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

Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote - Page 15

New Post Advanced Search

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

163 replies 16K views
11112131517

Replies

  • ryougaryouga Forumite
    330 posts
    To see why male claims are higher we need to dig a bit deeper.

    Fact is many young boys get cars to impress the girls even today then dont care about the consquences, this is more due to the fact that its still seen as a male thing to impress women, so you cannot blame men for that other reasons is that like already said, a lot of accidents may be by men but caused by women so to speak.

    I notice women drivers are generally awful at concentration and normally poke the front of their cars quite far into a oncoming lane when looking both directions for example, also I have seen 12 accidents in 12 years(and none by men) all by women and each one I have been a witness too have seen women basically puff up their chests and flutter their eyelashes and try and get out of it even ones as stupid as crashing into the back of a parked car then being doughy eyed.

    Another time my dad was driving to town and had to swerve to avoid some bratty kids that deliberatly rode their bikes onto the wrong side of road, then a woman driver who was going over the speed limit for town crashed into my dads car damaging both cars, then a few days later we got a letter from her insurance company stating my dad caused the accident, not only that it said that the driver of the other car was the womans husband(who only turned up 30 minutes after accident when police where there) etc.

    And also I have known friends who's girlfriends have borrowed their cars often without asking and came back saying stuff like "Oh sorry I scraped side of car when I was parking" so what I am getting at there is that women do have far more accidents than statistics claim its just the blame is passed onto men.
  • SueC_2SueC_2 Forumite
    1.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    Yes you have, amazed but fair play for the honesty.

    To be honest, I don't think it's an unusual opinion amongst childless women.

    The truth is, despite equality legislation, women are not treated equally to men in many workplaces. Typically speaking (yes, another gross generalisation) women with children do not act equally to the men OR the childless women. Men and childless women have to make up the slack that is created by maternity leave, time off for child sickness, childcare crises etc.

    The men have the benefit of higher salaries, easier career paths etc etc.

    The women with children have the benefit of maternity leave, carers leave etc.

    The childless women just lose out on both counts.
  • suec wrote: »
    To be honest, I don't think it's an unusual opinion amongst childless women.

    The truth is, despite equality legislation, women are not treated equally to men in many workplaces. Typically speaking (yes, another gross generalisation) women with children do not act equally to the men OR the childless women. Men and childless women have to make up the slack that is created by maternity leave, time off for child sickness, childcare crises etc.

    The men have the benefit of higher salaries, easier career paths etc etc.

    The women with children have the benefit of maternity leave, carers leave etc.

    The childless women just lose out on both counts.

    I can solve it no problem, each person is only allowed a maximum of 6 months paternity or maternity but the pay is the same for both men and women. If you are a loan parent you still only get 6 months.

    That way there is no reason for men and women to be discriminated against because the cost in hiring a man over a woman should be the same!
    The Googlewhacker referance is to Dave Gorman and not to my opinion of the search engine!

    If I give you advice it is only a view and always always take professional advice before acting!!!

    4 people on the ignore list....Bliss!
  • SueC_2SueC_2 Forumite
    1.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    I can solve it no problem, each person is only allowed a maximum of 6 months paternity or maternity but the pay is the same for both men and women. If you are a loan parent you still only get 6 months.

    That way there is no reason for men and women to be discriminated against because the cost in hiring a man over a woman should be the same!

    And where are the childless in all this? Now making up the slack for double the amount of people who are off on maternity/paternity leave / not turning up at short notice / booking all their holidays in the sunniest months of the year!

    Not that I'm bitter or anything.....;)
  • psdiepsdie Forumite
    126 posts
    Sue - interesting to hear a rationale female perspective on the unacknowledged (virtually denied?) rights imbalance and employer burden created by our maternity laws.

    All employees are equal, but some are more equal than others .. and entitled to b*gger off for 36 weeks without reflection of this in salary legislation. Appreciate that there *is* currently reflection of this in practice, which is unfair on childless
    [*] women such as yourself - it's a very similar situation to the topic of this forum (men are higher risk as a group, but there are plenty of exceptions).


    [*] BTW - After a friend's 3 year old threw up all over our restaurant table recently, how about "child-free" as a better description? ;)
  • SueC_2SueC_2 Forumite
    1.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    psdie wrote: »
    Sue - interesting to hear a rationale female perspective on the unacknowledged (virtually denied?) rights imbalance and employer burden created by our maternity laws.

    All employees are equal, but some are more equal than others .. and entitled to b*gger off for 36 weeks without reflection of this in salary legislation. Appreciate that there *is* currently reflection of this in practice, which is unfair on childless
    [*] women such as yourself - it's a very similar situation to the topic of this forum (men are higher risk as a group, but there are plenty of exceptions).
    [*] BTW - After a friend's 3 year old threw up all over our restaurant table recently, how about "child-free" as a better description? ;)

    Thanks for your support, although it's probably best not to get me started.... I may move onto pensions and death in service entitlements etc.... if you're unmarried and 'child-free' that's where you REALLY get screwed over....
  • Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate against other factors such as race. Say for instance a young black male living in London. If he was told that as he is a young black male living in London he is more susceptible to be involved in a stabbing he would be straight to the court of human rights.
    Gender discrimination should be taken as seriously as any other type of discrimination. I think you'll find 99% of women aren't actually bothered that the rules have changed, they're just thinking about the extra money they'll have to fork out.
    I am a mid twenties male and I have had 1 accident in my life, this was a stolen car driven by a female. I suffered injuries and had to claim through my insurance company to replace the whole right hand side of my brand new Punto! I don't appreciate being stuck in a bracket just because some other people have had more accidents than me.

    Grow up and accept the ruling. It's fair!
  • If insurers are adding a weighting to the premium just because of 1-2 appendages a person has, or not, that would be quite wrong. I say good for this law.

    But, if insurers are deciding their premiums on past statistics for that driver, well, that would be okay. If a girl is safer and less financial risk, it will start to show up on her (ahem) statistics before too long, as compared with the drinker-racer-who-cares type of driver who will soon start clocking up his/her own statistics.
  • edited 9 March 2011 at 7:53PM
    popadompopadom Forumite
    808 posts
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    edited 9 March 2011 at 7:53PM
    suec wrote: »
    You want to be treated equal? Fair enough, then act equal.

    Women - don't take time off work to have children, and you'll be treated the same as your male colleagues.

    Men - don't let your testosterone interfere with your driving ability, and you'll be treated the same as female drivers.

    And as I sow the wind, let me reap the whirlwind.......

    I think most women would rather the man "pop" the baby out...but it isnt gonna happen.

    Also-if women didnt have children we wouldnt have enough people to work so,like when alot of people died in the plague in the 1300's-the employer had to pay more for labour.

    Im presuming your mother worked and i presume she took time off for you so you could be born.

    men cant help their levels of teststerone.
    suec wrote: »
    The men have the benefit of higher salaries, easier career paths etc etc.

    The women with children have the benefit of maternity leave, carers leave etc.

    The childless women just lose out on both counts.
    But is it not more of an achivement to say "i had kids and i work full time" i doubt the vast majority of men could say that-though im not saying they dont help out. Women with kids take the fall more- they leave theyre jobs to have kids while theyre husband/partner can go out and say he has a higher paid job for what-not personally popping a kid out?because he has to cover maternity-more jobs for people.
    Edit: i was watching a programme on this subject and they said we all have roughly the same amount of accidents- but women tend to reverse in to cars, lamposts (not being sexist) were as men tend to be full on crashes-so more money spent on men
  • SueC_2SueC_2 Forumite
    1.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    rgay1992 wrote: »
    I think most women would rather the man "pop" the baby out...but it isnt gonna happen. Also-if women didnt have children we wouldnt have enough people to work so,like when alot of people died in the plague in the 1300's-the employer had to pay more for labour. Im presuming your mother worked and i presume she took time off for you so you could be born.

    men cant help their levels of teststerone.

    I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry.
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