In case the thread is tl;dr.

A 17 year old guy is quoted a price for car insurance that's 4x higher than if he were female. OK, let's keep in mind that guys get in more accidents.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j13hk/me_as_a_17_year_old_guy_trying_to_get_insurance/

Kuppers: " We know that in reality this is right, that by the principles of voluntary exchange this premium is justified, even if it is unfair (that's just life).

Our problem is that feminists fucking shit the bed whenever capitalism produces such an easily identified gender inequality like this, BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS WOMEN WHO GET THE SHORT END OF THE STICK."

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j13hk/me_as_a_17_year_old_guy_trying_to_get_insurance/c28b85b

Carchamp1: " This issue has already been dealt with in our pension system. Women live longer and so pension plans accounted for this when determining benefits...until about 25 years ago. The practice was found to be discriminatory and so now pension plans CANNOT use gender to determine benefits. I can assure you that if young ladies were being charged more to insure themselves there would be an uproar. It would be gender discrimination. Since this is happening to young men it's a math problem. "

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j13hk/me_as_a_17_year_old_guy_trying_to_get_insurance/c28adu9

BukkRogerrs : " It's not purely math in the most scientific sense. It is discrimination. Discrimination is often based on statistics. And the way this math is used is simply as an interpretation of specially worded statistical studies, with arbitrary groupings made to maximize profit. Statistically, I'm less of a driving risk than many people I know, including almost every woman I know, so my rates should be low. But statistically, my gender is at a higher risk. Since I am a male, regardless of my driving record, I've got to pay more than women who are statistically a much higher risk than me, considering their numerous accidents and driving-while-texting habits. Gender is an arbitrary grouping. They could just as easily group it by hair color, race, education, etc... and it would be just as meaningless. Fact is, me being a male doesn't put me at a higher risk. Being male simply means I belong to a gender that has had more accidents. My male-ness has zero effect on my driving ability or safety. Believing otherwise indicates a gross misunderstanding of how statistics work.

And if you can't acknowledge that it's discrimination, you don't know what discrimination is. This entire thing is essentially the textbook definition of discrimination: Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another; the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually; prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment. "

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j13hk/me_as_a_17_year_old_guy_trying_to_get_insurance/c28apdk

Venividiviciii adds: "Women work less hours than men but miraculously (should) make the same amount of money. . . . but somehow (less pay) is discrimination and not 'math.'"

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j13hk/me_as_a_17_year_old_guy_trying_to_get_insurance/c28b5lx

When men have a deficit, it's considered math; when women have a deficit, it's considered injustice.

Suppose we treat this as a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. Liberal ("women's rights") does not imply "anti-discrimination." It means backing selective forms of "positive discrimination" that may be considered politically correct, on behalf of women only.

The thread is about insurance, but the same point applies to health care, the justice system, education, employment, relationships, and all of society. Isn't it reasonable to object to being treated as a statistic? That's not "anti-woman" or illiberal.

Claiming the label of liberal or feminist, doesn't imply anti-discrimination or pro equality.

Advocating for men's rights means fighting this hypocrisy.