element of truth in it. People don't just pluck it out of their arse and maybe if you paid closer attention to those making that particular point you would see that they quite often give genuine examples of it.

They generally don't give any examples that prove an overall trend. Of course there are isolated incidents of women supporting sexism against men and vice versa, but overall most people disapprove of any sexism. People continually state that they care about discrimination against both genders, yet others continue to make the universal claim that sexism against men is acceptable (I say "universal" because often this claim is made without any qualification). This is a ludicrous statement because it's blatantly untrue. It's strawmanism of the highest order, though thankfully it's only a minority of people who come out with such tired clichés.

Bad Santa wrote: »

That's a very sexist thing to say. Perhaps you need to take a close look at why it is precisely that you see those men who have made such complaints as only doing so as a means of "point scoring" and / or wanting to be seen as "victims".

It's not sexist. I'm talking about how some people come across, not making a generalisation about all men. It's only a minority of men who carry on like that anyway.
They seem that way to because that's how they come across.
People do bring up the issue of discrimination against men in a reasonable manner and they get treated respectfully, because most people acknowledge that men are discriminated against in some ways and agree that it's usually wrong.

But when people get hyperbolic and defensive, and start asking why women don't care about men's rights, and complaining that sexism against men is acceptable (despite feminists on this forum repeatedly stating the opposite, and an overall lack of sexist remarks against men on the forum), then they're hard to take seriously and don't come across too well.

lightspeed

Eoghan_2 wrote: »

Where does that say they'll get a better deal than males? Just says they'll get a good deal. Can't even begin to fathom the problem here every company you've listed doesn't discriminate in any way between male and female drivers.

ok lets look at http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

First the title at the top of the page before it specifies what they offer says

"CAR INSURANCE FOR WOMEN IN IRELAND"

They then have a large photo of a woman smiling looking at her purse just underneath the above title followed up with the following:

"Womens Car Insurance - Get A Better Deal This Month!
If you’re a member of the fairer sex and you’re looking for quality ladies car insurance and great value, AXA can help. If you get a car insurance quote now, you can get up to 75% no claims discount (available for drivers with five years claims free driving in their own name) - that's the highest in Ireland. Plus a further 13% discount when you buy in January and February this year!
Maybe you’ve been looking for good value car insurance for women in Ireland but you can’t find the right cover? If so, then why not choose Ireland’s preferred ladies’ car insurance provider?"

"Searching for car insurance for women in Ireland is not enough to guarantee you get the best cover. AXA car insurance for women in Ireland caters for all your needs, and with us you can find a suitable policy offering quality cover and fantastic value for money."

On http://www.its4women.ie/

"its4women.ie home of cheaper online car insurance for women in Ireland.


"its4women.ie specialises in competitive insurance for women."

Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!

If you cant see the problem i would suggest you read through the above and replace the word "women" with "white people" and then ask yourself if the above websites are guilty of promoting policies of racism as they of promoting policies of sexism.

Sarn

If an employer decided to employ a man over a woman on the basis that as a female she has a higher probablility of getting pregnant than a male, this would be discriminatory (and rightly so). It is very possible that this occurs in some cases, but trying to prove it could be difficult.

A man cannot get pregnant, not all women will. But there is a possibility that she might. There is a potential cost to the company as a result. The probability will shift depending on the age of the woman, relationship and health status. Statistics would back this up, but it wouldn't make discrimination right.

People have to be treated equally regardless of sex. We should not be able to pick and choose when it suits us (bar exceptional roles specifically requiring the specific physiology of one of the genders).

Feathers

lightspeed wrote: »

ok lets look at http://www.axa.ie/car-insurance/for-women/

First the title at the top of the page before it specifies what they offer says

"CAR INSURANCE FOR WOMEN IN IRELAND"

They then have a large photo of a woman smiling looking at her purse just underneath the above title followed up with the following:

"Womens Car Insurance - Get A Better Deal This Month!
If you’re a member of the fairer sex and you’re looking for quality ladies car insurance and great value, AXA can help. If you get a car insurance quote now, you can get up to 75% no claims discount (available for drivers with five years claims free driving in their own name) - that's the highest in Ireland. Plus a further 13% discount when you buy in January and February this year!
Maybe you’ve been looking for good value car insurance for women in Ireland but you can’t find the right cover? If so, then why not choose Ireland’s preferred ladies’ car insurance provider?"

"Searching for car insurance for women in Ireland is not enough to guarantee you get the best cover. AXA car insurance for women in Ireland caters for all your needs, and with us you can find a suitable policy offering quality cover and fantastic value for money."

On http://www.its4women.ie/

"its4women.ie home of cheaper online car insurance for women in Ireland.


"its4women.ie specialises in competitive insurance for women."

Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!

If you cant see the problem i would suggest you read through the above and replace the word "women" with "white people" and then ask yourself if the above websites are guilty of promoting policies of racism as they of promoting policies of sexism.

So you've completed an online quote & have gotten a cheaper price for a women, all other details the same?

Or you're complaining about the advertising being targetted at women? "Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!" — Sexist? Yes. Important? Not at all really. They can sell it how they like, it's the bottom line price they're offering that's important

lightspeed

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Utter bollocks.

Why is it utter bollacks,

"Over half of all Irish drinkers have a harmful pattern of drinking, that’s 4 in 10 women and 7 in 10 men who drink".

"Ireland continues to rank among the highest consumers of alcohol in the 26 countries in the enlarged EU. We drink about 20% more than the average European"

the above is not my opinion, its statistical data shown here
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

How is the argument i made utter bollacks if its based on the statistics and the argument that people make that an insurance company should be able to charge less for women is also based on statistical data?

judgefudge

lightspeed wrote: »

Why cant you confirm a yes or no answer to the question i posed?
Its a very simple question, Should employers be able to use statistics to discriminate against a bunch of people the same way as the insurers were able to until recently.

"Over half of all Irish drinkers have a harmful pattern of drinking, that’s 4 in 10 women and 7 in 10 men who drink"

The above statistic can be found here
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

If irish people consume more alcohol then obviously they are more likely to experience the health side effects of alcohol consumption and judging from the statistics they seem to have also coincendantly not only a high rate of alcohol consumption but also issues with alcohol dependency. So based on the logic of using statistics, an employer could come to the conclusion that if they hire an irish worker, he or she is more likely to come to work with a hangover and so to mitigate such a risk they could claim that they should not have to hire irish workers or be able to pay them lower wages to compensate the risk inferred from the statistics gathered.

You are either of the opinion that this is right or wrong so which is it?

But if you would prefer we can stick with insurance and forget the argument i was making about employers.

"Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 - that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland".

Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007: that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland

A higher proportion of Irish women who drink compared with women in other European countries (77% compared to 68%)"

The above statistics can be seen by clicking on the link below
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

So the facts are that a high consumption of alcohol leads to an increased risk of suffering health related side effects.

Therefore based on statistics, do you feel that irish women should have to pay higher health insurance than women of other nationalities?

You asked if I could confirm whether I agreed that I think employers should be able to refuse hiring someone based on Irish people drinker more. I said no i can't confirm that. Because no I don't think that.

Then you go on to say we can just talk bout insurance (the actual topic at hand by the way) and go on to talk more about alcohol?

Yes if Irish women on a whole cost the health care system more why shouldn't they have to pay more than in other countries?

Muir

But there are sites offering good deals on car insurance for young males too. & UCDVet made the point earlier, and I have always wondered myself, why isn't it ageism that my mother who can't drive can get cheaper car insurance than me even though I have 4 years no claims.

lightspeed

Feathers wrote: »

So you've completed an online quote & have gotten a cheaper price for a women, all other details the same?

Or you're complaining about the advertising being targetted at women? "Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!" — Sexist? Yes. Important? Not at all really. They can sell it how they like, it's the bottom line price they're offering that's important

You say they can sell it how they like but how they are selling their product is by offering false advertisement. According to the law they cant just sell it as they want.

"The main legislation concerning advertisements in Ireland is the Consumer Protection Act, 2007. This Act sets out, among other things, various rules that apply to claims made about goods and services. In particular this Act protects consumers from misleading advertisements and ensures that trade is fair. Under the Act it is an offence for an advertiser/trader to make false claims about goods, services or prices. All types of communications that promote goods or services are covered by the Act. This includes advertisements, a notice in a shop or even a claim made by a sales assistant about a product or service. EU laws also ensure that misleading advertising is forbidden in all Member States. Under SI 134/1988 (European Communities (Misleading Advertising) Regulations, 1988), any person can apply to the High Court for an order prohibiting the publication of misleading advertising.

Additional rules apply to the advertisement of financial services in Ireland. The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority is responsible for these rules. You can read more about credit advertising in Ireland here."

So when they advertise that they offer cheaper insurance for women they are clearly in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

judgefudge

Premiums should ideally be based on individual driving assessment. However insurance doesn't currently work that way. Any efforts to push it in that direction I wholeheartedly support. At the moment it's based on risk categories.

I don't think this is down to sexism.

There should be a flat rate for everyone otherwise you can be considered to discriminate based on age.

It's common sense

somefeen

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not sexism if it's true.
It's not racism if it's true.
It's not nationalism if it's true.

It's not wrong to judge groups of people by the collective actions of their group.

It's wrong to assume all women have long hair.
It's stupid to pretend that women don't have longer hair, on average, than men.

Women are safer drivers. I don't care what retard-logic we've built our legal system on, they should pay less for car insurance.

Car insurance isn't a 'personal' thing. You provide very little information and they calculate a risk, using the same formula for everyone. You aren't personally evaluated on your driving habits and maturity. Insurance is all about averages applied to groups. It's silly not to let the rates reflect reality.

Yeah lets gets **** faced and blow up some buses :rolleyes:

lightspeed

Muir wrote: »

But there are sites offering good deals on car insurance for young males too. & UCDVet made the point earlier, and I have always wondered myself, why isn't it ageism that my mother who can't drive can get cheaper car insurance than me even though I have 4 years no claims.

Yes and i made the point that i believe ageism is also illegal and so it should be. If somebody begins driving later in life and has no prior driving experience, i see no reason why they should be able qualify for cheaper insurance than a younger person who also has no experience.

Feathers

lightspeed wrote: »

You say they can sell it how they like but how they are selling their product is by offering false advertisement. According to the law they cant just sell it as they want.

I didn't mean according to the law, just IMO — in this case, I don't particularly care how they get women to sign up to it; the main thing for me would be that men aren't discriminated against in the pricing. Which is what it sounded like you were complaining about to begin with:

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?

Men aren't being forced to pay higher premiums, these companies just haven't updated their advertising. Obviously advertising is important, but as far as advertising goes, I'd be much more concerned with the likes of food labelling rather than this (even leaving horsemeat in burgers aside).

Bad Santa

The King of Moo wrote: »

They generally don't give any examples that prove an overall trend. Of course there are isolated incidents of women supporting sexism against men and vice versa, but overall most people disapprove of any sexism. People continually state that they care about discrimination against both genders, yet others continue to make the universal claim that sexism against men is acceptable (I say "universal" because often this claim is made without any qualification). This is a ludicrous statement because it's blatantly untrue.

"Isolated incidents" / "blatantly untrue" - sure the last out going British Government attempted to make it legal to discriminate against men. Can you imagine such a law even been discussed , were it to mean that it would create a similar situation of discrimination against women? Not a chance.

I'm talking about how some people come across, not making a generalisation about all men. It's only a minority of men who carry on like that anyway.

What? I never said you were referring to "all men" just in general to men who make such points.

They seem that way to because that's how they come across.

They may come across that way to you and indeed to others but that doesn't make it so nor right to see them in that way. I'm sure some think that the women who bring up how sexism affects them are only doing so to "point score" and attempt to portray themselves as "victims" but that doesn't make that so either. Such remarks add little to a thread and a really just a sneaky way of dismissing others views, without actually having to address them.

People do bring up the issue of discrimination against men in a reasonable manner and they get treated respectfully

"Reasonable manner" - should that not also be a prerequisite for those wishing to discuss examples of sexism against women too. Seems a tad sexist to place such a requirement men wishing to discuss sexism against them but yet not the other way around.

But when people get hyperbolic and defensive,

How dare people get "defensive" when it is implied that they are being disingenuous with their opinions. The cheek of them, 'eh.

and start asking why women don't care about men's rights, and complaining that sexism against men is acceptable (despite feminists on this forum repeatedly stating the opposite, and an overall lack of sexist remarks against men on the forum), then they're hard to take seriously and don't come across too well.

I haven't seen that on this thread and it twas your good self that first mentioned feminists / feminism.

Seems you have some baggage with you, Sir.

The King of Moo

Bad Santa wrote: »

"Isolated incidents" / "blatantly untrue" - sure the last out going British Government attempted to make it legal to discriminate against men. Can you imagine such a law even been discussed , were it to mean that it would create a similar situation of discrimination against women? Not a chance.

No, nor can I imagine a law like the above being discussed without people complaining about it, as you've done. People bring up sexism against men all the time: I don't get the idea that it's brushed under the carpet. Some aren't taken seriously because of the tone they take in complaining about this sexism, but not because of what they're complaining about if it's a genuine case of discrimination.

What? I never said you were referring to "all men" just in general to men who make such points. They may come across that way to you and indeed to others but that doesn't make it so nor right to see them in that way. I'm sure some think that the women who bring up how sexism affects them are only doing so to "point score" and attempt to portray themselves as "victims" but that doesn't make that so either

You said I was being sexist, which assumes that I was making a generalisation about all or most men, or that I was complaining about these posters because they're men. Complaining about what a minority of men post is not sexism.

Such remarks add little to a thread and a really just a sneaky way of dismissing others views, without actually having to address them.

I spend far too much time on this forum fully addressing half-baked views of people who can't acknowledge anything that disagrees with their worldview, even if it's concrete evidence.

"Reasonable manner" - should that not also be a prerequisite for those wishing to discuss examples of sexism against women too. Seems a tad sexist to place such a requirement men wishing to discuss sexism against them but yet not the other way around. How dare people get "defensive" when it is implied that they are being disingenuous with their opinions. The cheek of them, 'eh.

I expect everyone to debate in a reasonable manner. Do I really need to state that I expect that of people of any gender in a discussion about male posters in particular? That sounds like PC gone mad to me, but ok: I expect everyone, regardless of gender, race, nationality or creed, to debate in a reasonable manner.
And I don't mind people who get defensive if their opinions have been unfairly attacked or if their well-thought out posts backed up with evidence are met with poorly-thought out posts with no evidence. I do mind when people get defensive as soon as, or even before, anyone replies with any reasonable rebuttal.

I haven't seen that on this thread and it twas your good self that first mentioned feminists / feminism.

Seems you have some baggage with you, Sir.

See below: a blanket statement about sexism against men. Note in particular the lack of qualifications or evidence.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It's only sexist if it favours men.

Doc Ruby

lightspeed wrote: »

Why is it utter bollacks,

"Over half of all Irish drinkers have a harmful pattern of drinking, that’s 4 in 10 women and 7 in 10 men who drink".

"Ireland continues to rank among the highest consumers of alcohol in the 26 countries in the enlarged EU. We drink about 20% more than the average European"

the above is not my opinion, its statistical data shown here
http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

How is the argument i made utter bollacks if its based on the statistics and the argument that people make that an insurance company should be able to charge less for women is also based on statistical data?

Alcohol Ireland is a private charity, not an official organisation. They have plenty of reason to exaggerate the facts.
http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-consumption-down-by-17-per-cent-over-last-decade-344971-Feb2012/

A NEW STUDY has shown a major decline in the average alcohol intake of an Irish person over the last decade.
The study from DCU’s Business School showed that alcohol consumption has fallen significantly since 2008, and had also fallen significantly in the earlier part of the decade.
While some of this drop-off is attributed to cross-border shopping, which would offset some of the reported drop in intake, the current figure – of 12 litres per adult – is still significantly lower than it had been in 2001, when it stood at 14.4 litres.
Those figures reflect the quantity of ethanol, rather than merely alcohol drink – meaning the average 12-litre intake equates to an average of 422 pints of cider.
Anthony Foley, the economist who undertook the study, said the 2011 figure was likely to be revised even further downward given the new census which showed a higher-than-expected spike in the population.
With similar revisions then due for the years 2007 to 2011, the average input figure was likely to be lowered to 11.8 litres.
“In international terms, average consumption increased in several OECD countries but declined in Ireland,” he said.
“In 2001, the Irish consumption level was the highest of the sample of countries in the OECD. In 2005 it was also the highest. However, by 2011 Ireland’s decline combined with increases elsewhere means that we are now approaching the levels of mid-ranked countries.”
The average intake reached its lowest in 2009, when it stood at 11.4 litres – the equivalent of just over 400 pints of an average cider with an alcohol volume of 5 per cent.

http://www.drinkaware.ie/index.php?sid=11&pid=522

We drink less frequently than our European counterparts, including our closest neighbours, in Northern Ireland and Britain. We drink less frequently now compared with 7 years ago.

For example:

• 3% of Irish adult drinkers drink daily; 43% of Portugese drink daily (5);
• 28% of Irish adult drinkers drink daily/ several times a week, compared with 36% in Northern Ireland and 45% in Great Britain (6);
• There was a 14% reduction in 2011 in Irish adult drinkers reporting drinking daily/several times a week compared with 2005 (7);
• 42% of Irish adult drinkers reported drinking weekly in 2011, compared with 40% in 2005 (8);
• Irish males drink more frequently than Irish females(9).

http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/alcoholdrinkconsumptionpriceseurope.htm

McCoy wrote in The Irish Times that that spending on alcohol is recorded differently across the EU in contrast to Ireland. When comparisons of alcohol consumption are made, distinction is normally made between spending on alcohol in pubs on the one hand and in off-licences on the other. In most European countries only spending in off-licences is attributed to the category "alcohol" in national statistics, whereas money spent in pubs and restaurants is included in categories such as "recreation" or "entertainment".
The Irish numbers, in contrast, include spending in off-licences and pub sales combined. A recent Drinks Industry Group of Ireland report estimated that 70 per cent of alcohol in Ireland is bought in pubs and restaurants. This is a substantially higher proportion than our European counterparts, largely due to the greater propensity for Irish people to drink in pubs and restaurants rather than at home. The inclusion of both categories therefore greatly inflates alcohol expenditure levels in Ireland in comparison with other EU countries. While there is a continuing trend towards more off-licence sales in Ireland, it is the classification distinction that significantly explains the exaggerated comparisons of Irish alcohol expenditure with other countries.

In the context of a comprehensive measurement of alcohol spending, it could be argued that the Irish proportion of expenditure on alcohol is not overestimated; rather other countries' expenditure ratios are underestimated. The recent national accounts from the Central Statistics Office show that expenditure on alcohol in Ireland is 8.6 per cent of total personal expenditure, which has declined from 10.8 per cent in the mid-1990s. The recent EU-funded report claims that Ireland spends three times more than any other country on alcohol. However, using directly comparable data, a far different story is told.
Between 1995 and 2004, households in Ireland spent an average of 2.6 per cent of their personal expenditure on alcoholic beverages - when measured as off-licence consumption. In Greece the proportion is smaller, at 0.9 per cent, but certainly not 10 times smaller as widely reported. Ireland was surpassed by Finland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic, which had averages of 3.8 per cent, 3 per cent and 5.2 per cent respectively. When on-licence trade is factored back in, Ireland would emerge towards the top of the expenditure league, but by no means anywhere near the exaggerated multiples normally reported.
Expenditure figures are a combination of the actual quantity of alcohol consumed and its price. The fact that taxes on alcohol are higher in Ireland than in most EU member states inflates the expenditure levels without necessarily implying greater consumption levels. Per-capita alcohol consumption levels in Ireland are high by international standards, but not disproportionately so. The trend over the last decade was for actual alcohol consumed to rise as income levels increased significantly, but at the same time the proportion of expenditure on alcohol declined. A number of factors led to the increase in alcohol consumed, particularly the huge growth in the numbers of people in the 18-25 age group and increased inward migration of adults.

tl;dr, we were well below the European average before 2000, climbed somewhat above it up till 2006, and are now back within a few percent of the average again. The Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans take the lead in total units, and our nearest neighbour wins the binge drinking competition, last time I checked.

It's time to knock this derogatory and inaccurate view of the Irish as alcoholics on the head, hard. It affects young people and emigrants badly, as well as just being wrong.

hattoncracker

lightspeed wrote: »

Im looking to maybe insure an additional car in my name. Im the only person in my family who drives and i drive a two seater car at the moment which i love and don't want to change. I figured i could just get a cheap nissan micra which would be cheap to tax and i thought it would also be cheap to insure.

However, there does not seem to be much insurers that allow you to add an additional car to your existing policy. Upon googling it, i found the below website advertising insurance which appears to be exclusive to women which is now in violation of the law.

On their home page it states the following:

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Does anybody else think that if it the argument was the other way round and women had been forced to pay higher premiums that this would be a bigger deal at least in the media?

I think ill try contact them by phone on monday just to pick a row with these arrogant pricks. That's just the kind of superhero I am.

You should ring 4thelads.ie and give them the same hassle.

lightspeed

hattoncracker wrote: »

You should ring 4thelads.ie and give them the same hassle.

"Offering The Best Priced Car Insurance For Young Male Drivers"

Absolutely, i will add them to the list of insurers i will report them all on monday to the http://www.nca.ie/.

Let me know if see any others violating the law and i will report them as well.

lightspeed

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Alcohol Ireland is a private charity, not an official organisation. They have plenty of reason to exaggerate the facts.
http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-consumption-down-by-17-per-cent-over-last-decade-344971-Feb2012/


http://www.drinkaware.ie/index.php?sid=11&pid=522

http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/alcoholdrinkconsumptionpriceseurope.htm


tl;dr, we were well below the European average before 2000, climbed somewhat above it up till 2006, and are now back within a few percent of the average again. The Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans take the lead in total units, and our nearest neighbour wins the binge drinking competition, last time I checked.

It's time to knock this derogatory and inaccurate view of the Irish as alcoholics on the head, hard. It affects young people and emigrants badly, as well as just being wrong.

You just validated my point. i gave an example using statistics to legitimise why an employer could discriminate against irish people due their supposedly high consumption of alcohol. You highlighted another report with somewhat different statistics suggesting that irish people may not have as much issues with alcohol in comparison to other EU countries.

So it may not be fair to base your assumptions on the statistical data and discriminate against irish people right?

Them why is it ok to trust in the statistical data suggesting that women are safer drivers and use it to discriminate against male drivers?

Madam_X

The thing about "It's not sexism when it's against men" statement is: who are the people saying it's not sexism when it's against men? Not me anyway. Sexism against women is highlighted more because there is a more vocal lobby in this regard. Where is the lobby with regards to men? If you feel there aren't enough people highlighting it, well that includes men being guilty of not highlighting it.
It's not a helpful phrase, especially when it's said by men who aren't going to do anything to address sexism against men themselves. Who do they want to address the issue? Other people it seems.

lightspeed wrote: »

On their home page it states the following:

"Our car insurance prices reflect that women are of course safer drivers!".

http://www.its4women.ie/

Oh Jesus, now that is bad form. It is undoubtedly unfair discrimination for a man to be punished due to the wrecklessness of other male drivers.

I think ill try contact them by phone on monday just to pick a row with these arrogant pricks.

Shooting the messenger is unfair and lazy. Don't.

HTML5! wrote: »

If it was woman posting about sexism on here I've a feeling some of the posts would be a bit different.

Don't know about that. I reckon it would be the same "Get over it" stuff. It's an AH thing.

But nobody cares about double standards against men.

Yes they do.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I tried to start a thread on here last year about how men are discriminated against in Ireland today and I was told among other things to 'man up', got a PM calling me Andy Gray and the thread was locked and I was told if I started another one I would be banned.

Probably shouldn't have called it "It's hard to be a man". If a woman started a thread called "It's hard to be a woman" she'd also be slated. It's way too hyperbolic. Yes, there's discrimination against men in some areas; yes, some men have sh1t lives because of their gender (e.g. being estranged from their children; living in fear of being deemed a paedo if they work with children) but in the overall sense, it's not "hard to be a man" here in Ireland. It is in countries where e.g. boys are forced to become soldiers and dehumanised killing machines, but not here. Bear in mind too that many of the dismissive comments on the thread you started... were from men.

Grayson wrote: »

I know a woman who drives an ambulance for a living. She hates women drivers. She says there are two drivers that she has noticed are more unsafe. Women drivers and old blokes.
This is of course anecdotal, but it's probably just as accurate as half the drivel posted here.

Well if she witnesses a pattern of crap driving by women, fair enough, but it's a good thing the people hiring her didn't have the same attitude that "Women are crap drivers".

Doc Ruby

lightspeed wrote: »

Them why is it ok to trust in the statistical data suggesting that women are safer drivers and use it to discriminate against male drivers?

I didn't say it was. Statistics are very easy to warp, look at that Alcohol Ireland link you provided for example, "Over half of all Irish drinkers have a harmful pattern of drinking, that’s 4 in 10 women and 7 in 10 men who drink", except they don't tell you that a harmful drinking pattern is whatever AI claims it is. Weasel words.

Of course men shouldn't be discriminated against, nobody should be. I was just pointing out that Irish people are nothing unusual when it comes to drink. Anyway this is offtopic enough.

Doc Ruby

Madam_X wrote: »

Yes, there's discrimination against men in some areas; yes, some men have sh1t lives because of their gender (e.g. being estranged from their children; living in fear of being deemed a paedo if they work with children)

Oh there's worse than that.

Madam_X

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh there's worse than that.

I know them well. Did some work with them.

I was referring to men suffering specifically because of their gender though. When a person is being abused, it's not because of their gender, it's because they're living with a ****. At the same time though, the experience of domestic abuse for men is different to that for women, because men are more likely to have to deal with it not being taken seriously

Lol at the ad above this thread - good work Axa. :pac:

The King of Moo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh there's worse than that.

It's great that the taboo around domestic violence against men has lost a lot of its power, and that many men feel more open talking about it, and wesbites like the above are offering support. Thankfully the media attention given to this issue in recent years has really brought it out into the open.