Things the Federal Government Tracks and Things It Doesn’t
Tracked: sexually transmitted disease infection rate in teenage girls.
Because, obviously, girls are responsible for all sexual contact that occurs between teenagers girls AND boys. And clearly those teenage girls who are slutty enough to catch the HPV, the STD that can cause cervical cancer, should not be protected from cancer by a vaccine. (hair flip to Sin City Siren)
Not Tracked: Discriminatory lending practices against women.
Lenders have been more likely to classify women as more risky borrowers even though they have better credit scores than men. Since women are better lending risks, it makes perfect sense to charge the more for their loans. Lest we forget, it was only 40 years ago that women couldn’t get a mortgage on their own (no wonder Virginia Woolf only wanted a room). And it has only been since 1968 that Congress passed the Fair Housing Act that made it illegal to refuse housing (buying or renting) on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap.
Similar Posts:
- Banks Seek Sub-Prime Bailout: Privatize Profits, Socialize Costs
- It’s Porn Behind the Curtain, 89509.net Definitely Not In Kansas
- Ensign Fights For The Right To Sue Grandmothers and The Clergy
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Right on, Minx!
Credit scores is not the only deciding factor of a risky loan…Another major factor is income$$$$$$.
Ah, it has long been known that a woman should never og looking to buy a car alone. We were surely going to be ripped off if we didn’t have a dude with us.
Some things never change.
Bugsy, and? In the cases settled, the judgment was based upon the fact that the mortgage holders had similar profiles. Although those cases are dealing with African American women, one would guess that those gathering the stats are looking at men and women with the same financial profiles although it wasn’t stressed in the article. Conclusions wouldn’t be valid otherwise.
Don’t believe that a loan company is going to refuse to make money based on gender. The stats your refering to must have been collected by a person still be stuck in the 1950’s, or a radical liberal.
Hmmm, We know that lenders gave incentives to brokers to sell more sub prime mortgages among other things–thus the ongoing federal investigations. The data shows that minorities were targeted for sub prime mortages more often than whites although those inside the industry disagree (surprise). Why so hard to believe women were targeted as well? The idea is not that lenders refused money, but that the steer certain people toward different kinds of loans for the wrong reasons.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-hancockcolumn0318,0,1923610.story