jon@boulder.UUCP (Jonathan Corbet) (05/09/85)
> 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. > Male murderers outnumber female murderers 16 to 1. > 1 in 4 women is raped or sexually abused by the time she is 18 years old. > In 70% of rapes, the rapist is known to the victim. > More than 50% of rapes happen to a women in her own home, in her own bed. > These are crimes of power and aggression. > You seem to think it's a joke to impose a curfew on men, but there is an > effective curfew put upon women, and I don't see you 'laughing' at > that. I don't know which way you are argueing here. If (1) more than 50% of rapes occur in a woman's own home, and (2) in 70% of rapes, the victim and rapist are acquainted, what good is a curfew going to do. There is a law against murders, yet it does not stop murderers. You really think that a law against being outside is going to help? Women live longer, so should get reduced life insurance benefits. Women get pregnant and take sick leave, and thus should be payed less than men. Men commit more crimes, thus should be locked up at night. Don't all three of these comments seem to fall into a similar vein? jon -- Jonathan Corbet National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility {seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/15/85)
> Women live longer, so should get reduced life insurance benefits.
(before I get flamed for this, let me say that I know that the author
was being sarcastic, so this is not addressed to him at all).
I've actually heard this being debated quite a bit. Isn't it funny how
things are. Blacks have a lower life expectancy then whites. I guess
by the same logic as above, they should get increased life insurance benefits.
Ever heard of a single life insurance company who offers this? I haven't.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophieajf@pyuxa.UUCP (A Figura) (05/20/85)
I'm amazed at the insurance companies logic in general, but I too have often wondered about reduced coverage for women because they live longer. Why not give women increased benefits, since they live longer and thus pay more in premiums over their lifetimes then men. Or am I missing something?
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/28/85)
> I'm amazed at the insurance companies logic in general, but I too have often > wondered about reduced coverage for women because they live longer. Why not > give women increased benefits, since they live longer and thus pay more > in premiums over their lifetimes then men. Or am I missing something? In this case, yes you are. The policies under discussion are the kind where you pay in for a fixed number of years (until 65 or so, usually) and then draw out so much a month for the rest of your life. By living longer, women (statistically) draw out more benefits after having paid the same in premiums as men in similar circumstances. The insurance companies wanted to reduce the monthly benefits to women so that women and men would get the same total benefits (statistically again). Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/28/85)
> I'm amazed at the insurance companies logic in general, but I too have often > wondered about reduced coverage for women because they live longer. Why not > give women increased benefits, since they live longer and thus pay more > in premiums over their lifetimes then men. Or am I missing something? My recollection of insurance premiums is that at one time women's premiums were somewhat lower than men's, for that very reason. Funny, I didn't here any upset about *that* part of sexism.