Sexist Apple Credit Cards

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

Similar in CA law, too, apparently, per Scott, Wagner, and Associates article on AI in the workplace:

"So even if a company does not intend to discriminate, its over-reliance on algorithms and AI to recruit new candidates may effectively constitute illegal discrimination by screening out certain individuals based on their protected traits – like age, religion, national origin, gender, disability, religion, or race."

 

 

Seriously that is one of the single most stupid laws i've ever heard of.

 

As a sort of example of the stupidity this could cause. You have a secretarial job that requires a mixture of handwritten notes and computer typing. If you set a requirement that the handwriting must be in legible english with proper grammar and spelling without the use of a computer spellchecker, (not super common these days but was a thing not very long ago), then you would automatically be discriminating against a huge subset of disabilities which would make attainment of such capability impossible.

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

Seriously that is one of the single most stupid laws i've ever heard of.

 

As a sort of example of the stupidity this could cause. You have a secretarial job that requires a mixture of handwritten notes and computer typing. If you set a requirement that the handwriting must be in legible english with proper grammar and spelling without the use of a computer spellchecker, (not super common these days but was a thing not very long ago), then you would automatically be discriminating against a huge subset of disabilities which would make attainment of such capability impossible.

There's likely a subsection that states within "reasonable assistance". This state has such a clause. Also, your employer can't bar you from using spellcheckers unless he's looking for stupid mistakes to strike. 

[Taf the Ghost]

I still keep reading the title as "Sexiest Apple Credit Card" and expecting some gold in-laid foil design pictures.

[ARikozuM]

11 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I still keep reading the title as "Sexiest Apple Credit Card" and expecting some gold in-laid foil design pictures.

Like some Yugioh card?

 

[Bombastinator]

43 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

Seriously that is one of the single most stupid laws i've ever heard of.

 

As a sort of example of the stupidity this could cause. You have a secretarial job that requires a mixture of handwritten notes and computer typing. If you set a requirement that the handwriting must be in legible english with proper grammar and spelling without the use of a computer spellchecker, (not super common these days but was a thing not very long ago), then you would automatically be discriminating against a huge subset of disabilities which would make attainment of such capability impossible.

It sort of makes sense, because accidentally  on purpose has been a thing for a long time.  You get situations where “you can’t prove we did it on purpose” makes it effectively legal.

 

Not saying there isn’t a problem.  Machine learning is new though.  This is the kind of problems that happen with the law and new things.  Personal privacy and big data should have had much better protections for example, but right now there is sort of a genie/bottle situation with that.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Some of us have a CC for the additional protection it gives us, particularly here in Europe. If we buy something, the CC company are jointly responsible whether you have paid it off in full of not. For instance, I would never purchase a holiday of flight on my debit card, only on the CC. If I then pay it off in full I am still able to get a full refund should the airline or holiday company go under. Here, anything over £100 is covered under the act. So if all goes wrong with the supp,iTR, you can get recompense from the CC company. I am sure that in the land of plenty the same exists, not so certain about the US.

I get those protections with my debt card which acts like  CC for purchasing but has no fees or interest.   

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

There's likely a subsection that states within "reasonable assistance". This state has such a clause. Also, your employer can't bar you from using spellcheckers unless he's looking for stupid mistakes to strike. 

 

That the catch, is there such a clause ad how well written is it. Personally i have to wonder if this isn't a result of some weird overflow error in the calculations since it seems to be only confirmed with the ultra rich and the difference feels too great to be either deliberate or intended, and an error tied to a situation that should give a very high limit that instead causes a low limit is exactly the sort of thing that could slip through Q&A as it would be such a freak outlier.

 

Also the spellchecker thing is more a "what if from around the turn of the millenium" it wasn't really until post somtime that truly robust spellcheckers became a routine thing. SO it wouldn't be so much the employer forbidding their use in the scenario described as them just not being avalibuile unless he company forked out extra.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

It sort of makes sense, because accidentally  on purpose has been a thing for a long time.  You get situations where “you can’t prove we did it on purpose” makes it effectively legal.

 

Not saying there isn’t a problem.  Machine learning is new though.  This is the kind of problems that happen with the law and new things.  Personal privacy and big data should have had much better protections for example, but right now there is sort of a genie/bottle situation with that.

 

As the reply above me said, if there's a within good reason clause thats robustly enough written it's not an issue. The problem comes if thats absent or very poorly written as there are times when using those parameters, (e.g. for a wet nurse if you want a sex based one), or one's directly based off them, (like the the young males and car insurance), are completely reasonable things to do with actual factual factors to back them up. I don't think thats whats happening here, (i suspect a bug of some sort that got past Q&A), but there are going to be times when it is reasonable.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I get those protections with my debt card which acts like  CC for purchasing but has no fees or interest.   

It has been interesting to look up consumer protection around the world. Here in the UK we only get protections on CC where the card company have joint liability. It means many buy on CC then pay it off immediately so get no fees or interest. But IMO the protection should be extended to debit cards. In Australia that appears to be the case. It does seem to be a country that leads in consumer protection in many areas although the automotive regulators seem to lack the cajones to go against the car industry at times. The US seems to have quite weak consumer protection. Many states do have rules where you can return an item within a fixed period no questions asked and it seems many people get stuff just to try it as a result. This leaves a big refurb market there, but it is also used as an excuse for lack of ongoing consumer rights. Some CC companies in the US offer legal cover but it is not compulsory and works very differently to joint liability. Inevitably it involves making money for blood sucking parasites (lawyers) instead of protecting consumers.

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, Commodus said:

To be clear, though, the New York Department of Financial Services said that intent on Goldman Sachs' part doesn't necessarily matter -- it's the outcome that does.  If the end result is that a woman gets a tiny credit limit for no good reason, officials will still tell Goldman Sachs to fix things.

 

It's also important to keep in mind that discrimination in algorithms isn't always blatant.  For example, a healthcare algorithm was recently giving black people less money for treatment regardless of the severity of their conditions.  Why?  The algorithm emphasized medical costs, not the actual need, and that hurt historically lower-income black communities.  It wasn't intentional, but it had the same effect.  It's possible that Goldman has a similar problem.

See I agree and disagree with this. Just because the outcome has a disparity between different groups does not mean it is bad. What matters is how it happened and why. If it happens to be an arbitrary reason then yeah it should be fixed but if it is a situation where there are legitimate reasons for the difference then it should probably stay the same. Now it looks like this is a case where it seems arbitrary and should be fixed but saying that the outcome is all that matters is not ok in my opinion. Say for instance a particular group happened to have worse credit on average then other groups and as a result had statistically lower credit limits as a group. If it is merely the case that those with bad credit in the group have lower limits then it should be seen as an ok outcome even though there is a disparity statistically between that group and other groups. Now if the group as a whole was to automatically have lower limits simply because they are part of that group that tends to have bad credit then it is not ok more so because of the reasoning not the outcome. The only reason I am wary of this is because there are some people who want equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. It's ironic because equal outcome usually destroys equal opportunity. You see things like asians being discriminated against because they tend to preform better academically and have had a large population in ivy league schools as a result and to counteract this outcome of there being many asians in those schools they put up higher standards for acceptance compared for them to other applicants. Because they are so fixated about making sure the outcome is equal they make it harder for asians to get in even if they are more qualified. The funny thing is by even taking race or gender into account when accepting applicants is inherently racist and sexist. 

[amdorintel]

On 11/10/2019 at 6:56 PM, ARikozuM said:

algorithms

every credit card

every bank loan

every bank

any loan type

 

uses algorithms

that is why a credit score is useless, banks use their own algorithms to see what your credit worthiness is.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

It has been interesting to look up consumer protection around the world. Here in the UK we only get protections on CC where the card company have joint liability. It means many buy on CC then pay it off immediately so get no fees or interest. But IMO the protection should be extended to debit cards. In Australia that appears to be the case. It does seem to be a country that leads in consumer protection in many areas although the automotive regulators seem to lack the cajones to go against the car industry at times. The US seems to have quite weak consumer protection. Many states do have rules where you can return an item within a fixed period no questions asked and it seems many people get stuff just to try it as a result. This leaves a big refurb market there, but it is also used as an excuse for lack of ongoing consumer rights. Some CC companies in the US offer legal cover but it is not compulsory and works very differently to joint liability. Inevitably it involves making money for blood sucking parasites (lawyers) instead of protecting consumers.

Consumer protection in the car industry can be a joke here at times, however our ADR are very strict (some cars can't be sold here because they are not safe enough).  Trying to get a dealer to refund a new car because it has too many problems is hard and the dealerships can be very sleazy and underhanded ( I am sure they are everywhere).

[amdorintel]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Consumer protection in the car industry can be a joke here at times, however our ADR are very strict (some cars can't be sold here because they are not safe enough).  Trying to get a dealer to refund a new car because it has too many problems is hard and the dealerships can be very sleazy and underhanded ( I am sure they are everywhere).

yup so true, even usa and canada has vehicles not allowed to be imported due to safety concerns

new stealerships will be easier to deal with then used, thats for sure.

too bad the auto industry has lobbied for their own favor

[mr moose]

Just now, amdorintel said:

too bad the auto industry has lobbied for their own favor

And to their own detriment, instead of lobbying for a fairer playing field and better more rounded laws to protect the industry they let the unions push labors prices through the roof then pissed off enough Australian's that we have lost manufacturing.  All we have now are design and R+D teams in Australia.  Yeah its great to say some of the worlds best cars are developed here, but not built.   Just goes to show we are a tech country built on resources money. 

 

 

New dealers are just as bad as used car dealer nowadays.  especially if you are trying to get warranty work down.   I have first hand experience of dealer refusing to replace stereos (because the centre console screen that died controls everything and is a multi thousand dollar job), dealers literally making up faults and trying to charge the customer for jobs that don't need doing because the transmission needs to be replaced under warranty and they didn't want to wear the cost and a Whole new car that was a lemon and had nothing but problems  they couldn't fix.  I wouldn't buy a new car unless I had money to burn.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

Okay, so how do you propose that process is validated? How can you prove, with repeatable data, that the only contributing factor to the credit limit is the applicant's gender? There are a lot of theories and assumptions going back and forth, and the likelihood that the algorithm will be released publicly is essentially nil, for fear of people trying to game the system after.

That's GS' problem, they have the data and the algorithm. Everyone else seems to be doing it just fine and there is plenty of literature on the subject, I'm pretty sure they can manage. A very simple solution would be to just tell the algorithm to ignore the person's gender or keep that piece of data hidden from it - that would instantly solve any gender based discrimination while they work on a more sophisticated solution.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, Sauron said:

Reading further into the wikipedia article, particularly the per country sections, the adjusted gap seems to be around 10% in western countries such as Germany, lower if you account for motherhood but I would argue that's not a very good reason to pay people less. Regardless, it's present. There's also a study commissioned by the US Joint Economic Committee which shows with very little doubt that at least some discrimination is afoot there and that, regardless, there is a consistent unexplained gap across the board.

10% if you don't include the reduced job experience from being at home during motherhood. I would argue that being at home with a child is a perfectly valid reason to not have as high of a salary as someone who worked and got experience during that time.

With all else being being equal, a person with 1 year of experience should not get paid as much as someone with 2 years of experience, regardless of the reason they have worked less.

You could argue that women are unfairly at home more often than men during the time where a child needs a parent at home, but then we are no longer talking about the myth than women gets paid less because they are women (which they aren't, it makes absolutely no sense to assume that).

 

Like I said, I believe a wage gap exists between men and women with the same qualifications and hours worked. All the studies I have read point towards there being one. However, we're talking about a single digit difference, and it can probably be explained by things such as more aggressive salary negotiations. The whole thing about women getting paid like 30% less because they are women is complete and utter nonsense.

Women gets paid less on average because they work less (on average), have less experience (on average) and have lower paying jobs (on average), not because they are women.

 

 

19 hours ago, Sauron said:

Well I'm sorry, the science disagrees. We can argue all day about how large the discriminatory gap is but its existence is pretty much undeniable.

Actually, the science does agree. The wage gap almost entirely disappears when you take into account all the factors that are reasonably possible to do (like years of experience). There is still a small difference (I believe it was around 7%) but that can, as I said, be explained by things which are harder to quantify and measure, such as level of aggressiveness when negotiating salaries, or how often people change jobs (changing job usually comes with a small increase in salary).

I recommend you read the studies a bit more carefully and I think you will come to the same conclusion as I have.

I mean, it doesn't even make any sense to assume that women gets paid less salary for the same job because they are women. If that was the case then every single profit driven company in the world would only employ women.

 

 

19 hours ago, Sauron said:

Though again, regardless of what job they have such a wide overall gap is indicative of some serious societal imbalances.

Yes I agree, but I don't think women are the victims necessarily.

Men often earn more because they work more overtime. On average it's about 2 hours more every week. Is that sexist towards women? Would it be less sexist if men had to work more and didn't get paid? Or maybe we should force women to work overtime?

 

Men often earn more because they have more dangerous jobs, such as miners, roofers, fishermen, firefighter etc. Is that sexism towards women? Should we force women to pick more dangerous jobs? Right now, 10 men die during work for every women who does.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

except they share a bank account so they have the exact same spending power and she has a better credit score. if its like 5% difference you can chalk it up to variations and stuff but 10 times more credit limit? and 20 times more credit limit? like wtf is up with that. i dont think they intended to make the algorithm sexist but its sexist nonetheless. i dont think loaning money to women has 20 times more risk than loaning money to men as i emphasis again they have the same spending power so the only factor i can think of to lend more or less money is risk. Lets put this into perspective if the wife has 50,000 credit limit the husband would have 500,000 credit limit or in woz's case 1,000,000

But do we know that the difference in credit limit was chosen because of the sex of the person? We don't really know which variables were used to determine credit limit.

It is easy to assume that the gender was the cause because we know their genders are different, but there might be 100 other unknown things to us which are also different which also played a role.

 

Don't jump to conclusions. Don't you remember what happened with the Amazon recruitment story? People called it sexist and then realized that sex wasn't even an input for the algorithm. The algorithm's output threw out the most qualified people and they happened to be mostly men. It was we humans that looked at the result and applied our own bias to the result afterwards.

 

 

Maybe the wife has done things in thee past which are warning signs? Late payments, more frivolous spending, etc. There might literally be hundreds of factors we do not know about, so I think it's silly to jump to conclusions and blame the gender.

Do we even know if this credit limit applies to women in general? I don't think 2 people is a very good sample size to assume systemic sexism.

 

 

18 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

like I said before I dont see what factor could make lending money to females 20 times more risky than to males

That's because you are evaluating this as "women get lower credit limits than men" instead of "this person has a lower credit limit than another".

There might be a ton of different factors at play here which we do not know about.

 

 

15 hours ago, Sauron said:

the algorithm is sexist, by definition, due to it discriminating heavily against women.

We don't know that.

What we do know is that two people, who happens to be women, have lower credit limit than two other people, who happens to be men. We do not know if the lower limit people have a lower limit because they are women or for other reasons.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

You could argue that women are unfairly at home more often than men during the time where a child needs a parent at home, but then we are no longer talking about the myth than women gets paid less because they are women (which they aren't, it makes absolutely no sense to assume that).

 

 

Not all women have children and it is often true in certain industries that Women are still paid less. There is no myth whatsoever here and it is IMO wrong to suggest that is the case. Even the BBC now admit that their average TV host salaries are out of whack when it comes to gender. In the IT industry I have seen first hand lower salaries offered to women than men when applying post graduate for the same job. The reason given? Well, the woman might leave to have children so we cannot invest so much money in them. What bought this to light in one particular firm here was the young lady in question was unable to have children so that in no way would affect her future in the company. The case is ongoing and it will be interesting to see the outcome.

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is still a small difference (I believe it was around 7%) but that can, as I said, be explained by things which are harder to quantify and measure, such as level of aggressiveness when negotiating salaries, or how often people change jobs (changing job usually comes with a small increase in salary).

Again, pure speculation. The science only agrees with you if you wave away the part that disagrees with guesswork. If you say it's hard to quantify then maybe don't take it for granted...? I could just as easily say that women aren't given the opportunity to negotiate salaries because making a fuss is more likely to get them fired or have their request rejected outright than with men if I didn't care about direct measurements.

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I mean, it doesn't even make any sense to assume that women gets paid less salary for the same job because they are women. If that was the case then every single profit driven company in the world would only employ women.

That's a nonsensical leap of logic, companies pay women less because they incorrectly perceive them as being worth less. They don't sit down and systematically lower wages for women by comparing them to men who do the exact same thing. It's absurd to think of these dynamics so simplistically, and honestly it reeks of bad faith when just a second ago you were looking for the tiniest nitpicks to dismiss the gap as explainable.

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Men often earn more because they work more overtime. On average it's about 2 hours more every week. Is that sexist towards women? Would it be less sexist if men had to work more and didn't get paid? Or maybe we should force women to work overtime?

What if I told you men and women can both be the victims of the same sexist system that undervalues women's work? Women tend to get the short end of the stick most of the time but that doesn't mean men aren't also affected. The less we discriminate, the better for everyone.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Not all women have children and it is often true in certain industries that Women are still paid less.

Got any examples? Are you also factoring in that men generally work far more overtime?

 

5 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

There is no myth whatsoever here and it is IMO wrong to suggest that is the case.

It's not a myth that women earn less than men on average.

However, there is next to no evidence that suggests that women gets paid less because they are women if everything else is equal.

A man and a woman, working at the same company, with the same position, who work the same number of hours, and has the same amount of experience/education, will earn the same. That's what all the evidence points towards, except in some cases it points towards there being a small difference which could potentially be explained by other things unrelated to gender. And in some cases it actually points towards men earning less per hour worked.

 

10 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Even the BBC now admit that their average TV host salaries are out of whack when it comes to gender.

Source? Also, that's a single company. It's not unreasonable to assume discrimination happens on a few places, and that goes both ways.

 

11 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

In the IT industry I have seen first hand lower salaries offered to women than men when applying post graduate for the same job.

First hand experience means very little, especially when it's from some anonymous person online.

What if I said I had seen the opposite?

 

11 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

The reason given? Well, the woman might leave to have children so we cannot invest so much money in them.

That's illegal. If you have heard that, report the company.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Again, pure speculation. The science only agrees with you if you wave away the part that disagrees with guesswork. If you say it's hard to quantify then maybe don't take it for granted...? I could just as easily say that women aren't given the opportunity to negotiate salaries because making a fuss is more likely to get them fired or have their request rejected outright than with men if I didn't care about direct measurements.

Well, speculation against speculation. It's not like you have presented facts either. Hell, the facts you presented didn't even agree with you since you read the wrong statistics.

 

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's a nonsensical leap of logic, companies pay women less because they incorrectly perceive them as being worth less. They don't sit down and systematically lower wages for women by comparing them to men who do the exact same thing. It's absurd to think of these dynamics so simplistically, and honestly it reeks of bad faith when just a second ago you were looking for the tiniest nitpicks to dismiss the gap as explainable.

That's a massive assumption you're making.

Can you prove that companies "incorrectly perceive them as being worth less"? Maybe the fact that they work less is a reason for perceiving them as being worth less?

Maybe they are being perceive as being worth less because they tend to have less experience?

 

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

What if I told you men and women can both be the victims of the same sexist system that undervalues women's work? Women tend to get the short end of the stick most of the time but that doesn't mean men aren't also affected. The less we discriminate, the better for everyone.

If you told me that then I would say:

1) Show me evidence that women are being undervalued.

2) Explain to me how it is sexist that when given the choice, men choose to work more than women choose to work less. Wouldn't it be sexist to force someone to work/not work based on gender? To me, men and women being allowed to make different choices is a non-sexist system.

3) Prove to me that women gets the short end of the stick most of the time. I certainly haven't experienced that.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Got any examples? Are you also factoring in that men generally work far more overtime?

Men work more overtime in certain industries but not all.

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not a myth that women earn less than men on average.

However, there is next to no evidence that suggests that women gets paid less because they are women if everything else is equal.

A man and a woman, working at the same company, with the same position, who work the same number of hours, and has the same amount of experience/education, will earn the same. That's what all the evidence points towards, except in some cases it points towards there being a small difference which could potentially be explained by other things unrelated to gender. And in some cases it actually points towards men earning less per hour worked.

There is plenty of evidence but many choose to ignore it. Companies will favour men in many roles because they do not want to be lumbered with potential maternity leave costs. I could dig out recordings of company directors, both male and female, stating just this. This leads quite often to women not being hired for roles even if they would be the best for the job at that particular juncture. This creates a pay gap rightly or wrongly. In general in the western world the higher paid groups are having children later in life and statistics show that more women than ever are choosing to not have children. However there is still pressure on couples to have children even if they do not want to. It is amazing how many times I have heard "her body clock is ticking" from certain generations.

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Source? Also, that's a single company. It's not unreasonable to assume discrimination happens on a few places, and that goes both ways.

The BBC. Feel free to look up what has been said on their own site. They also have plenty of good articles on the gender pay gap and how in some industries it is closing up while others are failing to adapt.

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

First hand experience means very little, especially when it's from some anonymous person online.

What if I said I had seen the opposite?

From both sides of the argument there can be doubt. 

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's illegal. If you have heard that, report the company.

I know it is illegal but as the case is ongoing there will be no more comment until it is heard in court.

 

What you have to remember here is I am a bloke with a good salary. I am in favour of equality but like many I get fed up when women take that too far, some often do. I am not defending either side in this, just pointing out that there are differences which are very well documented, especially here in the UK. Other parts of the world may be different. I am also not against Apple here, nor GS. I posted this more out of interest and how it will play out.

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well, speculation against speculation. It's not like you have presented facts either. Hell, the facts you presented didn't even agree with you since you read the wrong statistics.

Except I pointed out more statistics, which I guess you're choosing to ignore. And no, it's not speculation against speculation since you're trying to entirely dismiss the idea that it might be discrimination based on a guess when there are plenty of factors that suggest some discrimination is present in most aspects of society - including and often especially the workplace as seen in hundreds of reports of harassment and abuse. I would rate the odds of the difference being entirely explainable with (arguably) non-discriminatory factors to be about 0.

 

I won't claim I know where the exact boundary is, but to argue that there is NO discrimination involved is extremely naive or, more likely, bad faith.

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) Show me evidence that women are being undervalued.

Women statistically occupy positions that are perceived as being of lower importance. If you're going to deny this then maybe we should go back to the unadjusted wage gap statistic.

 

All evidence points to men and women being roughly equal in their mental capacities and ability to learn and carry out difficult tasks, so you can't argue that women are inherently worse at highly valued positions.

 

You also can't argue that women simply "don't like" specializations in high demand because there's historical evidence that that sort of thing heavily depends on social expectations. For instance, computer science initially got plenty of contributions from women before personal computers began being marketed as "boys' toys".

 

So I'd say I have a pretty strong case here.

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) Explain to me how it is sexist that when given the choice, men choose to work more than women choose to work less. Wouldn't it be sexist to force someone to work/not work based on gender? To me, men and women being allowed to make different choices is a non-sexist system.

Ah yes, CLEARLY the choice exists in isolation from every other aspect of people's lives and should be taken into consideration with no context whatsoever. I bet it has nothing to do with, say, women being expected to spend the most time with their children, or men being expected and pressured to pursue a highly successful career. It's not like there's a societal stigma towards men making less money than their partners. Again, either extremely naive of you or just an intentionally bad argument.

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

3) Prove to me that women gets the short end of the stick most of the time. I certainly haven't experienced that.

Uhm see above, I don't know nor care what you experienced in this context - your personal experiences aren't a good metric for society at large, especially if you deliberately look the other way when presented with blatant examples of sexism.

 

But just for fun, let's make the most obvious of examples - why don't you look up rape statistics and see for yourself which sex is more affected by about an order of magnitude? What about the reports of sexual harassment in the workplace? What about the amount of female congressmen in most of the western world? A lot of countries never even had a woman as prime minister/president/what have you, and that's not for lack of political interest from women.

[Drak3]

55 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

There is plenty of evidence but many choose to ignore it

Provide it. You made a claim, now back it up.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Sex does not need to be an input for it to be sexist just like how race doesn't need to be mentioned for a law to be racist. After the civil war many southern states made it so you have to be a 2nd gen land owner or pay a voting tax to prevent black people from voting those laws are racist even when they don't mention a race. If the bank lowers credit limit dramatically if they detect the person is doing something that predominately a woman does like buying make up then it's sexist even when it doesn't have sex as an input

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

That the catch, is there such a clause ad how well written is it. Personally i have to wonder if this isn't a result of some weird overflow error in the calculations since it seems to be only confirmed with the ultra rich and the difference feels too great to be either deliberate or intended, and an error tied to a situation that should give a very high limit that instead causes a low limit is exactly the sort of thing that could slip through Q&A as it would be such a freak outlier.

 

Also the spellchecker thing is more a "what if from around the turn of the millenium" it wasn't really until post somtime that truly robust spellcheckers became a routine thing. SO it wouldn't be so much the employer forbidding their use in the scenario described as them just not being avalibuile unless he company forked out extra.

 

As the reply above me said, if there's a within good reason clause thats robustly enough written it's not an issue. The problem comes if thats absent or very poorly written as there are times when using those parameters, (e.g. for a wet nurse if you want a sex based one), or one's directly based off them, (like the the young males and car insurance), are completely reasonable things to do with actual factual factors to back them up. I don't think thats whats happening here, (i suspect a bug of some sort that got past Q&A), but there are going to be times when it is reasonable.

Young males and car insurance is not fair at all and the fact that you say that is kinda ridiculous. They are taking a statistic for a group as a whole and applying it to everyone in that group regardless of the individual. I guarantee if the same was done to any other group it would be seen as not ok. If you actually went and based it on driving history and young men had higher insurance rates on average because the ones with bad driving history had higher rates then ok it's a valid and not discriminatory but as soon as you start slapping higher rates on young men simply because they are young men it is absolutely discriminatory. Unfortunately what happens is insurance companies just slap a higher rate on young men even when they have no other reason to do so other than gender and age.