'just For Women' Malarki Options

[Pixelgoth]

VAT is charged in varying different bands. Some products are given a standard rate of 17.5% some a lower rate and some are either tax exempt or not eligible for tax. Postage is tax exempt, books are tax exempt and I was under the impression that children's clothes are also tax exempt Some companies can claim back tax if they are both VAT registered (if their turnover is high enough) and they actually take in less tax than they pay out. The difference can be refunded. I know this because we sell books and being tax exempt we don't often get tax off our customers but we do pay tax on our purchases.

As far as sanitary protection goes I personally think it should be free on the NHS. We can free condoms to stop us getting pregnant so they should give away to monthly protection required as we aren't pregnant Either that or they should be made tax exempt as it's not like we choose to have a monthly period....well...it's that or be pregnant or having everything whipped out. Ick!

And don't even get me started on the narrow minded and factually incorrect comments of the first post

[danm567]

Yes, we're not talking about VAT. We're talking about sexism against males. Thank you.

[ravein]

I think in this case you have a business that has taken statistical data that shows women are better drivers OVER ALL and have decided to create a nitch market by just pandering to females. Is there anything wrong with it? No. If it was because they are MEN and they feel that men are inferior to women so they don't deserve this service based on their gender then that would be sexist. But to market to a group of people who historically have fewer accidents is a good sales strategy.

As far as men only businesses, there are men only gyms, social clubs, golf clubs, etc. and I am sure there are business that are exclusively male or market to only males. This has been going on for generations. If someone is discriminated against because someone feels they are a lesser person because of their sexual organs this is sexism.

As far as what is feminism and why it is necessary, please allow me to explain. Women around the world still cant vote. Women constantly make less money than men and move up in their careers slower than men. Women provide 70% of labor in the world but only represent 1% of the wealthy in the world. Women did not even begin to receive equal rights in the US until the 70's. Women in the Middle East are being stoned to death for not obeying their husbands. Women in Africa, Jamaica, and Columbia are being violently raped daily with little or no concern from the police. Female Genital Mutilation is still performed in Africa, The Middle East & Far East.
And because you can't get car insurance you are pissed off? Try having your vagina sewn shut and then you can get mad.

[Pixelgoth]

Yes, we're not talking about VAT. We're talking about sexism against males. Thank you.

No. Actually if you read the way the thread has progressed VAT was a valid question about female sanitary protection which I also answered by the way if you'd bothered to read my post fully.

I was going to comment on the "sexism against males" but the first thread just got my back up so much that I couldn't be bothered. If you want to know how I feel then I agree with Ravein's comment about it not being sexist for her reasons.

Happy now?

[Hobbes]

Pixiegoth: Thanks for giving the details about different VAT rates... saved me doing it. Incidentally, there are several inconsistencies in VAT regulations - particularly when it comes to animal feeds. Indeed, there is one paragraph in the big fat VAT book (as I like to call it - mainly because I forget what it's really called) which contradicts itself within the space of about two sentences. But really, I don't want to get started on VAT unless someone starts a thread about it; then I might dust off my soapbox. But yes, children's clothes are tax exempt, although there's an issue with that too!

This thread is interesting in seeing what people's opinions are about something which is restrictive to men, rather than restrictive to women - which usually seems to be the case.

Essentially, insurance is based on generalisations - as statistics showing the majority facts are really the only way they can make as much money as possible, but also seem relatively 'fair' (your car insurance should come down as you head into your late-thirties, assuming you haven't written off several cars in the process). Ideally, everyone would begin with a set rate of insurance - and then your premium (I think it's called that) would change depending on how what claims you make, and where fault lies.

I've heard a lot of people claim that "Insurance is just legalised robbery". I've also heard that said about tax...

[DarkInferno]

I think in this case you have a business that has taken statistical data that shows women are better drivers OVER ALL and have decided to create a nitch market by just pandering to females. Is there anything wrong with it? No. If it was because they are MEN and they feel that men are inferior to women so they don't deserve this service based on their gender then that would be sexist. But to market to a group of people who historically have fewer accidents is a good sales strategy

I'm pleased you agree that by selecting to deny me a service based purely on my sex is sexist but i'm suprised to see you fighting for sexism yet complaining latter on in your post about sexism against women.

BTW. I have both statistically and historically never had an accident. I have to pay higher premiums already due to my age and sex. But to deny me cover purely based on my sex is sexism in the highest order.

[Pixelgoth]

BTW. I have both statistically and historically never had an accident. I have to pay higher premiums already due to my age and sex. But to deny me cover purely based on my sex is sexism in the highest order.

Again it's about insurance statistics. STATISTICALLY women have fewer accidents than men. I'm not saying it to annoy. It's just statistics. Right or wrong the insurance companies have to use some basis for their regulations. If they happen to choose a factor that has been researched then so be it. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are a man. It is to do with the fact that more men than women have accidents therefore they are deemed a possible higher risk.

What you also need to bear in mind is if you were driving a smaller slighter old less desirable car than me I would probably have higher insurance than you and that's because of the car not my sex.

I have had one accident in my 10 years on the road. I didn't have to claim as it was a minor scrape and we sorted it without the need for insurance companies. Very amicable! My insurance is still over £300 a year I'm 28, never had an accident I drive a 3 year old Ford Ka and I don't live in a ropey area. I'm a careful driver (mostly but we all have off days now and then). I don't consider myself a risk at all but I think over £300 is a lot.

Diamond aren't the only insurance company around and they aren't any good anyway. They can charge lower premiums because their excesses are higher. It's that simple. So quit complanining

[Jonman]

I think in this case you have a business that has taken statistical data that shows women are better drivers OVER ALL and have decided to create a nitch market by just pandering to females. Is there anything wrong with it? No. If it was because they are MEN and they feel that men are inferior to women so they don't deserve this service based on their gender then that would be sexist. But to market to a group of people who historically have fewer accidents is a good sales strategy

I'm pleased you agree that by selecting to deny me a service based purely on my sex is sexist but i'm suprised to see you fighting for sexism yet complaining latter on in your post about sexism against women.

BTW. I have both statistically and historically never had an accident. I have to pay higher premiums already due to my age and sex. But to deny me cover purely based on my sex is sexism in the highest order.

I daresay that they would offer you cover, but with higher premiums, as you are a higher insurance risk.

Is anyone complaining about the fact that as you age, your automotive insurance premiums will go down? Is that ageist? Or youngist? No. It's based on the assessment of risk. The entire system of insurance is based around making prejudiced assumptions about a person based on their gender, age, locality and history, and maybe even race.

So, if you want a 'fair' insurance system, we'd all end up with massive premiums, as the insurer would have no option but to assume the worst, that everybody is a high-risk.

Offerring women cheaper insurance is perfectly valid in a free-market system. It's simply targeting a portion of the market, instead of the entirety of the market. May as well complain about shops that sell clothes for bigger sizes - they're clearly skinny-ist.

[CommieBastard]

I daresay that they would offer you cover, but with higher premiums, as you are a higher insurance risk.

Actually, at least from what I remember from their adverts, Diamond Insurance offer insurance to female drivers only.

[Jonman]

I daresay that they would offer you cover, but with higher premiums, as you are a higher insurance risk.

Actually, at least from what I remember from their adverts, Diamond Insurance offer insurance to female drivers only.

OK, although I can see why some people are crying 'discrimination', it's still a company's right to offer it's services to whatever corner of the market it chooses. What about record shops, eh? Are they discriminating against the deaf? No, once again, they're targeting a particular portion of the market - those who can hear. Are clothes shops discriminating against nudists?

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

I hate to say it jonman, but those examples aren't quite the same, nudists choose not to wear clothes, but they still can, and as for deaf people, the record shops don't say you can't they can't buy music because they're deaf, hell, they can still feel it if it's loud enough.

The argument here seems to be this insurance company is saying men can't have insurance with them because they're men who are statiscally (though i've never seen any such statistics) more likely to have an accident. Now I can see why people would be upset about it but really they need to grow up, I don't see the problem, its not like they're the only insurance company out there and its not like they're descriminating for the sake of it either

[CommieBastard]

OK, although I can see why some people are crying 'discrimination', it's still a company's right to offer it's services to whatever corner of the market it chooses.

This is true, but it only works if only some companies do it. It's a single company's right to decide not to sell to men - but if every such company were to so decide, there'd be a problem.

[Pixelgoth]

Now I can see why people would be upset about it but really they need to grow up, I don't see the problem, its not like they're the only insurance company out there and its not like they're descriminating for the sake of it either

Yeah that's pretty much what I said! Or what I wanted to say You're so wise Mr Paddy

[DarkInferno]

I daresay that they would offer you cover, but with higher premiums, as you are a higher insurance risk.

Is anyone complaining about the fact that as you age, your automotive insurance premiums will go down? Is that ageist? Or youngist? No. It's based on the assessment of risk. The entire system of insurance is based around making prejudiced assumptions about a person based on their gender, age, locality and history, and maybe even race.

So, if you want a 'fair' insurance system, we'd all end up with massive premiums, as the insurer would have no option but to assume the worst, that everybody is a high-risk.

Offerring women cheaper insurance is perfectly valid in a free-market system. It's simply targeting a portion of the market, instead of the entirety of the market. May as well complain about shops that sell clothes for bigger sizes - they're clearly skinny-ist.

you see that wouldn't be a problem. but they don't say because your male you will have higher premiums. they say they won't cover you purely because of your sex.
I'm male below 25 and drive a fast desirable (read: stealable) car... I already have almighty premiums... but to deny a flawless driver cover entirly purly on my sex is ludicrous...

PS. The shop that sells larger sizes doesn't stop size <18's at the door.

[DarkInferno]

Now I can see why people would be upset about it but really they need to grow up, I don't see the problem, its not like they're the only insurance company out there and its not like they're descriminating for the sake of it either

Yeah that's pretty much what I said! Or what I wanted to say You're so wise Mr Paddy

Sexism is Sexism is Sexism.

Would you also agree that companys should refuse to employ women purely because they are women, and this wouldn't be a problem because they aren't the only employer out there?

Also they do appear to be discriminating against a sex purely as a marketing gimmick (or so it seems to me). Do you really consider that a valid reason for discrimination?

To be honest I couldn't care less that they wouldn't insure me. Their premiums are supposed to be stupid high from what I hear.

[DarkInferno]

btw. Diamond do offer insurance to men.... I just checked.

Your Price is £2683.80

[ravein]

I think in this case you have a business that has taken statistical data that shows women are better drivers OVER ALL and have decided to create a nitch market by just pandering to females. Is there anything wrong with it? No. If it was because they are MEN and they feel that men are inferior to women so they don't deserve this service based on their gender then that would be sexist. But to market to a group of people who historically have fewer accidents is a good sales strategy

I'm pleased you agree that by selecting to deny me a service based purely on my sex is sexist but i'm suprised to see you fighting for sexism yet complaining latter on in your post about sexism against women.

BTW. I have both statistically and historically never had an accident. I have to pay higher premiums already due to my age and sex. But to deny me cover purely based on my sex is sexism in the highest order.

I am not agreeing it is sexist. I feel it is a business practice. They are not denying you insurance because you have a penis or because they feel they are superior to you. They are denying you insurance because statistically men are more expensive to ensure due to accidents. By eliminating men from their customer base they are able to pass savings along to their customers making their program more appealing to their chosen customer base.. in this case women.
Insurance companies do the same thing with Cig smokers. Some insurance companies will not cover smokers due to the projected cost of covering their health care. Will they all get cancer? No. Will all male drivers get in costly accidents, No. But it is their business practice and the bottom line of buisness is to make money.

Insurance companies have been using statistics for years to price gouge you. Your local insurance company uses the same statistics but the difference is they offer you insurance but charge you astronomical amounts for it. The difference here is instead of charging you the astronomical amounts for insurance, they are just not marketing to you at all.

[DarkInferno]

*nod*

[danm567]

Pixiegoth:

"I have had one accident in my 10 years on the road. I didn't have to claim as it was a minor scrape and we sorted it without the need for insurance companies. Very amicable! My insurance is still over £300 a year I'm 28, never had an accident I drive a 3 year old Ford Ka and I don't live in a ropey area. I'm a careful driver (mostly but we all have off days now and then). I don't consider myself a risk at all but I think over £300 is a lot"

1. Im 17 and have been driving for 2 months

2. I cant be arsed with insurance, as it would cost me £2,500 - I dont know why you're complaining at £300.

3. Fork Ka's are for women or gays.

4. My car would kill yours off the mark, in top speed and acceleration - you want to race? any time, any place...

[danm567]

Oh and by the way, whoever said diamond insure men aswell, get your facts right.
This is taken from the Diamond website:

Our car insurance is created just for women

Diamond is a car insurance company created BY women FOR women because we recognise that statistically they are better drivers. At Diamond we realise that when it comes to car insurance, price is extremely important. We also know that you expect a fast and friendly service.


It's cheaper for women!

Generally, women have the same number of accidents as men, but your claims cost us less so we pass the savings on to you

May I reiterate "Generally, women have the same number of accidents as men"


What do you have to say now???

[Snugglebum the D...]

What do you have to say now???

Ummm, take a pill?

[danm567]

Only on weekends

[CommieBastard]

May I reiterate "Generally, women have the same number of accidents as men"


What do you have to say now???

May I reiterate, "your claims cost us less". Women get into the same number of accidents as men, but remember that a dent and a five-car pile-up are both "accidents". Men tend to get into worse accidents than women do, so women are safer - and cheaper - to insure.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

May I reiterate, "your claims cost us less". Women get into the same number of accidents as men, but remember that a dent and a five-car pile-up are both "accidents". Men tend to get into worse accidents than women do, so women are safer - and cheaper - to insure.

actually, that's quite well illustrated by these four points

1. Im 17 and have been driving for 2 months

2. I cant be arsed with insurance, as it would cost me £2,500 - I dont know why you're complaining at £300.

3. Fork Ka's are for women or gays.

4. My car would kill yours off the mark, in top speed and acceleration    - you want to race? any time, any place...

[ravein]

3. Fork Ka's are for women or gays.

Really? You pulling my leg? Ford went out and made a car just for women and gays? How thoughtful of them. I take it since it was made for women and gays it must be a very effeminate car that is wimpy and one that you frown upon because of it's less than manly character?
Is it just me or did you make a thread regarding sexism but yet you just made a sexist comment yourself?