'just For Women' Malarki Options

[danm567]

Something that has really bugged me recently. All this 'Just for Women' rubbish. An example of this is Diamond insurance. It is 100% sexist and should not be legal. I mean, imagine if there was an insurance company just for men, can you imagine the outcry?!? With all these femenists around nowadays that would never be legal.

The only reason women get cheaper car insurance is because they never go over 20mph!!

Anyway, does anyone agree with me on this, or disagree??

Please reply...

[Snugglebum the D...]

You could argue that the same could be said for Saga who offer cheaper insurance for over 50s.

[DarkInferno]

Indeed. personally I think they should have thier licences taken off them at 50.

[TehRoxxorCOD]

So I suppose children under 2 should now be forced to pay for their own bus fares, museum tickets, etc?

[spiffilicious05]

The only reason women get cheaper car insurance is because they never go over 20mph!!

not me....

I have a wee bit of a lead foot

[PsychWardMike]

Hmm... Super sexism. This'll go over well with Mata.

Either way, I don't know what "diamond insurance" is, but I do know that sexism is more a gray line than you'd like to think. For instance: my state, New Jersey, recently banned Ladies Nights at bars in the interest of promoting less sexism and preventing date rape. This act, however, is completely absurd, no? Ladie's Night is decidedly sexist, but still it should be put into place.

I am, however, all up for equal opportunities among the sexes. That means: same wages, same benefits, etc., but more importantly the right to be drafted, and the ability to be prosecuted for assault (compare a woman slapping a man to a man slapping a woman and figure it out.) I, admittedly, get tired at times of some (key word, there) feminists wanting the benefits of being a man without the downsides.

And lastly, I think that there should be differentiated rolls in the sexes. I'm a full supporter of seperate bathrooms in bars and restaraunts, I support that women wear bras and that I don't need to. I love women, I love men - we're different, we're the same. Whatever.

"Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Deal with it."

You, however, were completely sexist in trying to equal everything out. You are not helping our cause by insulting women in a near incoherent post. Figure out what the hell you're talking about and then come back when you're older, okay junior?

[Mata]

Danm, it's best not to make jokes that are sexist around here, especially when you're trying to make a point about sexism. Considering the context I assume the '20mph' comment was intended in the most part to be a joke, but in future please leave that kind of joke for other sites.

Onto the actual subject:

Personally I don't think that this is sexist. The former head of the Metropolitan police once stated that they would be stepping up patrols in areas where there were higher levels of young men of an African enthic background, because statistically these were the people who were committing most crimes. Now... Is this racist, or is this a statement of the facts? The statistics were, as far an anyone can tell, accurate, and so I believe his response was ot racist. The fact that social circumstances means that young black men and their families often have far lower standards of living is a signal that society itself has many aspects of racism still in it, but the police chief's response was to the data.

If women really are safer drivers than men, for which there is a lot of statistical evidence, then why should they have to pay for the accidents that another group is having? If men became better drivers then this kind of thing would not be necessary. It's not sexist to respond to strong evidence of differences between the genders when such things are clearly true, what may be sexist is the society that encourages men to be more aggressive or less capable of controlling their tempers behind the wheel.

Well... That's my opinion anyway. Obviously it's not a solid rule, and probably needs a bit more thinking through, but as a general principle it seems about right to me.

[Jonman]

Yeah. And the whole feminine sanitary product industry is incredibly sexist. You never see men in Tampax adverts - it's all skydiving women on roller skates.

If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

[Usurper MrTeapot]

I don't agree that women are better drivers than men, nor do I agree that men are better drivers than women. I know some fairly reckless women drivers, and I know so very cautious male ones. I wouldn't get into a car with my mother if she was in the driving seat, but nor would I if my uncle was. I judge, but I judge by who they are personally rather than their sex.

I don't know much about insurance as a whole but I remember reading something about Diamond being a company that you pay less for but if you do have an accident then you'd get far less money from the insurance than if you had been with another company. Can anyone clarify this?

[Greeneyes]

It is 100% sexist and should not be legal.

By that reckoning, a shop that only sold products that women use, such as tampons, should also be illegal. Shops are free to sell what they wish. The fact is, insurance for men and women (and other age groups) are different products/services. Insurance works on statistics, which, as far as I know, means men (at least those under 25) have higher insurance that women, and thats because they have more accidents. Just because one company isn't selling the same range of products/services that others are, doesn't make it any more or less sexist. Insurance companies would go out of business if they charged a flat rate.

[Tigersong]

I'm not sure where this argument is headed, but the fact remain that the highest proportion of motor vehicle accidents occurs in the male age 16-25 category, hence insurance costs more for them. Regardless of whether or not you're a responsible driver, it's a fact that more young males have car accidents than young females. So.

Unless you live in a province like Saskatchewan, where everyone pays the same for their driver's insurance, but the instant you have an accident, it skyrockets. Makes more sense to me -- the dangerous drivers are the ones who end up paying.

[Hobbes]

Ooh, this is a good one.
Positive discrimination.

Personally, I'm with the topic starter. I do find the idea of Diamond insurance sexist, in that it is for women only. Although, I would be interested to know if any men have ever tried to join on the premise that they cannot be refused solely on sex, as it would be sexual discrimination.

I understand the argument that young male drivers are statistically more likely to have a car accident. But why should a 21 year old male, who is a very good, safe driver, have to pay more because the rest of his sex and generation are reckless? Unfortunately, this is the nature of insurance - and happens throughout the business. .e.g 'rough' areas have higher house/contents insurance.

I am all for equal opportunities between the sexes, and am often aggravated by some women who seem to be fighting for female supremacy, rather than equal rights, and yet call themselves feminists - I'm sure that's not what feminism is all about.

It is 100% sexist and should not be legal.

By that reckoning, a shop that only sold products that women use, such as tampons, should also be illegal

I disagree with that counter-argument there. Selling products that only women use isn't sexist. A man could still freely walk in and buy something, although presumably not for his own use. If, however, they refused to serve him because of his sex, than that would be sexist.

On a side note...
I don't know whether this is true or not, but an ex-girlfriend once told me that feminine hygiene products like tampons and sanitary towels have VAT on them (in Britain) - because the VAT office of Customs and Excise and its associated governing bodies is predominately male, and they don't consider such products as a necessity. VAT is supposed (and I stress that word a great deal, having tried to work out the garbled VAT rules myself) to only be on items that are considered the be 'luxury', non-essential, items, with only a few removed here and there. So why is there tax on tampons/sanitary towels? I see that as ridiculous. Can anyone clarifty whether there is TAX on such products or not?

[Greeneyes]

I disagree with that counter-argument there. Selling products that only women use isn't sexist. A man could still freely walk in and buy something, although presumably not for his own use. If, however, they refused to serve him because of his sex, than that would be sexist.

Alright, bad example there. My point was that just because a particular insurance company doesn't insure certain groups (eg. men), that doesn't make them any more sexist than any other insurance company, as the same restictions apply.

[Snugglebum the D...]

don't know whether this is true or not, but an ex-girlfriend once told me that feminine hygiene products like tampons and sanitary towels have VAT on them (in Britain)

EVERYTHING has VAT on it, regardless of what it is.

Check your MacDonalds receipt - VAT of 17.5% (which BTW is a business rate, not domestic).

[FishFace]

Some items are VAT exempt.

The argument that sanitary towel shops should be illegal is a fallacy, as insurance is not a product that only women use. If you walked into, say, an electronics store and were refused entry because you were female - that'd be sexist in the same way.

[DarkInferno]

Check that MacDonalds receipt again.. your milkshake was tax exempt

There are three rates of VAT in the UK:

17.5% (standard rate);
5% (reduced rate); and
0% (zero rate).

I'm pretty sure childrens clothes fall into the 5% band.... and milkshakes (to go) are VAT exempt (but not if you drink it in - 17.5% (I think))

[DarkInferno]

I disagree with that counter-argument there. Selling products that only women use isn't sexist. A man could still freely walk in and buy something, although presumably not for his own use. If, however, they refused to serve him because of his sex, than that would be sexist.

Alright, bad example there. My point was that just because a particular insurance company doesn't insure certain groups (eg. men), that doesn't make them any more sexist than any other insurance company, as the same restictions apply.

which other insurance company denies cover purely on sex?

[Snugglebum the D...]

17.5% (standard rate);

Nope - it's a corporate rating I'm sure.

5% is standard.

probably

[DarkInferno]

erm.. youd better tell HM Customs and Excise then.

[Snugglebum the D...]

I'll have to take your word on this one Mr Inferno - purely because I can't be bothered to read that.

Most my information is work related - gotta be said that I don't check how it translate into real life. *shrug*

[DarkInferno]

Hey I might have completely grabbed the wrong end of the VAT stick somewhere along the line.

But I'm pretty sure thats how it goes.

I know I charge 17.5% ontop of any invoice I give.

[Snugglebum the D...]

I know I charge 17.5% ontop of any invoice I give.

Charging companies or otherwise?

Just checking, is all.

[Forever Unknown]

I know I charge 17.5% ontop of any invoice I give.

Ditto, albeit companies or individuals.

[CommieBastard]

It's true that Diamond Insurance is sexist - it discriminates based on sex, that's more or less the definition. I don't think that's bad, as far as I'm concerned they can sell insurance to whomever they wish. I wonder what the reaction would be for a company who sold insurance only to men...

[FishFace]

You charge the same VAT whoever you deal with, I believe. However, companies can claim VAT back, as they're using the product to produce more products.