Gender discrimination on motor insurance now illegal

deirdre_dub · 01-03-2011 06:45PM

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's illegal and doesn't happen in western societies except for where salary is negotiated (but asking for a higher salary is also putting your neck on the line). I'm open to correction if you find different. I haven't.

OK - I'm going to put my neck on the line and come out with this.

I know that I'm speaking the truth because I'm transgendered, and I can tell you that there is a definite different attitude towards me now that I'm presenting as female. Thankfully it's not in my place of work (my colleagues knew the male me, and got to respect me for the talented person I am, before I came out as transgendered), but I definitely notice it in some other situations from time to time ("wtf does she know" sort of thing - it's quite subtle, but it's there).

deirdre_dub, I'm not sure you realise the extent of anti-male advertising out there.

Trust me - I do. It really really annoyed and hurt me when I believed I was male. And it still angers me today. Contrary to popular belief, transgender women don't hate men - I think men are awesome, and I feel so very angry when I see the way that society sh1ts on you too.

I don't think you realise the way that advertising works differently with women. Actually, a lot of things work differently with women...

I'll admit it does exist on the opposite end, however because of widespread female gender advocacy they are usually stemmed quickly. There is disproportionately little male advocacy... so you have advertisements that depict violence against men as humorous, that portray men as useless homer-simpson types, overgrown babies barely able to feed themselves... or at its most sinister, of men as basically evil and women as good. And we're programmed to just accept it...

And that is the key. You've gotta unprogram yourself! Seriously! No-one is going to do it for you - no-one can do it for you - you gotta do it yourself. Sorry, but them's the breaks...

but switch the genders in any example and the hypocrisy shows itself clear as day.

This is something that women have had to live with for a very long time. At this stage in our society's evolution, it's (many, though apparently not enough) men who are now also feeling it. I feel for you that you are one of those men who is feeling it.

Even in official sources, the insistence of domestic abuse as a male=instigator, female=victim is downright harmful!

I couldn't agree more. Seriously. I am quite close to a male victim of domestic violence, and the way his suffering has been minimised (to put it mildly!) is just so very wrong on so many levels.

In a pub yesterday I saw an ad advertising www.2in2u.ie (don't bother even ticking the boxes, it annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue.

I hear you. For what it's worth - I hear you. I know it's not much, but I do.

iptba · 01-03-2011 06:51PM

On the health insurance issue, this could have been dealt with in the past, or now, if they want(ed) to be allowed threat men and women differently (for motor insurance and other insurance): have community rating across the lifetime so men of different ages pay the same (as other men, a lower rate than they would now) and women of other ages pay the same (as other women). It never happened.

I'm not sure if this idea, which is not exactly rocket science, was even mentioned - so much academic and political "energy" is spent looking at ways to help women in comparison to the academic/political energy/resources looking at situations in which men appear to be losing out.

iptba · 01-03-2011 07:00PM

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It could also price those who do a lot of deliveries out of the market.

Pricing out of the market is a bigger issue when there is a loading made. What will happen now is that people will pay the mean (average); without it, some people were being asked to pay a lot more than the mean putting a disproportionate burden on them.

(More theoretical point) In the business realm, one could technically argue, it put a bigger burden on men putting them at a disadvantage; put another way, I wonder if there was a category of vehicle where it turned own that premiums were more expensive for women whether this point might have been made.

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 02:12AM

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The link you have above is about just one, single aspect of the gender pay gap, namely career choice. There is no doubt whatsoever that career choices affect pay. The way that society seems to value some jobs (e.g. sitting in front of a computer screen on the trading floor in a bank) above others (cleaning out the sewerage system) is, well, at the very least questionable.

The gender pay gap actually is pretty much based upon career choice, but not simply in the way that James Jones suggested. One interesting thing that has come up repeatedly in salary surveys is that in our twenties womens' salaries actually out perform men, as do childless women who have never married, when compared with childless male counterparts, overall.

A large part for the gender pay gap appears to be as a result of the role of women as the primary child carer; as a result they are more likely to take longer leave of absences and even upon their return to the workplace will be unable to put in the "110%" that is often expected of employees nowadays.

Combined with house-making duties, this also aids men in relationships because they are more free to put in the extra time and effort on their career as they do not have to sacrifice time for housework, etc.

As such, so long as the society presumes that home-making and child care are 'female' roles, then this will persist. Of course, to reverse this would also require women losing the legal and social advantage over men that exists where it comes to their children and so a lot of feminism seems to shy away from this option, instead focusing on a "why can't we have it all" approach, which is frankly doomed to fail.

The gender pay gap that I'm interested in, however, is a different one. It is where someone of one gender gets paid less than someone of the other gender for doing the same job.

There are lots of factors that go into a salary. Two people may be doing the 'same job', but if one has more experience than the other, they are more likely to be able to command a greater salary. This is relevant in that many women who choose to take a few years out to have children will return to the workplace to find that they not only lack recent experience, but also have several years less total experience than their male or childless female counterparts.

folan · 02-03-2011 09:02AM

Not sure how the debate turned to the gender pay gap, but fair enough.

maximoose wrote: »

I'm in the middle of trying to renew my car insurance this week

Two years no claims bonus in my own name (no driving previous to that), full license for 1.5 years and looking to insure a 1.4 Seat Leon.

€752 with Zurich if I didnt happen to have a willy, but alas I do, so that bumps it up to €1250.

I'm all f*cking for this change :mad:

this here is the crux of the issue. i am sure that when you filled out the form for a quote, it asked how much you drove per year average.

I always had an issue with this as it should negate the arguement that females drive less and are therefore less likely to be involved in a crash etc.

However, if both pick the same in the distance travelled, surely this isnt the case. And after that, its just gender discrimination.

deirdre_dub · 02-03-2011 10:00AM

folan wrote: »

However, if both pick the same in the distance travelled, surely this isnt the case. And after that, its just gender discrimination.

Again, there are other factors at play. Men are socialised to be competitive, which some men translate into "go fast when in a car". There is also the factor that young men are prone to suicide - how many car accidents involving just a young male driver were actually suicides?

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression

) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story... As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 11:44AM

deirdre_dub wrote: »

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression ) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story...

That's the basic principle of insurance, is it not? The payments of those who never claim pay for those who do.

Now, for reasons of commercial competitiveness, insurance companies discriminate against certain demographics because they are statistically more likely to make claims (or larger claims). I remember being a little taken aback, ten years ago, when programming an online calculator for a life insurance company and seeing how much they weighted against smokers, for example.

The question is whether it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender and this is why car insurance is such an anomaly. Were we allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender for the purposes of commercial competitiveness, then job ads could openly state "women between the ages of 28 and 40 need not apply". After all, they're the one's statistically most likely to take maternity leave or leave altogether; leaving you to looking once again for a replacement, a temp (if you have to legally hold their job) and any training you have invested into them has effectively gone down the drain.

Yet commercial competitiveness does not trump the principle of gender equality there and it is illegal, yet it did with car insurance. Even health insurance did not seem to do so (in many countries women have to pay higher premiums).

Bizarre, I always thought - or men are seen a soft target who won't kick up. Guess again.

As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

Completely agree. All too often though people prefer a quick fix than to tackle the true underlying problems.

James Jones · 02-03-2011 12:00PM

folan wrote: »

Not sure how the debate turned to the gender pay gap, but fair enough..

It started here:

deirdre_dub wrote: »

real equality is when men and women's driving is equally safe, when men's shorter life expectancy is addressed, and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

The matter is actually greater than simply car insurance and pensions. See article in The Examiner

"Ms Reding said she will examine the implications for the EU’s law not just for the insurance sector but also on equal access to goods and services for women and men, and she will meet industry representatives in the next few weeks"

.

Will the Family Law Courts be regarded as a "service"?

metrovelvet · 02-03-2011 12:52PM

The only people who are going to benefit from this are the insurance companies. My prediction is that instead of men's insurance dropping the women's will increase to match the mens.

Why does the discrimination stop there? What about the age discrimination? How about married people getting cheaper insurance?

Principals are all very nice, but take microsoft and the anti trust laws in the US. Microsoft word used to come on every PC automatically when you bought it. Then they were challenged under US anti-trust and monopoly laws and now people have to dole out a few hundred dollars to get the suite.

Now ladies, lets write to the EU about discrimination in dry cleaning and hair cut prices.

So, being 'fair' ends up screwing everyone over.

*A note on anti-male advertising- Advertising works on this principal across the board -"YOU SUCK. BUY THIS."

Galvasean · 03-03-2011 02:32PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why does the discrimination stop there? What about the age discrimination? How about married people getting cheaper insurance?

I'm sick of seeing reckless drivers being discriminated against. Just because I've made 14 claims in the last six months why should I pay more than Johhny No Claims Bonus? It's discrimination I tells ya!

Before anyone takes my point seriously, it was meant in jest

Hazys · 03-03-2011 04:34PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Now women will pay as much as men, prices wont go down

Why? Mathematically there is no reason why men's insurance won't go down.

If this occurs for one insurance company you switch to a different one, if the other one does it aswell then its a cartel.

I know that this is ripoff Ireland and people will complain all day about a price and still pay it but if irish people accept that then there is no hope for Irish people.

iptba · 05-03-2011 06:35PM

deirdre_dub wrote: »

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression ) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story... As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

Lots of things are like that in society. Lots of tax money is spent on people who have made errors/mistakes in their lives of some sort. And in this case, the burden will be spread out more (so a smaller amount) rather than being disproportionately just other young males.

iptba · 05-03-2011 06:44PM

ApeXaviour wrote: »

deirdre_dub, I'm not sure you realise the extent of anti-male advertising out there. I'll admit it does exist on the opposite end, however because of widespread female gender advocacy they are usually stemmed quickly. There is disproportionately little male advocacy... so you have advertisements that depict violence against men as humorous, that portray men as useless homer-simpson types, overgrown babies barely able to feed themselves... or at its most sinister, of men as basically evil and women as good. And we're programmed to just accept it... but switch the genders in any example and the hypocrisy shows itself clear as day.

Yes, there are some stronger pressure groups than others.
Also people are trained in universities, etc. to be more vigilant for what might be seen as anti-female advertising. And primed to complain about it (and perhaps even primed to think anti-male advertising is ok as it's a man's world, the world needs to be re-balanced, etc.).

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Even in official sources, the insistence of domestic abuse as a male=instigator, female=victim is downright harmful! In a pub yesterday I saw an ad advertising www.2in2u.ie (don't bother even ticking the boxes, it annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue.

Thanks for that. Initially when I heard about it I thought it was just private (charity) money but I see at the bottom that two government agencies are involved.

James Jones · 05-03-2011 09:48PM

iptba wrote: »

Initially when I heard about it I thought it was just private (charity) money but I see at the bottom that two government agencies are involved.

One of those Govt agencies is Cosc, "The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence".

It seems that gender based violence only affects one gender. I must get on to the Gender Equality Division who say that

"Gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued and favoured".

On second thoughts, maybe not. Their website states that

Government policy in this area includes:
the provision of a legal framework that provides for equal treatment of women and men;
the National Women's Strategy 2007-2016, which is the Government's policy document in relation to the advancement of women in Irish society. The Strategy contains 20 key objectives and over 200 planned actions which are grouped under the three key themes of:
Equalising socio-economic opportunity for women;
Ensuring the wellbeing of women;
and Engaging women as equal and active citizens.
a programme of positive action measures, including the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013, to enhance women's skills and to foster their engagement in Irish society and decision-making where they are under-represented

.

iptba · 05-03-2011 09:51PM

ApeXaviour/James Jones, I think it would be good to have a separate thread on the www.2in2u.ie point - either of you want to start it?

Cicero · 05-03-2011 10:20PM

Insurance, in general, is a total rip off no matter how you look at things...

...so...you get a small dent on the bumper...no one is hurt....one person admits liability...other takes it to a dealer....cost....?...EUR1000's...

...you stay one night in a hospital...VHI pays...they send you the "bill" they paid...cost?....EUR1000s...

..many people make money out of "insurance"..but the people who have to pay are the people forced to pay insurance..in this case...car drivers...but it's applicable to other areas too...

...I'd prefer if the whole "insurance" industry was reviewed rather than some aspect of their statistical analysis.....I never agreed that women should get cheaper insurance but then again, I've never agreed with the way insurance premiums are calculated in the first place....

iptba · 05-03-2011 10:26PM

Cicero wrote: »

Insurance, in general, is a total rip off no matter how you look at things...

...so...you get a small dent on the bumper...no one is hurt....one person admits liability...other takes it to a dealer....cost....?...EUR1000's...

...you stay one night in a hospital...VHI pays...they send you the "bill" they paid...cost?....EUR1000s...

..many people make money out of "insurance"..but the people who have to pay are the people forced to pay insurance..in this case...car drivers...but it's applicable to other areas too...

...I'd prefer if the whole "insurance" industry was reviewed rather than some aspect of their statistical analysis.....I never agreed that women should get cheaper insurance but then again, I've never agreed with the way insurance premiums are calculated in the first place....

RE: Insurance
I know people who pay insurance for fairly small things e.g. risk is a few hundred Euro or whatever. You are paying for a lot of admin, etc. there. Personally one of the advantages of being a bit of a saver is that I don't feel the need to pay for insurance in such situations - that I'd be able to cover the cost. Over my lifetime, this should result in a profit.

Unfortunately in some situations the potential liability could be very high.

I also hate how much small amounts of damage to cars can cost.

Cicero · 05-03-2011 11:02PM

iptba wrote: »

I also hate how much small amounts of damage to cars can cost.

that was kind-of my point..except that car insurance is compulsory......the only reason premiums are, what they are, is because once a car repair shop see that the insurance company is paying, costs of repair/attention etc become astronomical....

I'm awaiting the car insurance industries response to this legislation...let me see....something like this....?

"due to the new ruling, all premiums will have to rise by X % to cover costs "...:rolleyes:

pizz off and stop insulting our intelligence..the only reason premiums are high is because you don't bother challenging the costs of repair coz it's too easy to load car insurance premiums of your "captive" customers rather than challenge the car repair industry as a whole...

iptba · 05-03-2011 11:11PM

(Random thought)

My father owns a fancy car (from when the times were good). A few weeks back, somebody ran in to the side of it. It cost over E3000 to get the door fixed. I imagine on a cheaper car, the claim would have been less. The cost of claims are what determine the cost of insurance - in which case everyone is in effect paying for people to drive fancy cars which cost a lost to fix. Everyone should be forced to drive a banger.

metrovelvet · 05-03-2011 11:29PM

In the US and in Australia insurance is not legally required yet EVERYONE has it. That the law does not FORCE everyone to get it, forced companies into better prices and competitiveness.

Cicero · 06-03-2011 12:03AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US and in Australia insurance is not legally required yet EVERYONE has it. That the law does not FORCE everyone to get it, forced companies into better prices and competitiveness.

Insurance is not just about damaged cars...it's also about "damaged" people...i.e. premiums tend to also cover for people damage (which can run to millions) as well as car damage (which tends to be 1000s')....but surely premiums are driven by pay-outs, and pay-outs are driven by (a) legislation and (b) the relevant industries bill claims...
I just think the whole concept of "insurance", or indeed "assurance" can be done differently but there's no will to look at this....

scoobymunster · 06-03-2011 12:24AM

I think people's attitudes to insurance is a bigger problem than the insurance companies itself. Insurance companies have to balance incomings with outgoings, it's no surprise there has been hikes when people over claim. I think the cost per claim is higher in Ireland than other places. Plus, instead of merely claiming for the damage caused, plenty of people are tempted to try to claim unnecessary compensation for faked/exaggerated injuries. I remember of a few occasions when a bus/taxi has been involved in a crash. The names of the passengers were not taken at the roadside and everyone seemed fine, queue a few weeks later and the insurance company recieved more claims for comp than the total number of people that the vehicle could have seated!

deirdre_dub · 06-03-2011 03:11PM

Slightly OT, but there were some posts here about how advertising is more anti-male than anti-female.

I think this video shows how much of the anti-female advertising works (though it glosses over anti-male advertising). And, it's also kinda funny -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4

HavingCrack · 07-03-2011 03:14PM

To be honest, the whole car insurance system in this country is a joke. To drive you must have insurance and you have to get it with these companies who will all rip you off. I'd much prefer a system similar to the US or Australia or New Zealand.

citytillidie · 08-03-2011 02:00PM

I would wait and see, after all the EU brought out a law in 2006 about single sex nights in clubs and bars and banning them on gender discrimination, but it still happens.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/214854_ladies_nights_under_threat_from_law

maximoose · 12-03-2012 11:36AM

When does this come into force?

In the middle of renewing again now and I got a quote from Chill.ie for €650, which I was very happy with. Paid my 20% deposit and got the docs in the post on Friday. Reading through the docs I noticed they quoted me as a fecking woman.. so I rang them this morning and they said there was a mistake on their side and data was input wrong, my new premium would be €950!

Have I any leg to stand on or has this ruling not yet come into play?

hollypink · 12-03-2012 11:48AM

maximoose wrote: »

When does this come into force?

In the middle of renewing again now and I got a quote from Chill.ie for €650, which I was very happy with. Paid my 20% deposit and got the docs in the post on Friday. Reading through the docs I noticed they quoted me as a fecking woman.. so I rang them this morning and they said there was a mistake on their side and data was input wrong, my new premium would be €950!

Have I any leg to stand on or has this ruling not yet come into play?

I thought the ruling came into effect from December but it seems like it's December 2012:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance-business.html

The verdict - which applies from December 21 2012 - will force changes in the current standard practice across Europe of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes.

maximoose · 12-03-2012 11:57AM

Guess that answers my question so, damnit!

Ah well I'll get a refund from them and go with cheaper option

LostinBlanch · 14-03-2012 02:55PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US and in Australia insurance is not legally required yet EVERYONE has it. That the law does not FORCE everyone to get it, forced companies into better prices and competitiveness.

Actually in Oz 3rd party insurance is automatically included when you register the car every year. People are encouraged to get further insurance, but are still automatically insured when they register their cars.

Or at least this was the case was when I was there.

Gender discrimination on motor insurance now illegal

Comments