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...

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

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

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

not me....

I have a wee bit of a lead foot

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.




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?

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.

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).

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.

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))

which other insurance company denies cover purely on sex?

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

5% is standard.

probably

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

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*

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.

Charging companies or otherwise?

Just checking, is all.

Ditto, albeit companies or individuals.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

*nod*

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...

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???

Ummm, take a pill?

Only on weekends

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

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?