More female privilege

[laughing dog]

It is if you let group averages change how you look at and treat individuals.

Not if you have to look and treat lots of individuals. Otherwise, you clearly think insurance plans and doctors are biased.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is if you let group averages change how you look at and treat individuals.

Not if you have to look and treat lots of individuals. Otherwise, you clearly think insurance plans and doctors are biased.

Insurance companies are. Being a young male means you will pay higher insurance premiums than if you were a young female, regardless of your individual circumstance.

This is something we accept, but really shouldn't. I think it will only be made an issue when it happens against protected minority groups.

I am curious what the reaction here would be if insurance companies made it standard practice to charge higher insurance premiums for black people, quoting statistics stating that black people are more likely to be involved in violence or criminal activity than white people. I imagine we would have a bit of a firestorm come from that. What if blacks are on average poorer and less likely to be able to meet payments on bank loans? Would that justify banks discriminating against individual black people for being black, regardless of their actual financial standing and history?

 

[laughing dog]

Not if you have to look and treat lots of individuals. Otherwise, you clearly think insurance plans and doctors are biased.

Insurance companies are. Being a young male means you will pay higher insurance premiums than if you were a young female, regardless of your individual circumstance.

Doctors use statistics when making diagnoses.

This is something we accept, but really shouldn't.

Insurance would be impossible to price without incorporating averages.

 

[Togo]

Not if you have to look and treat lots of individuals. Otherwise, you clearly think insurance plans and doctors are biased.

Insurance companies are. Being a young male means you will pay higher insurance premiums than if you were a young female, regardless of your individual circumstance.

This is something we accept, but really shouldn't. I think it will only be made an issue when it happens against protected minority groups.

It's not accepted in the EU, where the practice was banned last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

I am curious what the reaction here would be if insurance companies made it standard practice to charge higher insurance premiums for black people, quoting statistics stating that black people are more likely to be involved in violence or criminal activity than white people. I imagine we would have a bit of a firestorm come from that. What if blacks are on average poorer and less likely to be able to meet payments on bank loans? Would that justify banks discriminating against individual black people for being black, regardless of their actual financial standing and history?

Well, in the UK, the actuarial trade body protested on professional grounds, saying that prejudicial characteristics shouldn't be used as a shorthand for clusters of measureable attributes. As a result, actuaries will still refuse to sign off on insurance risk models based on skin colour, ethnicity, country of origin, language fluency or similar racial proxies. These can still be used in marketing campaigns however, and there is nothing to stop insurance companies targeting particular groups with particular rates.

 

[Toni]

So, are you calling for mandatory sentences, then?

No, and mostly for the reasons you state.

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Women should not get lighter sentences for being women, just as black men should not get harsher sentences for being black men. Both happen and both shouldn't.

You seem to be using sentences for white men as the standard for which sentencing should be based. Are white men the standards against which all things should be measured (except where biologically prohibited)?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, and mostly for the reasons you state.

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Women should not get lighter sentences for being women, just as black men should not get harsher sentences for being black men. Both happen and both shouldn't.

You seem to be using sentences for white men as the standard for which sentencing should be based. Are white men the standards against which all things should be measured (except where biologically prohibited)?

You seem to be straining to miss my point. Sentencing should not be based on race or gender.

 

[Toni]

You seem to be using sentences for white men as the standard for which sentencing should be based. Are white men the standards against which all things should be measured (except where biologically prohibited)?

You seem to be straining to miss my point. Sentencing should not be based on race or gender.

I'm not straining at all: I think what you are saying us that race and gender should not be factors on sentencing. You also seem to take the demographic: white male as the standard. For instance you don't say that white men receive lighter sentences than black men. Or that white men receive harsher sentences than women of any gender.

The fact is that race and gender and socioeconomic status play a role not only in sentencing but also in arrests and convictions.

 

[ksen]

No, and mostly for the reasons you state.

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Women should not get lighter sentences for being women, just as black men should not get harsher sentences for being black men. Both happen and both shouldn't.

You seem to be using sentences for white men as the standard for which sentencing should be based. Are white men the standards against which all things should be measured (except where biologically prohibited)?

duh

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You seem to be straining to miss my point. Sentencing should not be based on race or gender.

I'm not straining at all: I think what you are saying us that race and gender should not be factors on sentencing. You also seem to take the demographic: white male as the standard. For instance you don't say that white men receive lighter sentences than black men. Or that white men receive harsher sentences than women of any gender.

The fact is that race and gender and socioeconomic status play a role not only in sentencing but also in arrests and convictions.

It makes sense for one to use white males as the standard if one thinks that white males get the fairest treatment from the justice system and fair treatment for all is the end goal to work towards.

I know of nobody, for instance, who has ever argued that the disparity between arrest and conviction rates between whites and blacks means that we should be looking to throw more white people in jail to even things out, since how blacks are treated by the justice system isn't a standard to work towards and all of those who complain about the disparity see the treatment of blacks as the unfair thing which needs to be corrected.

Similarly, threads such as this one complaining out female privilege from the justice system are based on the premise that the courts are being unfairly lenient towards women and the sentences that they receive should be increased to be the equivalent of what they think a man would get in a similar situation as opposed to that the courts should be going easier on men and giving them the lighter sentences which they see women as getting.

 

[Toni]

Shouldn't the standard be justice? Not white male justice, but: justice?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Shouldn't the standard be justice? Not white male justice, but: justice?

Exactly.

So strop trying to push "white male" into everything. I wasn't even talking about white males.

And if you are wondering, no, I am not a white male.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Shouldn't the standard be justice? Not white male justice, but: justice?

Umm ... pretty much exactly the entire point. If the standard of justice that white males are receiving is superior to what everyone else is receiving, then the first goal should be to get everyone else up to that standard. Not because white males are receiving it, which is unrelated to the point, but because it's the best standard being received and everyone should enjoy that standard.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Shouldn't the standard be justice? Not white male justice, but: justice?

Umm ... pretty much exactly the entire point. If the standard of justice that white males are receiving is superior to what everyone else is receiving, ...

And if it isn't? If the standard for justice for white males is impunity for killing black men, that is better for white white men but not for justice, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am repeatedly amazed at how some people here on this forum who claim to be speaking for social justice and against racism and sexism, insist on keeping everything divisive on race and sex.

Here is what I said:

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Women should not get lighter sentences for being women, just as black men should not get harsher sentences for being black men. Both happen and both shouldn't.

Had I instead said this:

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Men should not get harsher sentences for being men, just as white people should not get lighter sentences for being white. Both happen and both shouldn't.

Then I would have been talking about white men, wouldn't I? Would the accusation really have been any different?

When you can't even say that we shouldn't be treated without bias, without being accused of bias, there is little more you can say.

 

[Toni]

I am repeatedly amazed at how some people here on this forum who claim to be speaking for social justice and against racism and sexism, insist on keeping everything divisive on race and sex.

Here is what I said:



Had I instead said this:

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Men should not get harsher sentences for being men, just as white people should not get lighter sentences for being white. Both happen and both shouldn't.

Then I would have been talking about white men, wouldn't I? Would the accusation really have been any different?

When you can't even say that we shouldn't be treated without bias, without being accused of bias, there is little more you can say.

Here's what you didn't say:

White men should not receive lighter sentences than black men just because they are white.

You also didn't say: white men shouldn't receive harsher sentences than women just because they are white men.

It seems to me that you see the sentences for white men to be the norm or the standard. It is understandable because 'white male' seems to be the default 'norm.'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Umm ... pretty much exactly the entire point. If the standard of justice that white males are receiving is superior to what everyone else is receiving, ...

And if it isn't? If the standard for justice for white males is impunity for killing black men, that is better for white white men but not for justice, wouldn't you agree?

What?

The standard to go for is fair justice. If white males tend to get that more often than everyone else, then a first goal is to get everyone else, in general, to be treated at least with the same standards as white males are by the justice system so that all races and genders are treated equally and in the fairest way.

That in no way even marginally implies, by any usage of logic, that every instance of treatment of white males is therefore fair. If they get unfairly lenient treatment in some cases, then those are instances of unfair treatment which need to be be dealt with the exact same as every other instance of unfair treatment in regards to any other group. Saying that white males get treated more fairly simply means that there are less instances of cases where these corrections need to be made amongst their group than one would find amongst any other group.

 

[Sabine Grant]

How does this sidebar discussion polarizing on "white men" applies to the SPECIFIC case from the Op which does not involve a "white man", but a white female whose sentencing was influenced by her status as caregiver to 6 minor children who would have had to be placed in separate foster homes for a duration of 10 months and face undue hardship, had she been sentenced to detention in jail versus home confinement?

The Op has failed to build a case justifying his claim of a "female privilege" motivated sentencing of Vela. (especially in view of the title "More female privilege"). I am not seeing any privilege attached to the case presented in the OP. Whether it be racial or gender.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's what you didn't say:

White men should not receive lighter sentences than black men just because they are white.

You also didn't say: white men shouldn't receive harsher sentences than women just because they are white men.

Nor did I say: Black women receive harsher sentences than white women.

Nor did I say: Black women receive lighter sentences than black men.

I specifically mentioned women, because we showed studies upthread showing women getting lighter sentencing than men due to what the researchers call "Chivalry", and I specifically referenced black men, because they have the worst of both biases.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

s failed to build a case justifying his claim of a "female privilege" motivated sentencing of Vela. (especially in view of the title "More female privilege"). I am not seeing any privilege attached to the case presented in the OP. Whether it be racial or gender.

Hard to prove for a specific case, but he trend is real. The only evidence anybody posted was the studies I posted a link to a page or so ago. Chivalry (gender bias) is real in sentencing.

 

[Toni]

Here's what you didn't say:

White men should not receive lighter sentences than black men just because they are white.

You also didn't say: white men shouldn't receive harsher sentences than women just because they are white men.

Nor did I say: Black women receive harsher sentences than white women.

Nor did I say: Black women receive lighter sentences than black men.

I specifically mentioned women, because we showed studies upthread showing women getting lighter sentencing than men due to what the researchers call "Chivalry", and I specifically referenced black men, because they have the worst of both biases.

Like I said: you (and a lot of people) really don't quite get that the standard or baseline against which everyone is measured is white male.