<p>As a ridiculously broad and therefore useless generalization, I think us testosterone-y boys are more impatient and thus less inclined to sitting at desks and “working hard”; young males in particular (although probably not anyone here) are more likely to scoff at academics…and, girls tend to mature faster than guys. On the flipside, boys’ competitive spirit might be more fired up by the test, they might have better physical stamina, less test anxiety, etc.</p>
<p>Of course, this is just a massive generalization, hence why I dislike these “boys vs. girls” debates; people always end up suffering for guilt by association, because plenty of boys get better grades than plenty of boys, and vice versa for SATs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMHO, guys on average probably have better hand-eye coordination and reflexes. But hey, it’s all a case by case basis, right?</p>
<p>Also, just to throw it out there, maybe guys are more motivated to learn how to drive sooner to impress their girlfriends, and therefore get more experience? IDK</p>
<p>Halcyon made a very well thought out post. It’s true that certain demographics are better on average in some areas than others; it’s equally true, as heather pointed out, that it’s an injustice to prematurely judge individuals from mere averages, when there’s plenty of overlap and exceptions.</p>
<p>Are you trying to accuse him/her of being sexist? Because the post was hardly offensive, lol.</p>
<p>It’s not fair to charge boys more for insurance, IMHO, any more than it would be to pay women less by assuming they’ll take maternity leave. Guilt by association sucks.</p>
<p>ROFLAMO, relativelysmart edited his post from “self righteous butthurt and female damage control” to “butthurt and damage control”, and then apparently added “self righteous” back in.</p>
<p>The (other) ironic part is, he just engaged in the textbook definition of damage control.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose it makes business sense for insurance companies to judge you from averages, but that doesn’t make it fair.</p>
<p>I mean, <em>puts on flame retardant suit</em>, nobody would stand for insurance companies discriminating in a similar manner on race, nor would I.</p>
<p>I initially meant to just take out the “female damage control” part, as I could see it being too inflammatory for this board (also, it’s not really damage control, as I’m pretty sure editing history is visible). I also lol’d at how you also edited your posts and documented my edits prior to me even refreshing the page (is this really that important to you, dude?).</p>
<p>Anyway, “guilt by association” is completely justified when it comes to things like guys paying more for car insurance. It’s not like these companies have the time/resources to stringently assess each and every person. Generalization is way more pragmatic in the eyes of businesses if they are able to benefit from it in the end.</p>
<p>But let’s back to the actual topic at hand. What halcyon said in his first reply was completely correct and pretty much sums up this thread.</p>
<p>I tweaked my wording and responded to your own edits. You, on the other hand, did indeed participate in the same “damage control” you so smugly accused everyone else of doing, roflamo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That it’s good for the businesses doesn’t necessarily justify it from a legal or ethical standpoint. There are plenty of racial/religious/sensitive demographics that you can draw statistically sound generalizations from, but it would (rightfully) be considered discrimination if insurance companies tried to charge certain ethnicities more, for example.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why my edits are so important or why you felt the need to refresh the page so many times (I guess you’re hungry for replies or something), but I guess that’s really not my problem in the end.</p>
<p>In a country fueled by capitalism, anything that can help a business prosper within the bounds of the law is [implicitly] considered justified. Also, are you implying that racial/religious stereotypes don’t already play an integral role in businesses’ marketing strategies and prognoses?</p>
<p>EDIT: just saw your edit on charging certain ethnicities more – this is definitely not ethical (and probably not good for business either given the negative social repercussions) and I can somewhat agree with you.</p>
<p>The way I see it as a teacher, and to generalize based on observations and some biology. Girls do more work outside of testing like homework (multitaskers) and boys are more competitive (their brains/hormones are wired for it) on tests. This would be a great research topic.</p>
<p>Because your post was itself hardly innocuous or friendly?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, no. You made the post, I commented on your username, a few minutes later, I came back and saw that you had edited your post. I then went to respond to another poster’s comment, only to find you’d edited it again. No superfluous refreshes needed.</p>
<p>And don’t play the moral high ground here; your post was itself an attack on everyone else’s being “butthurt”. And you comically engaged in “damage control” yourself.</p>
<p>Anyhow, no need to discuss this further.</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>Circular logic, since the question of whether such discrimination should be legal is implied in the contention. And no, you’re wrong; there are certain ethical standards most people respect and expect beyond the bounds of the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do, but that doesn’t mean that they should, or that it is “justified”.</p>
<p>By justified, I meant justified from a business’s standpoint. Can you give me an example of a “certain ethical standard most people respect and expect beyond the bounds of the law”? </p>
<p>I don’t think different races and ethnicities should be charged more for some good or service (such as insurance) if there was a correlation found between ethnicities and crashes (in our society, suggesting a certain race or ethnicity can’t do something that another race can is the most forbidden taboo of all), but I do believe that utilizing qualitative data on a person (that may include race/ethnicity) for business prognoses is still justified.</p>
<p>EDIT: halcyonheather – I was just referring to people on page 2 of this thread (regarding the driving).</p>
<p>“justified” has an ethical implication, though. Is it ethical to discriminate against people for indirect attributes they cannot control?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of ways to scam and mislead customers without breaking the law, for example, with clever wording, small font disclaimers and legal sophistry, and it doubtlessly happens, but I don’t think most people would defend them as “justified”, especially if you seriously injure said customers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it’s not OK to charge more based on race, why is it OK to do so based on gender…?</p>
<p>That probably has to do more with the status quo. I think we can both agree that sexism is not nearly as incendiary as racism in the eyes of the majority of the population.</p>