Sally Haslanger and Sexist Stereotyping

[Seraph]

A while back I posted this question:

“A state legislator recently came to the local high school. Naturally,
teenage boys and girls tend to be convinced that the world is out to
get their gender exclusively. One of the boys asked why it was okay
for the insurance company to charge him three times as much as they
charged his sister for car insurance. Apparently she’s a reckless
driver and he’s a shut-in who hardly uses his car. The legislator said
that it was a double standard but that there was no gain in attacking
it. Instead of lowering the price for men the insurance company would
simply raise the price for women and then nobody would benefit.

Is this justification for what the legislator allowed as generalizing,
stereotyping, and straight sexism acceptable in a modern society? What
about the feminist movement? Is it possible that instead of placing
new value in women it’s simply devaluing men? If so is it acceptable?
Should we try a new more idealistic approach to equality?”

Sally Haslanger provided me with this answer:

“It seems to me that the legislator is misrepresenting the argument
for charging young men more than young women. The argument is that
insurance companies calculate risks based on statistics they gather
about groups. Even though the brother and sister are exceptions to the
generalizations, the generalizations about dangerous driving are
statistically sound, and when calculating risks it is reasonable to
rely on generalizations. You are unlucky if you are an outlier in your
group, but the existence of an outlier doesn't make it wrong for the
insurance companies to use the best statistics they can gather.
Whether or not you agree with the conclusion about relying on
generalizations, the point isn't about gender at all. It's about how
to calculate risk and whether insurance companies should be entitled
to charge individuals more if they are in a high-risk group. If we
assume that insurance companies are permissible, then I can't see how
they can not rely on generaliations, since they wouldn't be able to
function otherwise. As far as I can see it, there is no double
standard, stereotyping, or sexism here and the legislator is
misguided.
On the latter set of questions you raise, it is a common complaint
against feminism that it simply reverses the historical devaluation of
women and instead values women at the expense of men. I see no
evidence of this in the example or in the broader feminist movement.
If you think it is true, then it would be interesting to discuss a
different case.”

However, I don’t see her point. Does she intend to say that sexist
generalizations are acceptable so long as they’re statistically
supported? Well, statistically men are more reliable employees than
women who're more likely to: Get pregnant, take maternal leave, sue
for sexual harassment, or unexpectedly quit for 'emotional reasons.'
That's simply statistical.

What about police officers who assume the guilt of an African American
over a Caucasian in light of the fact that black men/women are
statistically more likely to engage in violent crimes? Why can’t a
police officer rely on racial statistics to calculate risk if car
insurance companies can rely on gender-related statistics to calculate
risk?

Why can’t an employer note that men are statistically-for basic
physiological as well as sociological reasons-more reliable long term
employees and invest accordingly? It’s okay for insurance companies
to do so, you know, as long as it’s against men.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that women and African Americans are
oppressed. I mean, it wasn’t even 80 years ago that we were injecting
them with syphilis. It wasn’t fifty years ago that we were protesting
their rights to marry Caucasians. Today they make up 13% of our
population and yet 50% of our prison population. As far as
discrimination against women, it began long before American slavery
and lasted long afterwards. African Americans got suffrage and full
citizen rights before women. They beat women into the senate, the
house of representatives, and the white house. Today women are being
paid less money than men for the same job. They’re objectified non-
stop by television and even the media.

Honestly, if you don’t think racism against blacks or sexism against
women exists try posing as a women/black with a voice modifier over an
anonymous internet nexus. Any will do, play some x-box live! Women
and blacks are treated differently, often in a derogatory fashion.

Still, in this case I see no difference between police profiling
blacks, employers stiffing female employees in pay, and the insurance
companies stiffing male in billing. How is it in any way different?
Why should we accept this form of sexist stereotyping and profiling
and generalizing but not others? Just because this one happens to be
against men?

[David J Bailey]

I think there are significant differences among those cases though...

The employer is evaluating people on a by-person basis for a
particular position: discrimination based on gender is much less
defensible than simply checking the person's suitability for the job -
something the employer must do anyhow. In the case of pregnancies,
discriminating against women because they may become pregnant is
something that I imagine would prove detrimental to society as a
whole, and so I imagine it should be protected against (even if it's
affects need to be ameliorated somehow.)

Similarly, racial profiling is a strategy that would detrimental
effects - it could potentially cause the situation it's exploiting.
What's worse is that by doing so it actively hurts those it affects.

I don't see how either case applies to the insurance situation, where
is DOES seem to be a simple case of statistics. Charging men more for
car insurance, because most men are in more serious accidents and so
require greater payouts, seems generally fair. If a particular driver
is safe then perhaps they might want to go with a company that has
significant safe driving bonuses.

I don't think you can equate the situations without first arguing
clearly WHY each one is wrong and should not be done. Or at least, if
someone argues that one situation is okay, the argument that it is
prima facie similar to the others isn't really enough.

[Seraph]

That’s fascism; you’re sacrificing the individuals for the greater-
good. The boy in my example is a better driver than most females.
Simply because he’s male he’s being charged more. This is not
statistical at all. The boy is not statistically more likely to get
into a car accident. On the contrary, he’s statistically less likely
based on his history. Men in general are more likely to get into
serious car accidents, true, but this particular boy is not. Why
should we sacrifice him because of what somebody else did?

You say that racial profiling would be over all detrimental to
society? That’s not true. It’s over all detrimental to the
minorities but beneficial to the majority. It’s over all better for
society. You can sacrifice these individuals to provide security for
the masses. This is also fascism. You’re perfectly happy to
acknowledge that men are statistically more likely to get into serious
accidents.

Well, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. So, if an
insurance company can say ‘he’s more likely to get into an accident
take pre-emptive measures and assume he fits into the stereo-type,’
why can’t a police officer say ‘he’s more likely to commit violent
crimes, take pre-emptive measures and assume he fits into the stereo-
type’?

It –is- the same thing. In both cases we’re using statistics behind
our generalization, but since when does that justify generalizations?
Stereotypes aren’t just made up. They’re based on a general
observation which is then assumed to be universally true among an
entire group.

Insurance companies observe that generally more men get into serious
car accidents. They stereotype that men are dangerous drivers and
then we give them un-equitable treatment based on that stereotype.
Police officers observe that generally African Americans commit more
violent crimes. They stereotype that blacks are dangerous citizens
and then give them un-equitable treatment based on that stereotype.

It –is- the exact same thing. Actually, many states have barred
insurance companies from doing this because they acknowledge that it’s
simply prejudice generalizing defended with fascistic logic. You have
not yet pointed out a single difference between the situations.
Insurance companies evaluate customers on a by-person basis as well.
Actually, they’re able to do this to a greater degree than employers
because unlike employers insurance companies can check your credit.

I'm sorry, you have yet to refute my point and I don't think you've
offered a strong argument.

[David J Bailey]

I'll grant you have some good points, though you seem to be in love
with the word "fascist" - I'm not sure how well it applies here (since
I don't see that we're talking about totalitarianism.)

I still don't see that it's the exact same thing, except in broad
general terms. If your argument is that the broad general terms is
enough - that ANY discrimination based on statistical generalization
is a bad thing then I think you have yet to fully make that argument.
(Note: I'm using discrimination in the meaning of selection, not with
the usual negative connotation.)

However, if you're right and it is always bad, then that's fine.
Insurance companies should not discriminate based on statistics, and
should start each driver off on roughly the same basis... I should
note that the original speaker is then correct: for that to make sense
the overall price would have to be raised, and then individual prices
adjusted according to personal driving history. The original speaker
wasn't necessarily discriminatory, simply not completely clear.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that the
similarities in the cases are enough, and that any form of
discrimination (negative or non-negative) based on statistical
generalization is a bad thing? If that's so then I have to say that
I'd like to agree with you, but I have a bit of a problem with broad
sweeping generalizations. They're good rules of thumb, but their
individual applications should still be examined.

[Seraph]

“You seem to be in love with the word fascism.” Why do you always run
into argumentative tactics like these on the internet? An African
American can’t say, “I’ve been discriminated against so I can relate
to X” without people accusing him of “using the race card.” You can’t
compare a genocide to Hitler’s campaign-even if they’re exactly
similar-without somebody making a condescending remark about “Godwin’s
Law.”

Whatever the case this is about what’s true not who’s right. So,
rather or not I have a fetish for the word fascism is actually
irrelevant. Still, let’s wander off for a moment so I can address
your other comment. I obviously didn’t mean that insurance companies
are a militarily enforced totalitarian governmental system. I was
pointing out that the logic of “the greater benefit of society,” is
the same logic employed in fascist agendas. Take a look at the
Palestinian Fatah.

Back to the point: I don’t think that all forms of discrimination
based on statistics are bad nor did I insinuate that. I think maybe I
should go back and re-read my posts because right now it feels like
you’re twisting my words. I’d rather we keep this honest instead of
engaging into a spin war.

I was simply asking: in what way are these two cases different other
than one is discriminating against women and one is discriminating
against men? Why is discrimination against men in insurance bills
accepted but not discrimination against women in payroll? You said
that it’s because discrimination against women is over all detrimental
to society. You have yet to prove that. You said racial profiling is
detrimental to society. I beg to differ, what if we’d racially
profiled the guys who bombed the twin towers? We would’ve probably
avoided this superfluous war that’s wasting our resources and speeding
our decline.

[David J Bailey]

"what if we’d racially profiled the guys who bombed the twin towers?"

Then you'd have included in that segment a number of people who have
valid and excellent contributions to society, you would have limited
their freedoms beyond the normal acceptable limits and essentially
negated the "innocent if proven guilty" idea of justice. The same goes
for any racial profiling in terms of law. THAT precedent I would say
harms the wider society.

In the case of payroll discriminating against women I think that it
may be detrimental to society because it may well engender a sense of
inferiority and a sense that women are less able than men to do the
same job. If a young woman is career oriented and has no intention of
getting pregnant, and also seems to be taking appropriate precautions,
then I would say that paying her a smaller salary because she may get
pregnant seems to be discriminatory. And yes, there is a parallel to
be drawn with your Insurance example - you're charging the young man a
higher initial premium because he is statistically more likely to get
in an accident.

However, the parallel ends there. While you could well say "both types
of discrimination are bad and should be legislated against" and I
wouldn't complain, I would object if you said that: "they are the
same". Because, the effect of a lower salary for the same job is much
different than the effect of a higher initial premium. A higher
initial premium, if I'm paying for my insurance, may well encourage me
to drive safer and avoid situations in which I might get in accidents.
Leading to a safe driving record and lower future premiums. A lower
initial - or worse, continual - salary than a male counterpart may
lead to resentment and the idea that my work is not seen to be as
valuable or as necessary as that of men (on the behalf of a woman.)

Again, I don't disagree that the situations should be examined, or
even that men should perhaps pay the same initial premium as women
(with the understanding that women would, as a consequence, pay a
higher initial premium than they currently do.) What I *do* disagree
with is this idea that somehow this situation is THE SAME AS gender
discrimination with respect to jobs or racial profiling. It's quite
similar in the former and VERY different in the latter, but not the
same.

Btw, my response with respect to fascism was only because I didn't
quite understand how it applied. You could just have easily said
"That's sacrificing individuals for the greater good" with a brief
argument against such a thing, without introducing a word which most
often is thrown about as a preface to an ad hominem attack. I also
have to point out that your last argument about racial profiling also
fits the definition of sacrificing individuals for the greater good,
and I have to agree with you that that is a bad thing in general.

[Seraph]

“A higher initial premium, if I'm paying for my insurance, may well

encourage me
to drive safer and avoid situations in which I might get in

accidents,”

By the same reasoning you could say that a lower initial salary may
well encourage you to work harder and avoid irresponsible behaviors
such as-say, getting drunk the night before work, doing drugs, or
behaving in a way that may be detrimental to your health. Actually,
it’s a typically leadership tactic to start good employees lower on
the totem pole. This way they can work their way up.

On the other hand I might argue that giving the sister in my example a
lower initial premium, if she’s paying for her insurance, has the
opposite effect and encourages her to drive recklessly and ignore
situations that might get her into accidents. I mean, it’s only
logical. If higher rates mean fewer accidents in relation to lower
rates then lower rates must mean more accidents in relation to higher
rates.

So, basically what you’re saying is that higher insurance premiums
encourage people to drive safer. While I have yet to see any
statistics asserting this, I’ll assume it’s true. So what, that
actually supports the idea that insurance companies should be forced
to base their rates on performance not gender. That way they’re
actually addressing the bad drivers instead of wasting the bulk of
their efforts on good drivers.

A dad has a son and a daughter. The son is timid and doesn’t get into
fights. The girls a ragamuffin tom-boy who’s constantly getting into
scuffles at school. Which child should the father punish in order to
discourage such reckless behavior in the future? According to the
insurance companies policy, the boy’s going to get the shaft simply
because he’s a boy.

“If a young woman is career oriented and has no intention of getting

pregnant, and also seems to be taking appropriate precautions, then I
would say that paying her a smaller salary because she may get

pregnant seems to be discriminatory.”


How is the employer supposed to know that she has no intention of
getting pregnant? More importantly, how is he supposed to know if she
makes her boyfriend wear a condom? He certainly can’t ask her. So,
from his perspective she’s still way more likely than a man to get
pregnant. Even if we do finish what Bill Clinton and George Bush
started and abolish that pesky right to privacy condoms aren’t
perfect. They’re 98% effective, but 2% of the time they fail. On a
small scale that’s negligible, on an industrial scale it’s
significant.

“Then you'd have included in that segment a number of people who have
valid and excellent contributions to society,”

That’s also true of insurance companies including all men within their
sweeping generalization. The fact is that most men, most people in
general, aren’t going to get in a serious car accident. Otherwise
insurance companies would go out of business. Yet, they’re being
included in that segment as though they were going to get into a
serious accident. Not some men, not men with bad records, all men-the
vast majority of which will get into a fender bender at worst.

“You would have limited their freedoms beyond the normal acceptable
limits,”

Not necessarily. First off, who’s to say what’s normal and
acceptable? Personally I think that anybody who would trade freedom
for security deserves neither and will lose both. I don’t think there
is really an acceptable level of trespassing on my rights and
freedoms. As the constitution says, it’s self evident that no
government should abridge these freedoms. As a matter of a fact the
government exists to protect these freedoms and rights, including the
right to equal treatment. I think the government is failing me where
insurance companies are being concerned.

“And essentially negated the "innocent if proven guilty" idea of
justice”

Only so far as investigating the suspect of a crime negates the
innocent until proven guilty idea of justice. I’m not saying gather
them in droves and lock them up like they’re a Jap in the 1940s. I’m
saying investigate them. We would’ve discovered that one of those guys
had a bomb in his shoe.

“THAT precedent I would say harms the wider society.”

I disagree, it precedents a harm only to the minority group being
discriminated against. How am I in any way affected if we
discriminate against women, blacks, or Muslims? I’m a white male
Christian. Lucky me, huh? I also happen to be a member of every
majority group-except, of course, I’m not a democrat.

“In the case of payroll discriminating against women I think that it

may be detrimental to society because it may well engender a sense of
inferiority and a sense that women are less able than men to do the

same job.”


You’re completely right but this is yet another way that the two
examples are entirely similar to the point of being exactly the same.
Why is it not okay to risk creating a sense that women are less able
to do something than men but it is okay to do the opposite?

There are just some of the ways we’ve covered that they’re the same:

1. Both take money from the hands of deserving citizens simply because
their gender
2. Both use this money for the growth of a discriminatory company’s
growth
3. Both give a handicap to undeserving individuals simply because of
their gender
4. Both divide people based on genetically predetermined factors
instead of actions
5. Both spread stereotypes
6. Both justify prejudice generalization against a specific gender
7. Both used elements of the fascists ideology to defend themselves
with the argument of the greater good
8. As an extension of number seven both treat people like resources
instead of individuals
9. Each is a form of industrial prejudice
10. Both are discrimination
11. Both are actually about making money


So, how are they different again? Other than the fact that one's
against man the other woman, I mean.

[David J Bailey]

Let me try this again, and try to deal with the original question from
my point of view (and follow up on some of your responses at the end):

I think that monetary discrimination against men in the specific
example of charging them a higher premium may be more acceptable than
discrimination against women or other races for two reasons.

The first is that the effect of the particular discrimination isn't
particularly crippling, and the discrimination is against a group that
is traditionally seen as privileged. Discrimination against the haves
raises less ire than discrimination against the have-nots. Note, this
doesn't establish the moral value (or lack thereof) of the
discrimination. In fact, it's a mainly unexamined position and so I'd
say it's not a good one - but it is a likely explanation. (Note: I'm
not *agreeing* with this explanation, just saying it is likely.)

The second is partly what I've been saying: that charging a group for
a service based on statistics as opposed to individual consideration
may not be particularly morally wrong; the moral rightness or
wrongness of it needs to be examined. If there is choice in the
service then the buyer is free to choose a provider that is less
discriminatory, or not partake of the service at all. If neither
choice is possible, and the discrimination can be shown to have moral
consequences then certainly such discrimination should be made
illegal.

In your last set of responses though I think that there are a couple
reasoning errors in your argument. To say that A implies B, that
higher premiums may cause drivers to drive better (so as to lower
their premiums), is not to say that not-A implies not-B, that is: it
does NOT follow that lower premiums cause drivers to drive worse.
You're free to make that case, just like I made the case that higher
premiums may have a positive effect, but you can't INFER it from my
example.

Also, you can't quite compare the case of women's salaries and men's
insurance premiums. It may be quite possible for the man's premium to
reach levels comparable with women of similar driving history... BUT,
part of the problem of women making less than men is that it tends to
persist in every level of employment - women generally make less than
men who have the same experience and performance. The comparison is
NOT apples to apples.

Finally, the issue of investigating people based on race being morally
BAD for society and a violation of the "innocent unless proven guilty"
principle hinges on what is deemed reasonable evidence. Statistics and
profiling are generally NOT deemed reasonable evidence and are
generally deemed negatively discriminatory. Part of the problem is
that the entire issue is not clear cut and clearly defined. How you
choose who are your initial suspects, and what is legitimate
investigation as opposed to what is harassment tends to need to be
revised, examined, and decided time and time again.

Apart from those, just a clarification: when I said normal and
acceptable freedoms I do mean that there are freedoms that you give up
and don't complain about. People generally don't run around naked, use
public spaces as restrooms or do any number of things that some might
consider "freedoms".

If you're making the point that men having higher premiums should be
legislated against then I'd say you may well have a point, but your
examples seem to make for good rhetoric, not particularly good
arguments (at least as thus far presented, and to me.)