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.
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.
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.
For certain definitions of "massive outry", true. But it's hard for people to argue their own discriminatory actions "for security" (ie safety) and then simultaneously argue that a woman-only service is somehow not okay. So, the people left are those that (1) think women can and are as bad as men and/or (2) think fundamentally this is no real sort of solution to a more fundamental problem (a lack of adequate background checks at Uber) that basically degenerates into "men are expendable".
And of course it's illegal. I hope they get slapped down fast and hard by the courts on this. Btw, I think it funny that impetus for this was a male Uber driver feeling threatened by a passenger. So, (1) we are now creating a service that makes it easier to target female drivers and (2) we're not even addressing the idea of background checks for passengers. So, entirely ass backwards.
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.
A quick scan of local on-line arrest records shows a majority of blacks committing violent crimes even though the black population is a minority. So the next logical step will be a white only version of Uber. Just for safety purposes, of course.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.
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?"
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.
You seem to believe that transsexualism is a mental disorder.
It is, and it shares a number of characteristics with Body Dysmorphic Disorder. It tends to describe symptoms (rather than a specific underlying etiology), though there is a reasonable amount of information that suggests that in some of the cases it's related to disruption of the prenatal testosterone washes in the womb, leading to desires for behaviour (and identification) often seen in the other sex. In animal models, this tends to manifest as behaviour such as male rats exhibiting female mating and nesting patterns.
A conflict between one's brain and body will cause problems (something seen even in individuals in supportive environments), which makes it a disorder. Likewise, it's situated in the brain (as the body itself is generally in line with the chromosomes) - the brain improperly rejects the body in which it's housed. That's a mental disorder.
The American Psychiatric Association
Rather than pointing out that your argument is an argument from authority, I would point out that the APA does not get to define whether or not something is a disorder. Homosexuality (for example) didn't magically become "not a disorder" in 1973. There was a lot of behind-the-scenes political lobbying, and despite being a professional body, there is a lot of politics in play.
There are a significant number of individuals pushed into transition unnecessarily (particularly in the butch lesbian community), and there are plenty of cases where people would have been better off without transitioning. It's a very high price to pay for many people, and while it may be worth it for some, that is not always the case. Rushing people into it with "it's not a disorder, it's all normal, and healthy, and right" is not a good thing. It's a serious process to be undertaken when the alternative is worse.