# Female-Only Services **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298 "2014-09-12T16:06:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/141 "2014-09-23T17:22:23Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Back when historically underprivileged groups were using the “everyone is equal” argument to persuade the groups in power to “give up some of their privileges,” such as for instance the privilege of putting people in chains and treating them like animals, they were _also_ pointing out the devastating effects of the inequality. Nobody would ever dare to dispute this point anymore – the discrimination was defining people’s lives. When you said “everyone is equal” in that context, it was bloody obvious what you were talking about. I disagree that this is true. I think it was “bloody obvious” that people’s equality was being sold as a general principle, beyond the specific effects. When MLK said “_I have a dream that one day, people will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin_”, it was bloody obvious that he was not saying “_I have a dream that one day black guys will get some perks based on the color of their skin in order to remedy the effects of historical discrimination_”, and no normal person would have taken it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/142 "2014-09-23T17:33:47Z")
You certainly can disagree if you like. > [@](#): > > Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. _Brown_. Everyone knew this was what was going on. MLK on your “perks”: > [@](#): > > Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. > [@](#): > > A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro. > [@](#): > > “Do you feel it’s fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?” > > “I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages–potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/143 "2014-09-23T17:39:07Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > _Brown_. Everyone knew this was what was going on. I’ve not disputed that. > [@](#): > > MLK on your “perks”: That’s not the point. That wasn’t what he was selling. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/144 "2014-09-23T18:08:16Z")
If the Supreme Court’s explicit reasoning behind the decision that was the greatest triumph, at the time, in the history of the civil rights movement does not qualify as what was being “sold” as the justification for anti-discrimination laws, and if I’m not entitled to believe Martin Luther King over you when it comes to what Martin Luther King was trying to persuade people about, then I think this is one of those times where we agree that we live in different worlds and stop wasting our time. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/145 "2014-09-23T18:32:29Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > If the Supreme Court’s explicit reasoning behind the decision that was the greatest triumph, at the time, in the history of the civil rights movement does not qualify as what was being “sold” as the justification for anti-discrimination laws It was the legal justification for finding those laws unconstitutional. That’s not the same thing as the vision that people were buying into. > [@](#): > > and if I’m not entitled to believe Martin Luther King over you when it comes to what Martin Luther King was trying to persuade people about I didn’t see where MLK said that this was what he was trying to persuade people about. He was commenting on his views. Is that what he made his most inspiring speeches at the most pivotal times about? ---
**Author:** ![dude77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@dude77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude77)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/146 "2014-09-23T18:42:57Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > But it’s about denying a service to men only in a technical sense. In practice there are not going to be men who can’t get a timely, reasonably priced, fully-equipped (such as it is) cab ride because of this. Cab services overall are not very likely going to stop providing rides to men. It’s not very likely that any given man is actually going to suffer any harm at all. but it’s not about denying a service to blacks only in a technical sense. In practice there are not going to be blacks who can’t get a timely, reasonably priced, fully equipped cab ride because of this. They have plenty of other services to choose from. Cab services overall are not very likely going to stop providing rides to blacks. It’s not very likely that any given black person is actually going to suffer any harm at all. We’re not dealing with the same situation here. What’s the real world negative consequence of letting a new company give, I don’t know, a few thousand whites a year a ride in a whites-only cab? What larger evil does that support, and how and how much does it support it? > [@Ulfreida](#): > > Ridiculing a proposal to try to help keep women safe from men? Only men would ridicule such a proposal. ridiculing a proposal to try to help keep whites safe from blacks. only blacks would ridicule such a proposal. I don’t know why I even typed that though because it’s obvious some of you are actually in favor of discrimination … as long as it’s something _you_ agree with naturally ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/147 "2014-09-23T18:46:43Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > ridiculing a proposal to try to help keep whites safe from blacks. only blacks would ridicule such a proposal. Such racial discrimination is not and has never been about keeping anyone safe. It’s always been about reinforcing a social idea of superiority and inferiority. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/148 "2014-09-23T18:47:57Z")
Who are these “people?” The members of the Supreme Court are the people in power in question here. I don’t really know why you brought up Martin Luther King, but you were mistaken about him. I can’t really argue against your sense of what was important about what he said. The fact is that what he was talking about were the harms caused by discrimination, which was my point. If your opinion is that you think it was all a big snow job and that Martin Luther King lied about true equality in his important speeches while secretly publishing his actual discriminatory reasoning in his own books and in Playboy interviews, then I respect that. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/149 "2014-09-23T18:50:09Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > but it’s not about denying a service to blacks only in a technical sense. In practice there are not going to be blacks who can’t get a timely, reasonably priced, fully equipped cab ride because of this. They have plenty of other services to choose from. Cab services overall are not very likely going to stop providing rides to blacks. It’s not very likely that any given black person is actually going to suffer any harm at all. Literally immediately below I posted that paragraph I said that this was exactly the difference between the two. ---
**Author:** ![dude77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@dude77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude77)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/150 "2014-09-23T18:53:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Such racial discrimination is not and has never been about keeping anyone safe. It’s always been about reinforcing a social idea of superiority and inferiority. there are whites who actually think that way and what if they said that they are ‘afraid’ of blacks because they’ve been mugged by some black fella … then you agree that they should be allowed to have a white driver only cab service ? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/151 "2014-09-23T18:58:04Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Who are these “people?” The members of the Supreme Court are the people in power in question here. Right, but they were focused on legal aspects of the issue. > [@](#): > > I don’t really know why you brought up Martin Luther King It wasn’t about MLK specifically, but that was a well known speech and quote for a reason, that being that it summed up the notion that was inspiring and winning over the people. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/152 "2014-09-23T19:01:56Z")
We are presently focused on the legal aspects of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/153 "2014-09-23T19:04:32Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > We are presently focused on the legal aspects of the issue. Not in this particular discussion. This is about your assertion, in post #135, that the hard-and-fast rule is being “convenient[ly]” adopted, and my counterpoint that the same goes for the other side as well. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/154 "2014-09-23T19:06:17Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > there are whites who actually think that way and what if they said that they are ‘afraid’ of blacks because they’ve been mugged by some black fella … then you agree that they should be allowed to have a white driver only cab service ? They already do – they can choose whatever cab driver they like. They can feel free to not get into any non-white cabbie’s taxi if they want. ---
**Author:** ![dude77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@dude77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude77)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/155 "2014-09-23T19:08:17Z")
I just thought of another one … what if white women want a white female driver only service because they’re scared of black women as well ? lol … or black women who want black women driver service only because they feel safer around black female drivers … you know, black and female just like her … are we cool with that ?(cringing while typing all of this) … I don’t even know why this is even a debate … whether you want to argue about female safety is one thing, but this is by definition discrimination from whichever angle you want to look at it ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/156 "2014-09-23T19:10:25Z")
I conceded your right to think it should be viewed the other way around. That was the first thing I said. Then I returned to what my actual point is. > [@](#): > > I just thought of another one … > > what if white women want a white female driver only service because they’re scared of black women as well ? lol … > > or black women who want black women driver service only because they feel safer around black female drivers … you know, black and female just like her … are we cool with that ?(cringing while typing all of this) … > > I don’t even know why this is even a debate … whether you want to argue about female safety is one thing, but this is by definition discrimination from whichever angle you want to look at it OK, so go on, then. What is the harm? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/157 "2014-09-23T19:11:53Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > Ridiculing a proposal to try to help keep women safe from men? Only men would ridicule such a proposal. > > Also, the “this thread pisses me off” remark? Not meant to be edifying. I don’t belong in Great Debates. If I am affected personally by the subject, I just want to throw feces and scream with rage and pain. Sorry I intruded. > [@snowthx](#): > > Why is a man’s opinion on this issue not valid? We have wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers, and like you we are interested in their safety. Many of us men are also feel selective discrimination is a slippery slope. Why is that position not valid? The OP touches on both of these, and there are thoughtful comments from a variety of points of view. Take part in the debate, but don’t discount it based on your generalizations. To expand it a bit, it’s not just women. As a gay male (and not a very big or strong male at that) I’ve been assaulted, beaten, sexually come on to by guys who could EASILY have raped me and so on. (Why is it that some straight guys who think fags are bad want to rape us?..side point never mind) There are many situations where I would be happier and feel safer in an all gay environment. Even on lighter notes, I’ve said directly on this board that I’d be happier if straight people of both genders didn’t choose to hang out in gay bars and such. So while it would personally benefit me to be able to discriminate against straight men, I can’t advocate for it to be legal. Open the door to discrimination and history proves that it won’t stop at the reasonable point (for any one persons definition of reasonable) that it was intended to. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/158 "2014-09-23T19:18:19Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I conceded your right to think it should be viewed the other way around. That was the first thing I said. Then I returned to what my actual point is. Conceding someone’s “right to think” something is pointless since anyone can obviously think whatever they want, so generally that phrase is used rhetorically, and I assumed your subsequent paragraphs were arguments against that position and continued to argue the case. If that’s not what you meant, then we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. ---
**Author:** ![dude77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@dude77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude77)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/159 "2014-09-23T19:22:18Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I conceded your right to think it should be viewed the other way around. That was the first thing I said. Then I returned to what my actual point is. > > OK, so go on, then. What is the harm? if you really get down to it, _personally_ I don’t have a problem with it … I have a niece of young adult age … whatever _may_ keep her safer, I’m for it … but at the same time, this is … discrimination … anyone can proclaim that they’re ‘afraid’ of certain people and thus use that to demand or make some type of service only for themselves … should that be allowed ? > [@Antinor01](#): > > So while it would personally benefit me to be able to discriminate against straight men, I can’t advocate for it to be legal. Open the door to discrimination and history proves that it won’t stop at the reasonable point (for any one persons definition of reasonable) that it was intended to. this, this right here … well said ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298/160 "2014-09-23T19:50:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Conceding someone’s “right to think” something is pointless since anyone can obviously think whatever they want, so generally that phrase is used rhetorically, and I assumed your subsequent paragraphs were arguments against that position and continued to argue the case. If that’s not what you meant, then we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. There can’t be cross purposes when only one of us has a purpose. I’ve been making a pretty straightforward point over and over again. Your opinion is that the express basis for opposition to discrimination, as articulated by civil rights leaders at the time, is irrelevant because the talking points – opposition qua opposition – were what motivated people. OK, that’s your opinion. Meanwhile I’ve demonstrated that the actual changes in society were explicitly premised on: the effects of discrimination. Which is my point. > [@dude77](#): > > if you really get down to it, _personally_ I don’t have a problem with it … I have a niece of young adult age … whatever _may_ keep her safer, I’m for it … but at the same time, this is … discrimination … OK. We’re in the same boat, then. It’s discrimination, and that’s OK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-only-services/698298.md?page=9)