Sunday, January 6, 2013

Equality vs the female imperative

Dalrock has done some excellent work of late on the female imperative.  On a related note, when monetary push comes to financial shove and the female imperative comes into conflict with the principle of sexual equality, guess which loses:
Women’s very unfair Christmas present: car insurance price hike

Jo Swinson, Minister for Women and Equalities, is outraged at the higher car insurance premiums young women now face, as a result of new European rules.

 As both minister for consumer affairs and equalities I want to see everyone in this country get the fairest treatment possible when they’re parting with hard-earned cash. So you can imagine how disappointed I am by the ruling from Europe that will mean that women will no longer benefit from cheaper insurance premiums – despite all the evidence still pointing to the fact that women are safer on the roads.

Historically, men – particularly young men - cost more to insure than women because industry statistics show that they have more frequent accidents and their claims are more expensive to settle.
I'm not disputing that men are statistically inclined to get in significantly more, and more expensive, car accidents than women.  In a rational world, insurance companies would be permitted to discriminate upon the basis of sex-based probabilities and require men to pay more than women for their car insurance.

However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men.  Does this mean that women like Jo Swinson, Minister for Women and Equalities, therefore believe that EU employers are justified in discriminating upon the basis of sex-based probabilities and paying men more than women for exactly the same job?

It seems highly probable that suggestion would be considered outrageous and sexist.  After all, how can one reasonably judge the job performance of an individual woman by the job performance of all other women?  (Never mind that it is equally silly to judge the driving performance of any one man by the driving performance of all other men.)  So, what we're seeing here is that even in the eyes of an official who is employed in order to assure societal equality, the commitment to the female imperative remains the priority.

Note in particular the way that genuine equality is described as "very unfair" here.  What this means is that for most women, "equality" is merely a useful rhetorical device, and unless it is proven otherwise, should be regarded no more than that by men.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Being Swedish, I let out a hearty laugh the first time I read about these new rules. It was almost as hearty a laugh as when affirmative action was stopped at Swedish universities a few years back - because men were being given spots in the female-dominated field of veterinary science. (Oh lord, the *unfairness* of it all! Don't those awful men know that affirmative action was supposed to give *women* spots in engineering and business schools!? How dare they use a law which was written in a gender neutral fashion to their advantage?)

Pablo said...

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters.

You get the idea.

pdwalker said...

For me, but not for thee.

Sounds fair!

Anonymous said...

The law would never would have been implemented if it didn't also give women huge savings in health insurance premiums. They are actually coming out way ahead of men, and naturally bitch anyway that men are allowed to keep any of their money...

Trust said...

When the same solution is advocated for every problem, you know that solving the "problem" isn't the goal... implementing the solution is.

Add this to the ever growing list of noble sounding covers for the real agenda.

Trust said...

How would Ms. Swinson regard a man who thought he should pay less in health insurance because the data showed he was cheaper, while simultaneously holding the belief that he should pay the same in car insurance in the interest of equality? Shoe, meet other foot.

Trust said...

Even her job title is a contradiction. Note it is "Minister for Women and Equalities", not "Minister Gender Equalities." Also note that "women" comes before "equalities." She advocates for the former under the guise of the latter.

Cryan Ryan said...

In case anyone missed the main points...

a) she is outraged
b) she is disappointed
c) personally, she is still outraged

Denton said...

I look forward to when this happens here. Obamacare is already driving up health premiums on young men to lower those on women and I think some return would be nice.

Anonymous said...

"However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men."

Is this because the obligations of caring for children are often pinned on women?

Roundtine said...

I bet she can't even make a decent sandwich.

SarahsDaughter said...

"pinned on women"

This should be fun.

VD said...

Is this because the obligations of caring for children are often pinned on women?

No, that's not possible because it is also observed in the behavior of women without children. But the behavior of women with children tends to be particularly egregious in these regards.

Anonymous said...

That judgment from the EU Court will also mean that women will pay less than men for private pensions and one other insurance. For the average woman the ruling is a win.

Anonymous said...

From the comments:

"Poorly researched rubbish from the author.

Women will benefit from cheaper annuities and illness insurance which will make them better off overall from this legislation. Men will benefit from cheaper car and life insurance but will be worse off overall.

Needless to say women are still hard done by."

A said...

"However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men." ~Vox Day

I've noticed this as well. I once worked at a warehouse and nearly every female worker in my department was close to useless. They worked slow, incompetently, talked incessantly about the most mundane topics and gossiped, looked atrociously unattractive, bitched constantly and it was clear they felt entitled to being treated as the gentler sex. I wanted my boss to fire one woman in particular, who I knew made more money than me even though I worked a lot damn harder and faster than her. She would just putz around, gab with whoever, and then got upset at me that I wanted her to be fired. I was so pissed at her that I gave her my two cents and then some and she never bothered me after that, although she gave me dirty looks and I'm almost certain she said bad things about me (like I cared, my boss knew I was a valuable worker).

These women were also constantly sick and taking time off. Sadly, my own wife is a part of the group of women who take a lot of time off of work, they just don't feel like working very hard and there's no way to get them to I feel. Her co-workers also take a lot of time off and always seem to be sick. I've always hated the thought of making less money than people who do less than me at the same job, there really needs to be more of a merit pay, I always got pissed when a cute girl at work got a higher raise than I did and I knew for sure that I worked longer, harder and more productive hours than her. No wonder a lot of men seem to be checked out at any job they have to compete with women at. They know their beta bosses will promote the best looking women over the hardest working men.

Anonymous said...

And yet, we are constantly told how hard women work and how important they are to the workforce and the economy...doing useless jobs.

Insurance wins in this case (equality)...

- Apollyon

stg58/Animal Mother said...

"However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men." ~Vox Day

I've noticed this as well. I once worked at a warehouse and nearly every female worker in my department was close to useless. They worked slow, incompetently, talked incessantly about the most mundane topics and gossiped, looked atrociously unattractive, bitched constantly and it was clear they felt entitled to being treated as the gentler sex. I wanted my boss to fire one woman in particular, who I knew made more money than me even though I worked a lot damn harder and faster than her. She would just putz around, gab with whoever, and then got upset at me that I wanted her to be fired. I was so pissed at her that I gave her my two cents and then some and she never bothered me after that, although she gave me dirty looks and I'm almost certain she said bad things about me (like I cared, my boss knew I was a valuable worker).

These women were also constantly sick and taking time off. Sadly, my own wife is a part of the group of women who take a lot of time off of work, they just don't feel like working very hard and there's no way to get them to I feel. Her co-workers also take a lot of time off and always seem to be sick. I've always hated the thought of making less money than people who do less than me at the same job, there really needs to be more of a merit pay, I always got pissed when a cute girl at work got a higher raise than I did and I knew for sure that I worked longer, harder and more productive hours than her. No wonder a lot of men seem to be checked out at any job they have to compete with women at. They know their beta bosses will promote the best looking women over the hardest working men.


This is the experience of women in the military x 100. Plus, you can't fire them.

ray said...

"equality" is a word the inferior (females) use to force the superior (males) into subjugation, using the bloated, corrupt gynocracies as coercive instruments

because men ARE superior to women, the cynical scumbags employ the word "equality," knowing that men, being far more advanced psycho-spiritually, will embrace it as equalling "fairness" -- when in fact "equality" in practice means the opposite, as we've witnessed for forty years

women and weak men are well-practiced at using men's inherent goodness as a weapon of gender-warfare

the persistence of such tactics is yet another proof of the very real, and very obvious, inferiority and pathology of Woman across the cognitive and psychological spectra

Stickwick said...

However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men.

Working full-time outside the home is a real bitch. I'm glad you men are so driven to do it, otherwise we'd all be living in mud huts.

As a woman who works in the hard sciences, I've been forced to come to some un-PC conclusions about women in the work place. I've noticed over the years that most female graduate students spend less time in the lab and are more inclined to socialize than the male students. With one exception, the students who really knock themselves out have always been male. These guys put in very long hours, and they are really driven to succeed. However, what happens with female grads is that they get a serious reality check after the first couple of years of grad school - which are pretty harrowing - and realize they don't want the hard-charging career after all, but instead want families and to spend more time at home.

I was recently chatting with one of my female colleagues, who, like me, works part-time, and she starts to say something about women's equality in the sciences. I'm thinking, uh oh, here it comes; but she says, "It's not true what a lot of women say. We have the same opportunities, we just don't want to work like men. Who wants to work like that?" She has children at home, and she's honest that she'd rather spend most of her time with them and her husband. And she's honest about what it means in terms of equality. What irritates me about most women in the sciences is that they aren't honest about the logical conclusion of all this. Most of them admit they don't want to put in the hours, that they don't enjoy working really hard, and that they want to be at home with their husbands and kids; but then they belong to equality organizations and attend conferences promoting women in the sciences, and don't bother to think there's a legitimate reason men get the better positions and the most recognition.

The one exception I noted above was an older female grad who put in insane hours in the lab and was really driven to work. She was unmarried, had no kids, and was in most ways quite masculine. She got all kinds of accolades as a student, and then received one of the most coveted science fellowships in the world and went on to a career at a prestigious university. If institutionalized sexism really existed, as feminists would have us believe, then this woman would not have been able to succeed in spite of her hard work and talent. But this woman's success highlights the real equality, which is one of merit. She worked like a man, and she was rewarded like one.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

But this woman's success highlights the real equality, which is one of merit. She worked like a man, and she was rewarded like one.

I have no problem with women like that. The only problem is, the rest of the women who are not like her want the same credit she earned.

Same thing in the military. The success of the very few women who can hack it is stolen by the 99.99% that can't. The original problem of gender loops back around to the ones who can hack it, since the women who can hack it are necessarily in excellent shape physically, hence the target of every swinging dick within 10 miles of her.

Anonymous said...

Also health insurance, tax rebates, social benefits, social housing... All things women in general use more.

Therefore, women should pay higher taxes, higher health insurance, higher everything really.

"Equality", by that I mean same outcome for dissimilar input only when it suits "them".

Brendan said...

Vox, what do you make of the critique offered of the FI to the effect that it is effectively Marxist and reductionist? This has been made by both Zippy (http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/cultural-marxism-in-the-manosphere/) and more recently by Slumlord (http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2013/01/marx-and-feminine-imperative.html).

Jeigh Di said...

"This is the experience of women in the military x 100. Plus, you can't fire them."

It will be interesting to see what happens when they start sending women into combat. Have there been any studies at how good female officers are at such things as strategy and tactics?

redlegben said...

I was unfortunate enough to be a mentor to the first combat female officer in the Army. It was a complete disaster. We ended up with ~10 of them in our battalion. None were capable enough to accomplish the tasks of the lowest 10% of the male officers. A couple could run fast, but that was the extent of their proficiency. We had to spread them out because not enough work would get done in each battery if you put them all together.

Doom said...

About the insurance, my guess is they are having to raise the rates on women because men are, consciously or not, going Galt on that.

As for women having their cake and eating it? That worked while we were fat, rich, and didn't need to think about things. That is changing faster than I can keep up on. Lots of things are going to change out of sheer necessity, especially as men pull up stakes, pull out, and quit the whole game and begin to play dog eat dog, for real. Women are, pretty much, now, just another dog. And they are fighting to be such. Let the battle begin.

Economic, social, political... These things tend to fix themselves. Usually extremely violently. Not always for the better, especially for those who were equal, only more equal.

kadir karabaş said...

XXX vids porn teenpornwatchx movie. Free porn movie pornfuckyx videos. High porn videos pornhubhd porn.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.