'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...

[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.

[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?