Forum Home» Martin's Blogs & Appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the News

Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote - Page 11

New Post Advanced Search

Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote

163 replies 16K views


  • DCoddDCodd Forumite
    8.2K posts
    suec wrote: »
    I very much doubt that these are figures that are publicly available.

    I imagine they relate to the insurers' own records of claims made, as opposed to some kind of official government study.
    Maybe, therein lies the basis for the ruling? An unsubstantiated claim?

    Just a thought.
    Always get a Qualified opinion - My qualifications are that I am OLD and GRUMPY:p:p
  • XRATXRAT Forumite
    228 posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Dear Martin,
    Looks like this vote is going to be a walkover, so many are voting for insurers to be able to use statistics to bias their charges.
    How about posing the question again next week but changing it to ask the same about race.
    There was a time that one ethnic group put in so many fraudulent claims (and the whole family shared one licence) that their premiums were loaded. Now of course the insurers are no longer allowed to charge more based on ethnicity so the cost of their fraud is covered by all of us.
  • englishmacenglishmac Forumite
    137 posts
    Should all be based on the individual apart from theft/damage in local area risk. A fair mid-price starter for people with no proven record. Develop a good record and build up no claims premium. Develop bad record and pay more. No paying to protect no claims bonus - repairs etc cost more than anything the individual pays which means the cost is spread across to other people. Although insurance cover by its very nature is spreading the cost across individuals, people with poor records should pay more especially when car insurance is compulsory. At least other types of insurance there is an element of choice.
    Cheap and cheerful. Preferably free. :T LBM - more a gradual rude awakening.
    DFD where the light is at the end of this very long tunnel - there, see it? Its getting brighter!! :o

    DFW Nerd Club Member no. 946. Proud To Be Dealing With My Debts. :D
  • Perhaps insurance companies should take more account of individual differences rather than define everyone broadly by the groups they belong to. Both my car insurance and home insurance premiums increased when I became a full time student for 3 years, despite the fact that I was a grandmother in my fifties, living in the same home I had occupied for 10 years. In fact I worked from home a lot of the time so my house was occupied far more frequently and I drove fewer miles each week than when I went to the office all day. I've graduated now and have a 'normal' job again, but I found it quite ridiculous that I was discriminated against and also that students as a group are considered a higher risk than their employed or unemployed contemporaries.
  • psdiepsdie Forumite
    126 posts
    sorry, I just always find it amusing when certain men complain about "feminists not doing anything about sexism when it affects men." Well a) actually a lot of the time they do, there have been many feminists campaigning for fairer paternity leave rights recently and b) since when was that their job anyway?

    A: I've never come across a self-described Feminist actively campaigning for increased men's rights, so I'd be interested to see a citation here (increased paternity leave isn't a great example as it's mutually beneficial)? On the other hand, I have read ample misandrist writings from Feminists (partic Rad Fems) that seem to think equality is a one-sided battle to get back at the wife-beating "Patriarchy".

    B: Perhaps in the circumstance where you hold a government position supposedly in charge of "equality" (Theresa May and Harriet Harman before her), but use this exclusively to increase womens' rights and entitlements: e.g., see "gender quotas" mandated by the 2010 Equality Act (if all else is equal, employers are now required to give roles to women) whilst ignoring areas like child access rights for fathers.

    Utterly blatantly sexist and puts to rest the idea that modern Feminism is about *equality* of the sexes. Spend 15 minutes reading some rad fem blogs (NSFW, due to rad fem inability not to swear every other word) and tell me these people are about anything other than hate. :eek:

    Am I conflating Feminists with Rad Feminists? Possibly. But from what I can gather from online Feminist blogs, it's a closed world interested only in pro-Feminist opinions and discussions are invariably littered with misandric statements (s*x = rape is a common one!), so it's not surprising that the line appears to have become blurred.
  • ceridwenceridwen
    11.5K posts

    That is the only possible answer in fairness.

    I've known for a long time that some options were closed off to me because I am a woman (eg the one about being able to use a Home Income Scheme if I wanted to). That isnt currently possible - because I would be paid less than I should have - just because I'm a woman (ie nothing to do with ME iyswim).

    Women also receive less in the way of some pension income currently - therefore thats another option currently closed off to any woman who refuses to be penalised for the sex they were born.

    I believe women have to pay more for private health insurance as well currently - again..that makes it impossible to do for any woman who refuses to be discriminated against.

    Insurance companies/private pension providers/HOme Income scheme providers are likely to find that business is better for them once women have to be given the same "treatment"/charged the same amount as men - because there must be a lot of women who currently decide to take out these "products", realise they would be overcharged/underpaid compared to men and change their minds and refuse to take the "products" until such time as we are treated fairly.

    The companies providing these "products" are probably unaware of how many of us women there are who are voting with our purses not to get their products - because we don't usually write letters to them protesting about the unfair treatment and asking to be notified as soon as the discrimination stops. We just say nothing - and buy nothing as far as these products are concerned:D:rotfl:

    I will wait until the sex discrimination has been removed from them all and then review my position and decide whether I will go ahead with any of them after all at that point:D
  • ceridwenceridwen
    11.5K posts
    ...just been and voted (fairly:D) and just seen the comment in initial post that "Its not bias - its biology" to charge women more than men (ie as regards things like life insurance).


    I can only presume that comment was put in to be deliberately provocative - ie lets just put in an obviously unfair/untrue comment and see what reaction we get. I assume no MSE staff would REALLY seriously think that.......:cool:

    Its NOT:
    - average age at death for men is 82
    - average age at death for women is 85

    and lets price accordingly.

    It IS:
    - average age at death for PEOPLE is 83/84?

    without any distinction drawn as to what sex their body happens to have been born.

    ....sits back and waits for a transexual to come along and say "Just what are we judged as then? - the sex we were born or the sex we believe/know ourselves to be?"

    BTW - before the flamers come along. My body and I are BOTH female - as per standard practice...
  • stevemcolstevemcol Forumite
    1.7K posts
    Not sure what your point is. I can't believe you're trying to suggest men and women are alike in every way and we should draw no distinctions?
    Apparently I'm 10 years old on MSE. Happy birthday to me...etc
  • A.JonesA.Jones Forumite
    508 posts
    moggylover wrote: »
    Well that would mean the statistics suggest that young men are rather more badly brought up than young women;)

    No, it means that statistics are not broken down far enough. Some females behave worse than some males. Identify the characteristics of those females that behave badly, and they should be charged more. Similarly, identify the characteristics of better behaved males, and charge them less.

    Distributions of behaviour will overlap - just as height distributions do. Men on average are taller than women, but some women are taller than some men. It is the same with behaviour. Obviously identifying characteristics to split further to characterise risk could be done, but there would be an outcry if things such as race, type of school attended, A-level or GCSE grades, previous claims by parents, parents income, parents jobs, comes from a single parent family, etc. Insurers could easily investigate whether the cost of claims varies for people with many types of characteristics, yet they tend to do it on sex and age, which seems fine to most people. If they were to go for things like race and schooling (which may or may not have an influence on the cost of claims), there would be an outcry that people can do nothing about their race, or the schooling that was available, yet people can do nothing about their sex (unless they are really drastic) or age.
  • edited 3 March 2011 at 12:46PM
    antonia1antonia1 Forumite
    596 posts
    edited 3 March 2011 at 12:46PM
    I work in risk analysis (life-safety stuff, not for insurance) and I find it really strange that anyone has a problem with discrimination on the grounds of demonstrable, calculatable risk. When I first got car insurance I took a massive hit on cost because I was young. Fair enough. The risks to insurance companies are higher for young people and what I'm actually paying them to do is accept the risk for my driving. As far as I am concerned they can base their prices on risk models that factor in age, sex, race, religion, sexuality, hair colour, number of eyelashes, or anything else they darn well want as long as long as it is based on stats and facts rather than prejudice.
    :A If saving money is wrong, I don't want to be right. William Shatner

    CC1 [STRIKE] £9400 [/STRIKE] £9300
    CC2 [STRIKE] £800 [/STRIKE] £750
    OD [STRIKE] £1350 [/STRIKE] £1150
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support