women's laws cheat men again..
MaryWalker said:
No one that I am aware of says that one fixes the other. People are saying that both sexes are still being screwed and some people find comfort in the fairness of that. As for wage inequality, laws have been created to address it going on 59 years now.
Overcharging for insurance is a greedy corporate asshole maneuver as Anarchitect previously suggested. It's not a woman versus man issue as you insinuated in your thread's clickbait of a title. It is not a "woman's law". Women aren't cheating men with this law. Insurance companies have been gouging people in general since the conception of insurance. Women were able to stop women from being gouged in one sector. Men need to stop men from being gouged in another sector and you could do it with the help of women.
You aren't going to get much help from women with anything if you keep creating arguments perpetuating the notion that women are being "given" preferential treatment or advantages in this or that aspect of life, which is why your other thread involving women and the right to vote turned into such a shit storm.finding comfort in both sexes getting screwed is pathetic... And the difference is that there are laws in place against women getting screwed so they have recourse... And they are women's laws because thats whom they protect...women speaking for women is cheered for and you see what I get when I do it for men.. The laws cheat men not women cheat men..that's why we can't do anything about it.. It would be political suicide to offer or vote for a law that took from women and gave to men, which is what a law preventing gender rating in places where men pay more would do ... We missed our chance at equal when the law didnt apply across the board to all policies instead of just the ones that cost women more...The door does not swing both ways...
You say women fixed a woman problem and men need to fix men's problems.. That sounds like you want us divided and fighting... What if the men before women could vote said that's a woman problem fix it yourself...
You want men to care about you and vote to fix your problems then women should care about men's issues...
No one that I am aware of says that one fixes the other. People are saying that both sexes are still being screwed and some people find comfort in the fairness of that. As for wage inequality, laws have been created to address it going on 59 years now.
Overcharging for insurance is a greedy corporate asshole maneuver as Anarchitect previously suggested. It's not a woman versus man issue as you insinuated in your thread's clickbait of a title. It is not a "woman's law". Women aren't cheating men with this law. Insurance companies have been gouging people in general since the conception of insurance. Women were able to stop women from being gouged in one sector. Men need to stop men from being gouged in another sector and you could do it with the help of women.
You aren't going to get much help from women with anything if you keep creating arguments perpetuating the notion that women are being "given" preferential treatment or advantages in this or that aspect of life, which is why your other thread involving women and the right to vote turned into such a shit storm.finding comfort in both sexes getting screwed is pathetic... And the difference is that there are laws in place against women getting screwed so they have recourse... And they are women's laws because thats whom they protect...women speaking for women is cheered for and you see what I get when I do it for men.. The laws cheat men not women cheat men..that's why we can't do anything about it.. It would be political suicide to offer or vote for a law that took from women and gave to men, which is what a law preventing gender rating in places where men pay more would do ... We missed our chance at equal when the law didnt apply across the board to all policies instead of just the ones that cost women more...The door does not swing both ways...
You say women fixed a woman problem and men need to fix men's problems.. That sounds like you want us divided and fighting... What if the men before women could vote said that's a woman problem fix it yourself...
You want men to care about you and vote to fix your problems then women should care about men's issues...
chump said:
You want men to care about you and vote to fix your problems then women should care about men's issues...
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.
You want men to care about you and vote to fix your problems then women should care about men's issues...
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.
MaryWalker said:
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.no I can't buy from a company that charges women more as they should because there is a law against them doing it...
I don't even have the freedom to not buy health insurance without paying a huge fine....
And women didn't just say no thanks that's unfair so I don't think I will.... And grinding on is what determined people do to change things like the women did...in fact they ground so hard and so long that it is often referred to as fighting instead of grinding... So here's another pound...
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.no I can't buy from a company that charges women more as they should because there is a law against them doing it...
I don't even have the freedom to not buy health insurance without paying a huge fine....
And women didn't just say no thanks that's unfair so I don't think I will.... And grinding on is what determined people do to change things like the women did...in fact they ground so hard and so long that it is often referred to as fighting instead of grinding... So here's another pound...
chump said:no I can't buy from a company that charges women more as they should because there is a law against them doing it...
I don't even have the freedom to not buy health insurance without paying a huge fine....
And women didn't just say no thanks that's unfair so I don't think I will.... And grinding on is what determined people do to change things like the women did...in fact they ground so hard and so long that it is often referred to as fighting instead of grinding... So here's another pound...
I had to take off my Mary costume because Halloween is over.
Well, good luck with all that.
I don't even have the freedom to not buy health insurance without paying a huge fine....
And women didn't just say no thanks that's unfair so I don't think I will.... And grinding on is what determined people do to change things like the women did...in fact they ground so hard and so long that it is often referred to as fighting instead of grinding... So here's another pound...
I had to take off my Mary costume because Halloween is over.
Well, good luck with all that.
MaryWalker said:
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.
Hear! Hear!
It does work both ways, but you don't seem to get that. All you seem to care about is grinding on and on over some grand hypocrisy because men aren't being treated as equals in a few particular situations. Meanwhile, IF women can afford to, they can hire lawyers and file discrimination lawsuits that can drag out in court for years and be delayed for many more.
Being treated the same as a man by men versus being treated the same as a woman by a corporation: not really the same thing. Your problems aren't systematic going on for thousands of years now and will likely be fixed within your lifetime with little if any effort on your part.
In a future where transportation is becoming driverless, there will be little if any need for auto insurance from any gender. Life insurance on the other hand will probably be around forever and even then, it isn't mandatory - you have the option to say, "No thanks - your policy is discriminatory against men."
Just as you have the freedom to purchase health insurance from a company that charges women more.
Hear! Hear!
one thing about the suffragette movment in the US is its partly responsible for the tobacco companies gaining a female clientele.
I think it was Sig Freud's nephew who was tasked with bringing the female population into the tobacco industry. he staged a photo which showed a bunch of women having a smoke. ...it worked
now, no ones blaming women for all the tobacco related female deaths through the US post- suffragette but there may be merit in the argument that the women of that era were duped good and propper
so, while women gained a vote they also ( on some level ) ate the apple ..again
I think it was Sig Freud's nephew who was tasked with bringing the female population into the tobacco industry. he staged a photo which showed a bunch of women having a smoke. ...it worked
now, no ones blaming women for all the tobacco related female deaths through the US post- suffragette but there may be merit in the argument that the women of that era were duped good and propper
so, while women gained a vote they also ( on some level ) ate the apple ..again
lepperochan said:one thing about the suffragette movment in the US is its partly responsible for the tobacco companies gaining a female clientele.
I think it was Sig Freud's nephew who was tasked with bringing the female population into the tobacco industry. he staged a photo which showed a bunch of women having a smoke. ...it worked
now, no ones blaming women for all the tobacco related female deaths through the US post- suffragette but there may be merit in the argument that the women of that era were duped good and propper
so, while women gained a vote they also ( on some level ) ate the apple ..again
if they want more women to smoke they should just tell them they can't...
I think it was Sig Freud's nephew who was tasked with bringing the female population into the tobacco industry. he staged a photo which showed a bunch of women having a smoke. ...it worked
now, no ones blaming women for all the tobacco related female deaths through the US post- suffragette but there may be merit in the argument that the women of that era were duped good and propper
so, while women gained a vote they also ( on some level ) ate the apple ..again
if they want more women to smoke they should just tell them they can't...
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
