brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/23/84)
To follow up: As expected, many women have come to the defence of insurance companies. Face it folks, there is just no difference between insurance sexism and any other kind of prejudiced descrimination. I go to my insurance company and they tell me, "you have to pay twice as much for insurance because you are a man". I say, "but I have never had an accident and have only one ticket in my life! I took driver training and know the feel of my car well" They say, "Yes, but men your age get in more accidents than anybody else. and I say, "But I'm not like those other men. I don't drink, I'm a professional, an intellectual etc. etc." AND THEY SAY (with their price) "All men your age are alike...." Now what does this story say to you. It's true in some form for every man in North America who drives. Sure it's based on statistics. But based on the statistics, (not getting into the reasons for the statistics) women are not as educated as men, nor as succesful in professions or business. In the early part of the century, you could point to clear statistics that said that blacks were inferior to whites. Now we protect against prejudiced descrimination by saying that individuals are different from the masses, and that these statistical differences are due to environmental, not innate things. Well, surely driving attitude is an environmental thing, too. After all, if it gets better with age or MARRIAGE, how can you say otherwise. So I dare you to find a major distinction between these cases of sexism. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
ziegler@lzmi.UUCP (05/24/84)
Brad Templeton dares us all to find a major distinction between sexism
(as in men getting higher pay for the same work) and actuarialism (as in
men paying higher auto insurance). He feels that statistics show that
women in general are not as educated or successful in professions as
men, just as they show that men are less careful behind the wheel.
First of all, let us not cloud the issue. Women should get equal pay
for equal work. This has absolutely nothing to do with automobile
insurance. Flaming about your car insurance rates is counterproductive
in net.women. If you don't like the way your insurance company sets its
rates, write a letter to your state government - it's their fault - but
don't release your frustration by using this as an argument to justify
underpaying half of the human race. By the way, I didn't see any
articles by women "defending" insurance companies, as you suggested they
had. I did see a few mentioning that it would be foolish to complain
about a favorable arrangement, which is irrefutable.
Now for the difference. You say that women are, in general, less
educated than men. I'll assume that you're right, since an argument
about where the figure came from is boring. This statistic has
absolutely nothing to do with how productive a woman is within a
corporation, since those women who do get into professional fields are
likely to be those who are educated at least to the level of the men in
the organization, if not higher. Anyone have any statistics on that?
As for women being less successful than men, I'd say that this is an
effect of sexism, not a justification for it. I don't think I need to
go into any more detail on that one.
If you can show me a statistic that shows that women really do less work
than men in the same jobs, then I'd agree that women should on the
average be paid less. That is, if you can show that the decreased
productivity is not a result of sexism :-) (well, only half kidding).
The above opinions are my own, and happen to correspond with the
official policy of the company I work for.
Joe Ziegler
{ihnp4, hogpc}!pegasus!lzmi!ziegler
AT&T Information Systems
Lincroft, New Jersey
(201) 576-7905dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (05/24/84)
The argument in favour of charging all men in some group the same insurance rate is that it is statistically valid and, I suppose, easier to treat all men as a member of a group rather than evaluating each one individually. The argument in favour of not discriminating against women in hiring, even if it is statistically justfied, is that it is unfair to the individual. It seems that somewhere society has decided that in issues related to hiring and pay, justice for the individual is more important than the convenience of the employer, but that in issuing insurance policies the convenience of the insurer may override considerations of rates tailored to the individual. Everyone agree so far? Now, it seems that this difference in treatment might be justified on the grounds that the company has to look at each applicant being considered for a job individually anyway so there is no reason not to treat them as individuals, but in the case of insurance it would be difficult or expensive or both to determine methods of assessing risk individually for each applicant. I'm not saying that this is fair, just that there is at least an argument why different policies could be used in these different cases. However, I see absolutely no difference between setting auto insurance premiums based on sex and setting life insurance premiums (or, alternately, benefits) based on sex. It is simply unfair for sex to be ignored in places where that benefits women, and for sex to be taken into consideration where *that* benefits women instead. A question to the readers: given a choice between insurance companies charging the same rates regardless of sex for all types of insurance or using sex to determine rates for all types of insurance, which system would you choose? Dave Martindale
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (05/27/84)
Given a choice between an insurance company that discriminates between sexes in setting rates, and one that does not so discriminate, I would choose the company with the rates that favored(or at least did not dis- favor) me. Hyman Kaplan -- The above is my personal opinion. In all probability, everyone else disagrees! Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
ellen@unisoft.UUCP (05/27/84)
Your article is logical to a point and then you lose me. The reason that women are given lower premiums on auto insurance is (supposedly) they are safer drivers -- statistically. The reason that women are given lower salaries and benefits is they (fill in the blank) -- statistically. What do you think the reason is and is it fair? ellen
cmgiuliani@watmath.UUCP (cmgiuliani) (05/29/84)
> Your article is logical to a point and then you lose me. > > The reason that women are given lower premiums on auto > insurance is (supposedly) they are safer drivers -- > statistically. > > The reason that women are given lower salaries and > benefits is they (fill in the blank) -- statistically. > > What do you think the reason is and is it fair? > > ellen > I think this is aimed at me, but please be more specific in the future... You misunderstand. I was not really addressing the question of women's, salaries, but of insurance rates. But now I will consider salaries. One possible reason for paying women less is that they (God only knows what) statistically. But in any case it is hard to justify statistical setting of salaries. There is more significant information available about employees. Actually when men are systematically paid more than women only because of their sex I doubt that there is a valid statistical motivation for it. But that is another topic. Carlo @ the U of Waterloo
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (05/29/84)
[die bug] >Given a choice between an insurance company that discriminates between >sexes in setting rates, and one that does not so discriminate, I would >choose the company with the rates that favored(or at least did not dis- >favor) me. It should be noted that this attitude leads to a discriminatory rate structure. Assume companies F and G are selling insurance, and further that the people to whom they are selling insurance are easily broken down into two groups, A and B, such that the cost of providing insurance (including reasonable profit) is $10 per person for group A, and $20 per person for group B. Company F charges $10 for people in group A, and $20 for people in group B. Company G charges everyone $15. Naturally everyone in group A buys their insurance from company F and everyone in group B buys their insurance from company G. Therefore company G must either go bankrupt, charge only one rate but make it $20, or us the same rate structure as F. If G charges everyone $20 it will attract only customers from group B, halving its market. Thus G must charge the same rate structure as F. This is not to say discriminating between sexes in setting rates is good or bad. It does show that if one company does it, all will be forced to do it. Ending the practice would almost certainly involve legislation. William Hughes P.S. Note that the above argument also applies to the selling of annuities (that is the company that discriminates will do better than the company that doesn't)