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)