Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!dr_who
From: dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Supreme Court Decision
Message-ID: <681@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Jul-83 16:49:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.681
Posted: Sun Jul 10 16:49:13 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Jul-83 10:46:21 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 26

Darn!  pn@amd70.UUCP beat me to it!  It deserves repeating, though, that a
consistent application of the Court's opinion would make it unconstitutional
for auto insurers to discriminate against men.  But perhaps that doesn't
bother pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins).  She says:

	For those who still think it would be fair to charge a woman more or
	give her less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive her
	male counterpart:  This amounts to discriminating against an
	individual based on some generalization about members of the group. 

True, but so what?  Discrimination is only wrong when it is based on sex
(race, etc.) alone, or on the basis of a false generalization.  Insurance
companies don't discriminate against women *qua* women, they discriminate
between the sexes *qua* the expected cost to the company of insuring them.
And that, to me, is exactly the way they should be making decisions about
what rates to charge to whom.  It would be unfair to charge women as much
as men for auto insurance when it is known that men are responsible for more
accidents.  The statistical difference can be swept under the rug in the
name of equality, but not in the name of justice.

-- Paul Torek, U of MD College Park (no mail please: it won't get here)