Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uiucuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk
From: falk@uiucuxc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Allstate Insurance says women do - (nf)
Message-ID: <22800020@uiucuxc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-May-84 17:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.22800020
Posted: Tue May 29 17:52:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 07:13:40 EDT
References: <134@mako.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:mako:-13400:uiucuxc:22800020:000:910
Nf-From: uiucuxc!falk    May 29 16:52:00 1984

#R:mako:-13400:uiucuxc:22800020:000:910
uiucuxc!falk    May 29 16:52:00 1984

[*]
Many of the respondents to this long running discussion on inequities of
car and/or life insurance rates are interested in "eliminating the discri-
mination" by making the insurance rates for both sexes equal--- are these
same people interested in eliminating inequities in insurance rates inter-
ested in eliminating inequities in *pay* between the sexes? 

It seems to be much easier to equalize the costs between the sexes (e.g.,
eliminating or reducing alimony or child support to working women) than
to equalize the benefits (ensuring that working women get paid the same
or comparable rates that working men do).

I am in favor of equalizing the benefits *first*, then worry about whether
or not females should be paying higher car insurance premiums (they will
be able to afford them, then!).
                                      -Connie
                                     (uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk)