Age: A female never tells. Particularly if she’s negotiating a roundabout.
Appearance: Numerous but generally while in the speed limit plus the recommended safe distance within the vehicle right in front.
This may be the Guardian, yes? Yes.
So I’d better eschew every one of the obvious jokes? Yes. As well as non-obvious ones while you’re at it, to be the safe side.
Very well. Trendy female drivers, this agreement term we attach no humorous or opprobrious associations, in news bulletins? Because their vehicle insurance premiums are set to check out roof.
Why? Gets the female population finally synched up, to make sure they all manage to get their periods for the same hormone-addled time and crash into 1 another? Ahahahahahahaha. No.
What then? The European Court of Justice will ban insurers from applying different premiums in accordance with customers’ gender.
Which means? That women’s premiums moves up by a projected 10-15% and men’s should come down by about 13% regardless of the odd latter’s tendency to get more accidents remaining unchanged.
So women were getting cheaper deals than men were? How sexist! Or entirely per the actuarial basis of insurance.
Blatant misandry, I think of it. I’m assuming women are complaining? They’re not terribly happy, no.
Well, they never are, will they be? Really? We’re going there now?
Wait ’til you hear what I have to say around the ECJ! Bloody Eurocrats, arriving here, overcharging our women! Make a decision. 60 seconds ago you used to be saying cheaper premiums for women, available on the market have fewer accidents, was wrong.
Have a heart C I am about for your anti-Guardianista trifecta here; racism, sexism for hoping Allow me to squeeze boot into vegetarians if I hang about for enough time. And we’re out of here.
Do say: “This maybe within the letter but is entirely devoid of the spirit of EU anti-discrimination legislation.”
Don’t say: “But that is equality! I thought this is just what you feminists competitive?”