Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Funny, I've spent my whole life hearing bad jokes about "women drivers". They've suffered that same discrimination for as long as I can remember, yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone complain about that stereotype. It's only when the shoe is on the other foot that men complain about discrimination.
|
A joke in this case isn't actual discrimination. A playfully sexist joke? Certainly. Discrimination? No. And in my life, I've heard the joke used both ways by men and women alike. Women often use the flawed statistics as a means to support their sexist jokes about male drivers. Meanwhile, young men under 25 are being truly discriminated against by an actual practice that charges them more based on the genitals between their legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Actually the difference in the rates, at least where I live, only applies to drivers under age 25. After that the rates are roughly the same. I suspect that this is not discrimination for the simple reason that younger males do tend to participate in reckless behavior. I don't recall seeing a lot of street racing among young women, at least when I was that age.
|
Here you admit the discrimination for males under age 25 but excuse it based on a very small minority of males who race. Most males do not race, nor are males the only ones who race in cars. A small minority of females also race in cars. To a lesser extent than males, but they still do it. I've even been in high speed chases with women over the age of 25 who had a total disregard for law or public safety.
It's all about individual driving. A person's sex should be irrelevant when it comes to driving and insurance rates. It should be about individual merit. Those who drive good get rewarded with lower rates. Those who don't, get hit with higher rates. Right now the auto insurance industry is actively discriminating males under 25 based on a very small minority of males who drive recklessly.
A big problem I noticed when I was a police officer is that a lot of young males were driving without any insurance at all. Of course, the system wanted to punish these men severely for it. But it always made me feel a bit sick to my stomach since many of them were just poor and probably couldn't afford the jacked up rates for males under 25. It's like they are caught in a catch 22 where they are set up to fail. Sure, driving isn't a right in the U.S. and a privilege. And no, they shouldn't have been driving without insurance. But would so many have been driving without insurance if they were given a fair and equal rate as the other half of the human race? Probably not.
Most children under the age of 8 that are killed via filicide, are murdered by their mothers. Why do the courts still give custody of children under the age of 8 over to mothers in family court in 90% of cases knowing this statistic based on the same logic of billing males more because of the small minority of males who engage in reckless driving?