this. It's just that you and I have different definitions of "fair". You think premiums based on risk profiles, regardless of control of circumstances, is fair. I think premiums based on risk profiles, only including controllable elements, is fair. Women are either equal or they're not- they can't be equal in just a few selected circumstances. RH SOrry, but that just doesn't fly. Woman and men are different in many, many ways. And equal in many ways. Women have higher pain tolerance thresholds as men. Men have higher physical strength than women. IQ seems to be equal. Women are more risk averse drivers than men. Men are heavier than women. Women have longer life expectancies. Insurance companies will be over the moon over this. Forced to raise women's premiums, yet claim to be unable reduce men's because they are still a higher risk....It's a ticket to print money for them effectively! I utterly detest positive discrimination, like forcing all companies to have 40% of their executive staff be female (something like that), but when it comes to risk situations like this I see it perfectly reasonable to expect men to pay more. Statistics don't lie... So, based upon this, you also believe insurance should be based on ethnicity? Religious beliefs? etc etc? I do agree there is a fine line between what insurers can and can't use though; but can see both sides of the argument in this situation, after all women strive for equality and now they have achieved