It's for Women insurance.

rsh118

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Definitely becomes easier the closer to the present you get, but even in the 1910-20s you'd be hard pushed to structure and Intro of Modernist Lit course with any more women than Woolf.

Poor work on those undergrads behalf, if you don't understand Milton, Chaucer and Shakespeare et al you are buggered when it comes to anything more modern. Too many missed inferences.

Dave_The_Sheep

I'm with them, have to say they're grand. Easy to set up, check policies, also and most importantly, they were the cheapest option by far for me.

Oh, sorry this thread isn't about the insurance company and what they're like? My mistake.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Huntergonzo

How about 'It's For White People Insurance', love to see how that one would go down.

SeanW

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Those 17 people would likely have been hired by other insurance companies or brokers, in other cases.

Candie wrote: »

So...there's also an insurance brand that targets 'The Lads'?

So am I annoyed at sexist male targeted insurance or sexist female targeted insurance, or can I safely ignore the existence of either/both?

osarusan wrote: »

I always like it when the 'can you imagine the outrage if there was the men-only equivalent' line comes up and then it turns out that it already exists.

If you're seriously suggesting that these are the paralell equivalent, then you are simply not dealing in fact. Its4women is about helping women avoid paying for the Left's definition of "equality", 4thlads is a much smaller, less well known concern, because it sounds like more of an impairment specialist similar in function to: http://www.nonstandardinsurance.ie/ i.e. getting people in high risk categories the best deal of a bad lot, or in worst cases, a quote at all.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to exepct people to believe that you are talking about equivalent entities serving equivalent purposes.

Another aspect to this that is also less publicised, is that the ECJ/EP rules on gender in financial services affect way more than just car insurance. It also affected things like life assurance plans for pensions.

I.E. when you retire you will hopefully have a pension pot. It is usually prudent to use this pot to buy a retirement annuity. This pays you a certain amount per X invested each year for the remainder of your life. The problem is that men have much shorter lifespans than women, 4-5 years usually, so naturally one might expect retirement plans to give men more money each year on the realistic expectation they'll be claiming for a shorter time, and pay women less per year X invested on the basis they will be claiming annuity payments for a longer time.

Yet, because of the rules about "equality" in financial services, men who buy annuities statistically now basically have to pay for 2-2.5 years of annuity payments they never claim, while women get 2-2.5 years of claims that they don't pay for. So far as I am aware, there are no similar loopholes allowing men to get better pension plans, nor no such well publicised, well patronised entities/pools providing same.

Because of the rules on gender in fiancial services, and the specific loopholes in them, it's now a relatively straightforward matter for a woman to get the best of both worlds, to avoid paying for "equality" as the Left defines it as a policyholding motorist by using companies like its4women.ie, but to use said defintion of "equality" to freeload from equalised pools in retirement.

And the Feminist-Left is fine with this ... one guess why?

Sheeps

It's not for fatties

Niemoj

I'm with them, I'm not a woman, their price was a good €300 cheaper than FBD and the disc just says AIG on it so it was a no brainer really.


I recommend everyone shop around when their insurance is due!

Robsweezie

Yorkie bars ain't for girls

Mister Vain

Niemoj wrote: »

I'm with them, I'm not a woman, their price was a good €300 cheaper than FBD and the disc just says AIG on it so it was a no brainer really.


I recommend everyone shop around when their insurance is due!

That's a good saving. I always shop around but I never would have considered them. 123 is the cheapest I could find.

Samaris

How...does the conversation get from insurance to dead writers in three pages? O.O

Wibbs

Easy

fatknacker

It's good that everyone is bickering about one insurance complany out of the hundreds that have just managed to pull off continually raising premiums through the roof and beyond for everyone, without little protest or call for regulation.

weldoninhio

political analyst wrote: »

There is a difference: generally, baldness is not a problem that women have.

I don't know any bald men who dye their head 😂😂😂😂

melissak

Insurance companies are a complete racket anyway. That might be a bigger issue but no someone somewhere might get a slightly better deal than us and that is the issue. It's like the lotto if you don't play they might win adds. We are a nation of begrudging moaners.

mr_edge_to_you

whether its to Mayo or Rio its for women dot i e

coffee_cake

SeanW wrote: »

If you're seriously suggesting that these are the paralell equivalent, then you are simply not dealing in fact. Its4women is about helping women avoid paying for the Left's definition of "equality",

Except they sell to men

4thlads is a much smaller, less well known

So to clarify, it's women's fault that one company has worse advertising?

Another aspect to this that is also less publicised, is that the ECJ/EP rules on gender in financial services affect way more than just car insurance. It also affected things like life assurance plans for pensions.

Right. Women now pay more / same as men for car insurance, and pay less/same as men for annuities. Both are pretty ridiculous and should use actual claims/mortality experience, imo

I.E. when you retire you will hopefully have a pension pot. It is usually prudent to use this pot to buy a retirement annuity.

On a side note, not with the latest interest rates