Slashdot Mirror
All-Female Ridesharing To Debut In Boston (qz.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Scores of women have reported assaults by Uber drivers... Now Jenni Avins reports at Quartz that a ride-sharing service that only uses women as drivers, Chariot for Women, is set to launch April 19 in Boston, featuring more stringent background checks and additional steps to ensure riders correctly match with their drivers.... "[U]nlike other services, Chariot for Women features a patent-pending technology that will provide both users and drivers with a code after a request is made that will need to be verified upon starting the ride," reports Glamour. But "whether it's legal or not is a different question," says Joseph L. Sulman. Quartz reports that "According to civil rights lawyers, Chariot for Women's female-only policies could put it squarely in the crosshairs of gender discrimination lawsuits, which would be difficult to win." Founder Michael Pelletz says he welcomes the legal challenge. "We want to show there's inequality in safety in our industry," says Pelletz. "We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there's safety involved, there's nothing wrong with providing a service for women."
/sigh/ Discrimination with a noble intent is still... discrimination. Would love to know out a ride sharing service exclusively for white bros who want a safe space for off color jokes would be received.
So instead of regulating Uber and other "ride sharing" services......they just create another thing with potentially the same problems.
Why not just cut the BS and just regulate Uber like we do Taxi companies.......like what should have happened a long time ago.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Scores of women have reported assaults by Uber drivers
Good thing that a woman could never assault another woman.
women on women rape/sexual assault didn't exist...
You cut your dick off. Don't blame the rest of us who are sane.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry for all the other Anonymous Cowards out there. This stuff is painful to read even as a cis-male (to use a term that will infuriate a few people).
That said, even as a very liberal person, I've always wondered what mechanisms are in place to keep assholes from screwing it all up. E.g., I don't know if there is a way to verify whether an individual has started the process, or if there even should be. I'm very uneducated in this area.
Some animals are more equal than others.
On a more direct note, did you expect integrity or consistency from people that define merit as meaningless ?
I believe people who believe in that kind of social engineering are applying some advanced math. They start with categorizing people based on overlapping criteria, such as sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. Based on these criteria, they classify people into "victims" and "oppressors". When people are both, they call that "intersectionality" and attempt to balance it out. Experts assign scores and weights. For example, white homosexual cis males have now apparently moved into the "oppressor" category.
I blame New Math and the attempts at teaching abstract set theory to budding sociologists for this.
From a medical standpoint - while acknowledging that being trans is NOT a disability - it should be illegal to ask.
That having been said, people fuck shit up for other people all the time. My father was a diabetic and had a handicapped placard to hang from his rear-view mirror because of problems with his legs so he could take advantage of handicapped parking. Generally speaking, you'd never know just by looking at him, though to observe him moving, you might notice there's something wrong with him, but because he didn't have a cane or a wheelchair, wouldn't you know it that someone would come over and confront him about fraudulently using a placard like the one he had, and wouldn't quit harassing him about it, either.
So, yeah, the problem here is the grey area that exists when either a lie could be told, for reasons good or bad, or people are untrusting enough to assume the worst and make accusations before understanding the gravity of the situation.
But that requires a lot of inappropriate unpacking of personal information to complete strangers...which is why I think all-female ridesharing (unlike handicapped parking) is simply a bad idea. It just sets up a lot of unnecessary drama in an age where the lines of gender are blurry, but there seems to be a continuing assumption that a not insignificant number of men are potential predators. These two issues, when taken together, are a powder keg of potential conflict.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
I guess maybe you should stop being prejudiced based on gender identity?
Want to fix your safety inequality because males tend to be stronger and more aggressive? Start carrying a pistol. Will it solve all problems? No, but being armed can prevent a bad situation from escalating to a Very Bad situation.
Love sees no species.
Both Uber and this service seems to provide a service where you order someone to drive you somewhere, without that person actually having any errand of their own to that place. To me that's not "ridesharing", it's taxi. "Ridesharing" to me is when you intend to drive somewhere, and check if someone else wish to ride along. And share expenses like fuel and perhaps vehicle depreciation, but nothing more.
Just having drivers being independent contractors instead of employed doesn't make a big difference end-user-wise to me (well except a lack of quality control, as shown by Uber) - it's still functionally a taxi service. This service (with good intentions) seems to make it even more like regular taxi operations by also emphasizing background checks and such.
Have I misunderstood "ridesharing", or are the "ridesharing" companies just trying to change the word to use for their "sure-not-a-taxi" taxi service?
I know you disagree with this and so do I. I would like point out that blacks are more likely be arrested for the same crime, and given a harsher penalty.
However I have heard similar statistics for males and violence. Men are more likely to be arrested for domestic violence even if they where the ones that called the police in the first place. I am sure that it is much less likely that a man would report violence against him committed by a woman. Women also have a tendency to pick men that stronger than them as partners, it is hard to physically intimidate a person stronger than you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in the US 76.8% murder victims are men, I pick murder because it is unlikely to go unreported. Although this could also be perpetrated by men, mens lives are clearly more dangerous.
While we continue to assume men are somehow bad, and are so dangerous, it is fair to not even let them into the same car as a woman just because they are a man we will only alienate more men. This will only cause men to dislike women more. I am sure black people where considered somehow bad, or somehow somehow worse than white people. That was racism them and this is sexism now.
If you want a "safer" uber service then you can have a service that does security checks on all its customers, and drivers. That way you are judged on your previous actions, not the genitals you where born with.
Why can't small males avail themselves of the service but to female MMA fighters who could whip the males in a fight can? Small males get assaulted, bullied, and even raped as well.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Real Christians who made a Christian-preaching cab service would probably prefer non-Christians.
It's against what Jesus said to harm non-Christians. You are to lead by example of being kind. That's what most of these hardcore Christians don't seem to understand about theeir own religion.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Because what someone does as a part of their morning routine has nothing to do with ride sharing.
This is true, but in the name of liberty and personal privacy, it should, frankly, be none of anyone else's damn business.
If you're transgender, good! Live your life! If you are happy, and you're not doing anything that hurts anyone, congrats, you're probably well ahead of at least half the human population.
However, absolutely NO ONE should have the authority demand "papers, please" on that particular condition. Thus, it presents a problem when any male-presenting man asks for a ride in a female-only rideshare claiming to be a pre-transition MtoF and the woman driving says "hold on, prove it". How do you do that without creating a situation where the woman won't feel threatened (by a potential liar) and the man won't feel discriminated against?
The answer's simple: don't create a situation where discrimination is implicit within the ground rules.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
>"That's what most of these hardcore Christians don't seem to understand about theeir own religion."
That is because most so-called Christians really are not very Christian. They don't follow the teachings and examples of Jesus, but instead follow organized religion, dogma, and related politics. And they also tend to look at the mostly supplanted old testament for answers to questions that are more easily answered by that famous and simple saying "what would Jesus do?"
Why are you assholes ruining this site? Go back to Reddit.
As a straight, white, born and gendered male, and human oriented person (compared to furies?), I'd really appreciate if ladies would stop going around putting the fear of men into everyone's heads. If you're concerned for your safety, take a martial arts class and learn some personal responsibility (don't expect someone to help you when you cry for help, you need to learn how to help yourself. In other words, stop being a victim and man up. By not punching that guy who grabbed your ass, you're choosing to stay a victim. The slight natural strength benefits of being male is nothing compared to a couple basic self defense classes, often offered for free to college women.) Segregating people like this only leads to more issues as people stop seeing others as people when they're always kept apart. They lose respect for each other. What this service tells me is that all the people using it are too emotionally weak to be around men regardless if that's true or not. I'm sure some of those creepy males will love this as they can now order a ride and know they will get a female driver. I suspect its far easier to kidnap someone when you're not the one doing the driving.
Yes, I've had my ass randomly spanked and my nipples twisted. Differently not a common occurrence, but I also didn't ignore it.
And please, no bullshit about how the media only portrays females as sex objects. Every kids show has ball smashing as something funny. All males in computer games are tight-muscled, super alpha males. Males are shown as bumbling idiots anytime a female is around. We're either a sexy crime lord or a fart loving failure at life. Etc... The media is simply for anything that triggers an emotion in its viewers.
Arrest records are not a record of people who commit crimes.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I can't comment on the legality of this, but there's no hypocrisy (as you seem to be implying). If statistically, a particular class of shared riders are being targeted for crime, and that class finds a way to protect themselves from being targeted, it seems reasonable to me.
White customers or customers of any particular religion have yet to show that they've been targeted for crime as Uber users, so they don't need to take protective actions of any kind.
Now, if it turns out to be illegal, we have two choices: ignore the law, because it's protecting a targeted class and does more good than harm (not my recommendation), or we use this as a way to draw attention to attacks on women customers and do something about it. I prefer that second solution.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap. Better class of misogynists, please.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap.
- you are very clearly missing my entire point, which is - there shouldn't be any special protections by any government for any special group and with that in mind it must mean that if an individual wants to set up a company to serve only women, he or she should be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only white people, he or she must be able to do so. If an individual wants to set up a company to serve only Muslims, he or she must be able to do it, etc.
Hypocrisy or not, it is illegal to set up a company to cater to a group defined by sex, religion, race, physical ability (to exclude certain types of disability), people go to court because of these ridiculous laws every day and it hurts the economy obviously, but most importantly it hurts the freedom of an individual to discriminate and everybody must be able to discriminate freely if they wish to do so and suffer any type of societal consequences (but not be prevented by any laws).
You can't handle the truth.
When you identify as a male to your wife and family, and identify as a female only at sports events, it's obvious that you don't identify as female, but are doing so at a point in time for some other reason. Nobody is telling you that you aren't properly identifying as something, but that when you do so inconsistently, you shouldn't be treated the same as someone that is consistent.
Learn to love Alaska
As a straight white man, I'd really appreciate it if you'd stay away from my children.
No, it's illegal because you can't use statistics to discriminate against a class of people. That's why police profiling, etc are against the law. Far better to require a barrier between the front and back seats if you are that worried, or just a video record of everything going on. Or use a real taxi service that does its job without regards to sex, handicap, etc and won't refuse to pick up a woman if she's with a man.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well good for you but as a man who doesn't go around sexually assaulting women I'd really appreciate it if people didn't discriminate against me on gender so it sounds like both of us can't always have what we want.
The founder of Chariot for Women admits to this.
This is about bringing general safety issues into the spotlight so that they’ll be taken more seriously. If this were rides for men only, then they’d just get slammed. But it’s for women only, ostensibly because of some safety issues that people know have a grain of truth in the backs of their minds. Nobody will argue against the fact that some women have been attacked, and the attacks were perpetrated by men. When this is challenged in court (because it is sexist, intentionally so, to make a point), it will receive a much deeper level of critical analysis.
Women are the primary population segment that still receives discrimination, often in reverse. I’ve seen instances where women (a minority of applicants) were actually preferred for jobs over men, despite some uncertainties, because the employees were mostly men, and the employer felt it was important to strive for gender balance, as long as they could be reasonably sure they weren’t hiring underqualified applicants.
However, Matthew 5:41 says "And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." [ESV]. This refers to the law at the time where a Roman soldier could require someone to carry their gear for 1 mile. Odds are very good that whatever that soldier was doing it probably qualified as sin. This seems to be a pretty clear case of assisting someone in sin. To me a possible distinction is whether the "sin" would happen without your assistance. In the case of the soldier and the gay wedding it's going to happen regardless of what you think, so I think the answer there is that you should bake 2 cakes.