Jump to content

Diamond and Shiela's Wheels


Murph
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do Diamond Car Insurance and Shiela's Wheels Car Insurance allow men on their policies? If so, then why advertise saying "just for women", and, if not, that's completley sexist. You can't hold up Car Insurance for one gender only, then complain about sexism. It makes no sense. Even if they do allow men on their policies, then that's flase advertising, which is even more stupid. Now, I'm a few years away from legally being allowed to drive a car, so could someebody explain to em why people need to make a Car Insurance Company for one gender only? Are there "Just for Men" Car Insurance policies? If so, that's also idiotic, although, I've never seen or heard of them.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Arent those type of companies around because on average women have less accidents than men?So that means that women will pay higher premiums for accidents caused by men, whereas if they're with a female only company they should be cheaper?

 

Thats the theory anyway, i dont think its sexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brick, although not put in the most eloquent of ways, has got a point.

 

I believe Sheila's Wheels do offer policies for men - they have to - but they simply deter men from taking policies with them. Similar to Diamond, but Diamond aren't as flagrant with it.

 

Do you remember that scam in "Lock Stock..."? The one where they set up a fake company and get people to send them cheques, they then send the cheques back but under a company name "Ass Ticklers Fudge Packing Express" or similar. It (technically) wouldn't be illegal what they're doing but they simply deter men from cashing those cheques.

 

The most galling thing is that the AA (I'm sure it was them - could be wrong though) published insurance figures that shows that over 65% of insurance claims were made by women and he RAC (or was it the AA..?) provided figures that showed more women were involved in accidents, and the Traffic Police late last year told us that women were the cause of more accidents and instructors from Advanced Driving Schools said that men consistently got higher scores than women.

 

And yet insurance companies can get away with this?

 

It's a by-product of that 1990's "low-brow feminism" movement. The movement that slowly, subtely, portrayed men as fools and women as superior. At everything.

 

Watch a 1990's advert (you could probably get one from LimeWire or something) and just watch time and again as men are made to look like idiots as women looked on smugly and get the spoils. From that drippy Daz house-husband to women gazumping men in business deals purely down to a throat lozenge to all those nauseating car adverts (especially for small cars) that show crappy, crap cars like a Fiat somehow, and in varying laughable scenarios, somehow trumping a BMW Coupe or something, which has a man driving it.

 

Suddenly men couldn't do anything anymore. They couldn't flirt in the office without being done for sexual harrassment, they couldn't get a high-paying job with women complaining about a glass ceiling, they could be taken for half of their life's earnings if they're wife suddenly decided to opt out of their marriage. The tale of woe goes on.

 

Magazines screamed at men in OUR magazines, "pleasure your woman" and screamed at women in THEIR magazines "expect a triple-orgasm or move on". Ridiculous, ridiculous articles.

 

Even though this garbage has cooled down the remnants of this are still prevelant today. There is still an idea that a woman has to "work harder" to make it in the workplace. What utter tripe! You cannot move for women where I work and all are on the same wage or more as I am. The board may not want to make you the MD due to the fact you haven't had a child yet and are 28 years old, not because you can't do the job...

 

We still have stupid, rubbishy cars that are all curvy and bubbly and feminine with "cute" features. Foods are sold due to their "Cancer curing properties". What a load of trash.

 

Sheila's Wheels are just another gimmick which will run out of steam in about 3 years time when women will be charged just as much as men for car insurance, due to:

 

1. More women than ever on the roads

2. All the cheapest cars around being designed specifically for women. Ford Ka, anyone? Matiz? 206? Clio?

3. "Men" cars being bigger and safer than ever. (3 Series, 350Z, Impreza)

 

I will admit there is a little way to go before women are truly, truly equal to men, but it's only a small amount. We're more equal than ever before these days.

 

Cheers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foods are sold due to their "Cancer curing properties". What a load of trash.

 

Why is that an issue in a male v female debate? Are you suggesting thats aimed at women as they're the only ones stupid enough to fall for it?

 

 

Poor old men, having to get used to partly sharing the power monopoly they've held since the dawn of time. I feel for you, I really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that an issue in a male v female debate? Are you suggesting thats aimed at women as they're the only ones stupid enough to fall for it?

 

 

Poor old men, having to get used to partly sharing the power monopoly they've held since the dawn of time. I feel for you, I really do.

Eh?

 

I don't get where you get your "power monopoly" argument from? I'm talking about sexism and how, during the 1990's, it was ok for role reversal. Instead of stamping out sexism completely it was better just to put the boot on the other foot.

 

Please don't mis-interpret/twist what I've said to suit your own needs.

 

These days it looks like things are getting better for both sexes, Sheila's Wheels excluded, of course.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you just going to ignore my question completely then?

 

And as for my argument? I take it you didnt realise the power gap that has always existed between men and women. I was making a sarcastic point to what i took to be a very long whinge on your part. And personally i think its bullshit if you think things are equal now. You want me to give specific examples of things that are male centric like you did for women? How about things like power tools being made for male hands? How about deoderant adverts that still feel the need to have a fully naked woman in them? It works both ways.

 

And christ I am sick to death of people on this place being so sodding patronising. It is possible to debate things without treating others like something you've stepped on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you just going to ignore my question completely then?

Ah yes, your -women are completely stupid to fall for foods being sold for cancer-prevention properties - point. Sorry I missed that.

 

Erm, to answer your question; since this pro-femme fad of the 1990s, it seems like foods are being sold in increasingly bizarre ways, and the main one is the "...can help prevent breast cancer", or the "...healthy heart" gubbins, which was never a selling point until the 1990's and until feminism spun out of control.

 

Food cannot help prevent cancer. Medication can not prevent cancer. Nothing can prevent cancer because we do not know what causes cancer. The only thing that stops cancer is having parts of your body that suffer from cancer cut from your body.

 

However, somehow *traditionally* female foods like Ryvita seem to all of a sudden have miraculous cancer-curing properties. I'm not accusing anyone of being stupid but it stinks.

 

And Ryvita was just an example, and not a specific one at that. But you get my drift.

 

And as for my argument? I take it you didnt realise the power gap that has always existed between men and women. I was making a sarcastic point to what i took to be a very long whinge on your part. And personally i think its bullshit if you think things are equal now.

It was a bit of a whinge, I guess - you're right. And I never said things were equal. I merely said they were more equal these days. And I am fully aware of the power gap and am not ignorant enough to know that the workplace has always been unfair negatively towards women, but I can also see it's far, far less so now.

 

The last two jobs I've have had lots of women working there. Doing exactly the same job as me on the same money. My supervisors and managers are mainly women, and the most competant people I've worked with are women.

 

My point was regarding the upper-echelon jobs like MD and CEO and upper management. Women are less likely to get these jobs for the simple fact that by the time most people are experienced enough and qualified enough to apply for these jobs is also the same age women want to have a baby.

 

And it's not unfair on women if they don't get these jobs due to the fact they have children. Men don't have children. Men (invariably) don't stay at home to raise a child/children for upwards of five years. Why should a woman, with five years less experience of upper-management get a job ahead of a man who's been doing the job for five years?

 

There isn't a glass ceiling as much any more, just a bio-degradable nappy. A pile of them at that.

 

You want me to give specific examples of things that are male centric like you did for women? How about things like power tools being made for male hands?

I'm glad you mentioned that, because I've discussed this already with a female friend already. It's mainly men who use power tools, that's why. No one is going to make a whole range of power tools designd specifically for women as a) they won't sell and b) women probably won't buy them anyway, as generally, women don't do DIY.

 

I could make women buy a powertool though: BoyoBrand Tools. I'd just rip-off Yorkie and stamp "Not for Girls" all over the packaging.

 

Trust me, if/when it becomes the norm for all electricians, builders, contracters, plumbers to be women you will then see smaller power-tools.

 

Why don't they make kitten-heeled slingbacks in bigger sizes, is what I say.

 

How about deoderant adverts that still feel the need to have a fully naked woman in them? It works both ways.

Hugo Boss: Style on Skin features a fully naked man (or is it Lacoste? Can't remember) running through his house naked. As does that "...with your loincloth" ad. You see the bare chest of a man in a men's deoderant ad but not in a woman's deoderant ad.

 

But flippancy aside, I see your point. The thing is, women are judged by what they look like, men are judged by what they do. So that's why in car ads, you see gorgeous women driving crappy little cars and you see very average looking, but obviously wealthy men driving BMWs.

 

And that's why in deoderant ads you see gorgeous women naked in the shower and men leaping from buildings onto a bus and through a window to get to work.

 

And christ I am sick to death of people on this place being so sodding patronising. It is possible to debate things without treating others like something you've stepped on.

I didn't mean to come across like that, I'm sorry if I did. :)

 

Cheers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, your -women are completely stupid to fall for foods being sold for cancer-prevention properties - point. Sorry I missed that.

 

Erm, to answer your question; since this pro-femme fad of the 1990s, it seems like foods are being sold in increasingly bizarre ways, and the main one is the "...can help prevent breast cancer", or the "...healthy heart" gubbins, which was never a selling point until the 1990's and until feminism spun out of control.

 

Food cannot help prevent cancer. Medication can not prevent cancer. Nothing can prevent cancer because we do not know what causes cancer. The only thing that stops cancer is having parts of your body that suffer from cancer cut from your body.

 

However, somehow *traditionally* female foods like Ryvita seem to all of a sudden have miraculous cancer-curing properties. I'm not accusing anyone of being stupid but it stinks.

 

And Ryvita was just an example, and not a specific one at that. But you get my drift.

 

I do understnad what you meant, but in the context of your statment i read it as that these products are being markets as such towards women as we're daft enough to fall for them. I agree that it is dumb to assume that food alone will cure cancer, but i think that whilst advertisers may be shilling these foods now as being the cure for all ills, i think also that they may not neccessarily just be towards women. Though it really does annoy me when adverts for places like slimming world only feature women, what men dont want to lose weight?!

 

 

It was a bit of a whinge, I guess - you're right. And I never said things were equal. I merely said they were more equal these days. And I am fully aware of the power gap and am not ignorant enough to know that the workplace has always been unfair negatively towards women, but I can also see it's far, far less so now.

 

The last two jobs I've have had lots of women working there. Doing exactly the same job as me on the same money. My supervisors and managers are mainly women, and the most competant people I've worked with are women.

 

My point was regarding the upper-echelon jobs like MD and CEO and upper management. Women are less likely to get these jobs for the simple fact that by the time most people are experienced enough and qualified enough to apply for these jobs is also the same age women want to have a baby.

 

And it's not unfair on women if they don't get these jobs due to the fact they have children. Men don't have children. Men (invariably) don't stay at home to raise a child/children for upwards of five years. Why should a woman, with five years less experience of upper-management get a job ahead of a man who's been doing the job for five years?

 

There isn't a glass ceiling as much any more, just a bio-degradable nappy. A pile of them at that.

 

As for things like that, i do agree that people should get the job on merit, regardless of sex. Even if that means a woman who may get pregnant and need time off, if she can do the job better than anyone else, then she should get it. But i don't think thats always the case. For example in the company i work for, the board is all male and all the directors of my office are male. There are women in senior consultancy positions, but the real power is still held by men. I can't see that changing for a while really, its the same as in politics, there still is a large lack of women in positions of political power (apart from Thatcher previously). Surely there must be some women who can do the job as well as the men? Im still not 100% sure that if two equally qualified people went for a job, it wouldnt be the man that got chosen over the woman. Maybe im paranoid, but i don't think the glass ceiling has been shattered yet. But at the same time, i dont agree with people putting together for example, short lists made up entirely of women simply to fill a quota. If it is a man who does the best job then he should be employed, but men shouldnt be picked simply because of being male.

 

I'm glad you mentioned that, because I've discussed this already with a female friend already. It's mainly men who use power tools, that's why. No one is going to make a whole range of power tools designd specifically for women as a) they won't sell and b) women probably won't buy them anyway, as generally, women don't do DIY.

 

Whats funny though now is that there is in fact a company that has been specifically set up because women find it difficult to use power tools. Its a fact now that more women live alone than ever before, and maybe it is time that more steps forward were taken so that they don't feel like they need a man to do certain jobs.

 

Why don't they make kitten-heeled slingbacks in bigger sizes, is what I say.

 

I agree with this, the pain i have getting shoes is incredible

 

Hugo Boss: Style on Skin features a fully naked man (or is it Lacoste? Can't remember) running through his house naked. As does that "...with your loincloth" ad. You see the bare chest of a man in a men's deoderant ad but not in a woman's deoderant ad.

 

But flippancy aside, I see your point. The thing is, women are judged by what they look like, men are judged by what they do. So that's why in car ads, you see gorgeous women driving crappy little cars and you see very average looking, but obviously wealthy men driving BMWs.

 

And that's why in deoderant ads you see gorgeous women naked in the shower and men leaping from buildings onto a bus and through a window to get to work.

 

I think that by and large sexism in the media is still rife, far more so than in the rest of life. Advertising is still firmly segregated between men and women, some of its humerous, other parts are incredibly annoying. Like deoderant adverts, or shower gel adverts. We all know how to roll on deoderant under our armpits, why do we need a naked woman to show us how?! I understand sex sells, really i do, but sometimes it undermines the product its selling.

 

 

I didn't mean to come across like that, I'm sorry if I did. :)

 

Cheers!

 

Thank you for that, I was just sparking off at you as its an issue thats been bugging me recently.

Edited by Popsi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm going to have an opinion on this and I am sure that it is going to stir up some sort of Male/female debate.

 

Now for the record I am an egalitarian (Please look it up before you sharpen knives.)

 

I am sick to f***ing death of people using sexism and power of the sexes as an excuse to display their own inner turmoil.

 

Fact: Most men do what their partners say, they want sex, women have always had all the power in social situations.

 

Fact: Men have dominated the workplace, politics etc for years.

 

The media is now female driven, we have soaps, reality shows and home improvement making life one big gossip mag.

 

I don't care about stars and their antics, yet for some reason I find it shoved down my throat, I find that I should be more like her gay mate, I find that if I show just one sign of being male I am cut down with bull**** like "Men have been in control"

 

I sit daily and listen to "Women are superior" rants at work, I turn on the TV and see Sheila's wheels and the indication that a Male Proud race such as the australians want to be a woman.

 

I do not want to be a woman, I want to love women for who they are, I have no problem, so why is it that I always seem to find women with problems?

 

Oh yes, of course, it's just another typical man rant! Get of your high horse B****! I spent most of the 90s watching my mom being passed over for promotion and being paid less than other people, it made me sick to my stomach that she could be treated that way as I know she deserved more.

 

I spent most of my coupling time encouraging my girlfriends to push past the crap and rise above the limits set down to them by men.

 

So don't start fobbing me off with that crap.

 

We all have personal issues we have to deal with and I am very comfortable with being male, I am not gay, I am not pretty, I don't want you to vote for me and I really don't care that you have less accidents.

 

Me being male is not the reason for the problems in your life, get over it, that excuse went with feminism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down, dears, it's only a commercial. :lol

 

I don't drive, but I suppose if they offered me the cheapest, I'd go with them. I actually see sexism quite a lot at work. Only it's often the women who put themselves in the minority group themselves. Anything that they consider to be difficult, they get the men to do. There's no reason they can't do it themselves, I did when I worked on production. It's a shame that some women who work in a male dominated industry still use the "feeble woman" card to get out of doing any hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have insurance with Diamond, it was the wifes policy and I was a named driver, we moved from them because they wacked the policy up by about £200 because I got 3 points on my licence. Would they have done the same if she'd got the 3 points on her licence is what I always wondered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have insurance with Diamond' date=' it was the wifes policy and I was a named driver, we moved from them because they wacked the policy up by about £200 because I got 3 points on my licence. Would they have done the same if she'd got the 3 points on her licence is what I always wondered.[/quote']

 

Yes, yes they would have.

 

Saz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...