Is it sexist for the insurance industry to take gender into account when setting its premiums?

Viz the claim that women receive more money from the state that's complete and utter bollocks. They save the state millions of pounds every year. If every woman decided she wasn't going to look after her children or socialise them, care for hte elderly in her community, enable many men to work in the cash economy by ensuring that he didn't have to think about his domestic arrangements and deal with them, help out in schools, volunteer as hospital friends, as breastfeeding counsellors, as brownie, cub and guide leaders, as mentors for young people, as counsellors, if they didn't ensure that their families ate healthily and were socialised properly, the costs to the state would be fucking enormous.

This narrative of women being a bunch of spongers who should be grateful the govt is charging them more NI, is just bollocks.

Yes everyone knows the insurance industry is run by raging loony feminists who hate men and ramp up their premiums purely and simply because they want to punish them for their ownership of bollocks.

Insurance companies don't make decisions based on actuarial studies or business reasons. They make decisions based on sheer, unbridled, visceral hatred of men. Just look at the number of rabid feminists who run insurance companies.

Er...

im22 wrote - "Judging by the fact that two hours after this question has been posted and no feminist has yet tried to claim it isn't sexist shows that it is clearly sexist."

Response times are not a reliable indicator of the amount of sexism involved in a situation. Therefore, I think it is unreasonable of you to base your conclusion of sexism on response times.

Actually nobody will win because the insurance companies will charge higher margins because of greater uncertainty around the pricing of the products, therefore making insurance and pensions mote expensive for everyone.

But the reason why their premium is higher isn't because they're a man - its because they're more likely to have an accident. The fact that they're more likely to have an accident is a fact that can't be argued against.

I have to pay more insurance because my job involves shift work and statisticlly I'm more likely to have an accident. Discrimination against shift workers? Maybe?

^TheFallenMadonna Tue 22-Feb-11 22:05:32
Well, we win on the car insurance but lose out on pension annuities, because on average we live longer.^

Not really a win on the annuity. They may cost more, but they usually pay out more over the course of a longer life. However, if this decision goes ahead, then men will pay more despite not being likely to live any longer

"I disagree im22 But then, I have a feeling you knew I would!

Do women receive more from the state"

I think from simply the three examples i gave above easily show this (more NHS care due to longer life expectancy, less time spent in workforce - and therefore less time spent paying tax, longer reception of state pension). That said, I'm not advocating charging women more - I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those that have said it isn't sexist to charge a women less for car insurance since I have no doubt none of them would say the same in cases where being a woman would mean higher insurance rates - eg national insurance

It's not stereotyping if it is based on statistical fact.

We don't accept stereotyping because it is not based on fact.

If it was sexism rather than business sense.. what is the movtive? Most heads of large organisations are men, that would include insurance companies, right?

They aren't offering women concessions out of the kindness of their hearts and victimising men through some kind of moral conscience or a want to address the current sexist imbalance. It's for money.

It's not sexist because it is purely based on the statistics (although the judge ruling on the case made the decision she did because they couldn't prove that there were no other underlying factors and gender was the only rating factor).

This won't only affect car insurance. Annuities for men will be lower despite the fact the women live longer than men.

All the ruling has done is to make insurance of any kind more expensive, as insurance companies are unlikely to reduce premiums fir the affected sex, which the judge herself admitted.

Its discrimination based on gender stereotyping that we normally don't tolerate. Should we excuse this because the stereotype can be shown to be statistically accurate?

Seems to be the majority view, but I'm not so sure like where such an excuse might lead to.

Seems to me that this is a case where notions of "equality" and "fairness" collide.

I disagree im22 But then, I have a feeling you knew I would!

Do women receive more from the state? I mean, you may be right. But I don't think I've ever seen that as a fact. If it is true, there are many many reasons behind it which are too involved to debate at half 10 on a Tuesday night... Most of which aren't their fault.

"Shall we all guess where im22 came to visit us from?"

?? I don't understand your question, but I don't really care.

Yet again you can not come up with an argument to defend your position so you resort to ignoring the point and criticizing the person making it

"How can any one not be a feminist? I'm sorry to pick on you im22 but what do you mean...? Do you not beleive in women being empowered or treated as equals? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

massive derailing, sorry!"

I was pointing out that it is not sexist if gender is used to discriminate against men, but i guarantee you it would be if women were charged a higher tax rate, for example, because they use NHS more, state recieve pensions for longer, spend less of their lives in the workforce etc.

As for the equals bit - you should look the word up, you are eithe equal or your not. You can not pick and choose when your equal, you either say women cost car insurance agencies less therefore they should pay less and, since we're equals, women should pay higher national insurance rates since they receive more money from the state

From personal experience age has played a much bigger factor than gender in reducing our insurance premiums. Once DH and I were over 35 the insurance premiums plummetted. As DH is older than me it used to be cheaper for me to have him on my insurance than it was without - so it can work both ways Grevling.

How can any one not be a feminist? I'm sorry to pick on you im22 but what do you mean...? Do you not beleive in women being empowered or treated as equals? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

massive derailing, sorry!

Well, we win on the car insurance but lose out on pension annuities, because on average we live longer.

Insurance companies discriminate on many factors. It is how insurance works. They look at the information they have and set their criteria accordingly.

So people pay more or less insurance depending on:

• gender
• age
• where they live
• the car they drive
• where they park their car
• if they use their car for business or not

etc.

I don't think it is sexist to include gender in this.

"The comparison to maternity leave is facile and ignorant."

How so? (and I would like to point out I'm not a feminist, therefore simply criticizing a point, not because it was wrong, but on the basis that it doesn't suit your ideology, won't wash with me)

if we buy into this silly idea, we are basically accepting that it is ok for insurance companies to rip us off even more

I doubt that they will want to reduce men's premiums

insurance brains even.

Oh, and particularly

I hope that insurance indusry premiums are based on facts

It is fact that women are safer drivers

it is fact that women live longer

it is fact that men suffer more from certain serious diseases

inflating premiums in a false attempt to make them equal between men and women for a silly reason..is just that, silly