"First for Women" (an insurance company) is not considered sexist. If one were to start a company named "First for Blacks," would this be considered racist?

Asked by: odi
"First for Women" (an insurance company) is not considered sexist. If one were to start a company named "First for Blacks," would this be considered racist?
  • Its alright if you're inferior but its discrimination if you're equal.

    The world has had many issues with racism e.G. The USA, South Africa (apartheid). Black people are a lot more empowered in the 21st century and are in some countries even equal to other races therefore were we to start an insurance company in favor of Black people, would be considered racism.

    Women on the other had aren't generally considered to be equal all around the world and in most parts of the world they're fighting for their rights therefore to discriminate against men in their favor is considered okay.

    Posted by: odi
  • If the shoe is on the other foot, You say a=a, B=b, & a=b, Yet you say b=a is not possible. . . .

    If there were anything for "First for White", "First for Men", "First for White Men", Would the media outrage not filled with feminists and black democrats decrying racism and sexism? Would they not cry out that the "patriarchy" & "slave owning whites" are just being Nazis and White Supremacists? UTTER HYPOCRISY!

  • If First for Blacks had the same advertising campaign as 1st for women, then absolutely.

    Imagine if a first for men was created and it depicted a stereotypical women that only nags and knows nothing about the world outside of the kitchen or wardrobe, if I can find one woman that would honestly tell me that wouldn't be sexist, then 1st for women would not be sexist. So far it is.

  • Of course it's sexist and wrong

    If there was an insurance company just for men there would be up roar from women saying its sexist. I just can't understand people who think this is ok or say that women are not being sexist, only fighting for their rights. The white male seems to have the least rights these days

  • Total Utter Discrimination.

    If you watch the First For Women ads, they present men as these neanderthalic beings that only cause problems for women. They recklessly crash cars for no reason, they lose handbags and cause floods. I, for one, think that is wrong. You cannot create a discrimination-based business. It's wrong and it'll always be wrong. I bet if there was a First For Men, women would be up in arms protesting about discrimination. If said insurance presented ads where women were made to seem like she-devils or utter fools, there would be an uproar and the CEO of this insurance company would never set foor out of court. I don't think the insurance would last over 5 years. I think women are taking liberties and building a glass ceiling above a glass ceiling. It's total nonsense.

  • Wouldn't equality for non-essential differences, and discrimination based on relevant essential differences be easier?

    I am so tired of the use of red herrings and over-generalizations (both fallacies) being used as primary arguments and category descriptors. In this case race is a red herring, but sex is not.

    When dealing with premium, co-insurance, deductibles, prescription plans, etc., the insurance company policies are set by laws, actuarial data, and relevant health information about the individual covered customer. None of these things is based on generalizations about sex or 'race'. Insurance companies need to make money, so they actually use logic, relevant categories, and real information (as opposed to overgeneralizations) to set policy, prices, benefits, etc.

    Consider, there are actually universal biological differences between men and women. These differences affect what health issues and treatments are possible. (Women do not get prostate cancer, and men do not get ovarian cancer, etc.) The age ranges wherein very expensive and predictable procedures are likely to happen are different. (Most women get pregnant in their twenties and thirties. Men do not have a correspondingly common/predictable health requirement during that age range.) These differences determine how a set of insurance polices primarily for women would distribute risk, set premium rates for particular ages, and determine coverage rates/coinsurance, etc. It would also make a big difference in the distribution of medical specialties in the network, the negotiated rates for particular procedures/tests, etc. (Frankly, it would probably be much more expensive for young women than a more evenly distributed insurance pool, because it would have fewer young men in the pool, paying for coverage/care they are much less likely to use.)

    On the other hand, there are no health-relevant biological differences between the 'races' to any degree sufficient to enable prediction. Even susceptibility to skin cancer or sunburns is wildly dependent on the individual. (I have skin that is much darker than some of my 'Black' friends, and I am 'White.' )

  • Yes, racism era

    Yes, because in the olden days when Whites controlled Blacks, many blacks disliked that and wanted equality. First for Women is also wrong depending on what type of company it is but maybe the job they are looking for involves women talking to women whilst Blacks arent better than White and whites arent better. Sexism isnt right but in this case it depends on the job but yes, First for blacks is wrong because maybe a white man is more qualified.

  • No, its not racist its just affirmative action.

    Neither women or blacks are equal to white males even in western civilization so there should be a workplace only for them if they cant get a job elsewhere for the sole reason that they're not white males.
    It is not a good permanent solution and there are some long term negative effects but as a temporary fix it could help black people get a sense of independence , accomplishment and most importantly - a place to work.

  • I think affirmative action as a concept is flawed at its heart but...

    With the logic of "First For Women" not being sexist then "First For Blacks" cannot be racist, whether or not these companies are bad for discriminating against large portions of society is another question. That question is not really ever asked as everyone seems to have accepted that in order to combat the POSSIBILITY of discrimination we replace it with MANDATORY discrimination.

  • Forget the technicalities for a second.

    Strictly speaking a company that only provides services to a gender or a race is being sexist or racist. However, besides the technicality, sexism or racism cannot be treated the same way when you look from a position of domination or subservience. A white male limiting access to any kind of service to women and blacks is being sexist and racist. A woman limiting services to her gender is trying to balance an unbalanced situation. Same applies to blacks-only services. I do not think the specific issues of insurance are relevant here -women may be safer drivers and more careful homeowners, but the company can adjust her rates to reflect that without excluding a gender.

    Now I'm really curious to know whether that insurance company is run by women or men. Their website looks like a shameless marketing ploy. But we're discussing concepts here, not practical impact.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.