Comments on: Equality… http://www.jbwan.com/2007/09/27/equality/ Jonathan Brazil's view of the world Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jonathan Brazil http://www.jbwan.com/2007/09/27/equality/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Jonathan Brazil Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:23:01 +0000 http://www.jbwan.com/wordpress/2007/09/27/equality/#comment-218 Hi Rob, Thanks for the feedback. While the points you make are generically applicable, they don't apply to the motor insurance industry. If you read the link I provided in my post regarding some simple calculations I made at the time when these ad campaigns started to emerge, it shows that there is approximately 77% of accidents not caused by people between the ages of 17 and 24 in this country, yet almost 100% of the ads are composed from this grouping. Hardly seems like proportional representation to me. I don't think that women realistically cost the insurer less than men as the young male bracket has been shown time after time through 2 separate MIAB reports to be one of the most profitable sectors of the insurance industry. Several years, as I alluded to, I took a case through the Equality Tribunal against an insurer who shall remain nameless for legal reasons. My angle was to acquire statistical data from them to support their claim that I as a driver with a perfect record was uninsureable because of my age and gender. I was eventually presented, after 18 months, with data showing two sample frames: one male and one female. The female sample frame was approx 10 times the size of the male sample frame and as any statistician will know, is completely inadmissible as proof because of the lack of accurate proportional representation. Even at that the claim difference was marginal. While I agree that you don't put up sexual health ads in a nursing home this is hardly comparable to a nationwide campaign affecting all road users but only focusing on a group that is involved in 23% of accidents on our roads (figure again from my calculations). I'm not denying that some young lads are absolute headcases, my issue is that there is no representation of the accidents caused by people outside of this grouping; a quota that is considerably more when taken in terms of the entire population that are in receipt of the adverts on TV, radio and posters. You rightly state at the end that there is still stereotyping on-going in the media. Where we draw the line with this and uber political correctness I do not know exactly. However, clamping down on adverts that adversely effect people both financially and otherwise must be stopped. Maybe blindly but I don't see that the portrayal of women in the media is the most serious equality issue in the country at the moment when men still don't get decent paternity leave or shared quota of parenting leave split between the male/female couple and any other number of things that I could point out. Hi Rob,

Thanks for the feedback. While the points you make are generically applicable, they don’t apply to the motor insurance industry. If you read the link I provided in my post regarding some simple calculations I made at the time when these ad campaigns started to emerge, it shows that there is approximately 77% of accidents not caused by people between the ages of 17 and 24 in this country, yet almost 100% of the ads are composed from this grouping. Hardly seems like proportional representation to me. I don’t think that women realistically cost the insurer less than men as the young male bracket has been shown time after time through 2 separate MIAB reports to be one of the most profitable sectors of the insurance industry. Several years, as I alluded to, I took a case through the Equality Tribunal against an insurer who shall remain nameless for legal reasons. My angle was to acquire statistical data from them to support their claim that I as a driver with a perfect record was uninsureable because of my age and gender. I was eventually presented, after 18 months, with data showing two sample frames: one male and one female. The female sample frame was approx 10 times the size of the male sample frame and as any statistician will know, is completely inadmissible as proof because of the lack of accurate proportional representation. Even at that the claim difference was marginal.

While I agree that you don’t put up sexual health ads in a nursing home this is hardly comparable to a nationwide campaign affecting all road users but only focusing on a group that is involved in 23% of accidents on our roads (figure again from my calculations). I’m not denying that some young lads are absolute headcases, my issue is that there is no representation of the accidents caused by people outside of this grouping; a quota that is considerably more when taken in terms of the entire population that are in receipt of the adverts on TV, radio and posters.

You rightly state at the end that there is still stereotyping on-going in the media. Where we draw the line with this and uber political correctness I do not know exactly. However, clamping down on adverts that adversely effect people both financially and otherwise must be stopped. Maybe blindly but I don’t see that the portrayal of women in the media is the most serious equality issue in the country at the moment when men still don’t get decent paternity leave or shared quota of parenting leave split between the male/female couple and any other number of things that I could point out.

]]> By: Robert Synnott http://www.jbwan.com/2007/09/27/equality/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Robert Synnott Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:01:07 +0000 http://www.jbwan.com/wordpress/2007/09/27/equality/#comment-217 Women cost the insurer less that men. Similarly, fat smokers cost a health insurer more than thin non-smokers, and having had a sexual health check indicates to a life insurer that you are more likely to die earlier. None of this is fair, but it IS backed by statistics. It is not an insurer's job to be nice to people who are the exception to the rule; they really have no way of knowing. (Some insurers do, I believe, do deals for people with good records). The ads are simply targeting the highest risk group. This is _normal_. You don't put up sexual health ads in a nursing home. They _could_ target, say, young women, or middle-aged bishops, or whatever, but if you do accept that these ads do any good (which is dubious anyway) then targeting the highest risk group makes a lot of sense; their aim is to save as many lives as possible. And yes, depiction of women in the media (especially television) is generally highly stereotypical. So, of course, is depiction of men, but the masculine stereotype could be said to be less demeaning. Women cost the insurer less that men. Similarly, fat smokers cost a health insurer more than thin non-smokers, and having had a sexual health check indicates to a life insurer that you are more likely to die earlier. None of this is fair, but it IS backed by statistics. It is not an insurer’s job to be nice to people who are the exception to the rule; they really have no way of knowing. (Some insurers do, I believe, do deals for people with good records).

The ads are simply targeting the highest risk group. This is _normal_. You don’t put up sexual health ads in a nursing home. They _could_ target, say, young women, or middle-aged bishops, or whatever, but if you do accept that these ads do any good (which is dubious anyway) then targeting the highest risk group makes a lot of sense; their aim is to save as many lives as possible.

And yes, depiction of women in the media (especially television) is generally highly stereotypical. So, of course, is depiction of men, but the masculine stereotype could be said to be less demeaning.

]]>