Men, not women. Missed the edit window. The difference in non-fatal violent injury is much smaller.
Quite. So women are at about one-quarter the risk of workplace homicide that men are at, but because men are lucky enough to have so many other ways to die at work, the real issue here is the disproportionate risk women face from homicide?
I understand someone thinking “If only it weren’t for the homicide risk I’d be golden”, but not how you get from that to thinking “The other group faces much higher risk of homicide, but it’s still me we should be worrying about.”
I don’t understand the market for any of this. I’ve traveled all over, alone, since I was 17 years old. I’ve never felt uneasy about getting into a cab or staying in a hotel alone. And if I did run into a creepy cabbie, I’d tell him “never mind” and find another cab.
You misunderstand. You call the company, they can’t ask such a question. However, they guarantee that the driver will be a woman.
The point is that it’s for customers that require a driver to be female. The drivers don’t get to choose the customers.
Having a lot of men weigh in on whether women can be provided a service based on protecting themselves from, uh, them, is interesting to observe but not very edifying.
are you allowed to have ‘white only’ driver cab service now because some people are ‘scared’ of black people ? or black driver service because some blacks are scared of whites or asian driver only cab service because asians are scared of blacks and whites ?? where does it end … slippery slope … gotta stay consistent with this whole anti-discrimination thing
I want a livery service that provides clones of its customers as their drivers.
In Montreal the public buses can drop you off between stops after dark, for safety. If you are a woman. They don’t offer this service to men. Montreal is in most respects a very progressive city; is this discrimination?
you mean drop you off at your place ?
I’m not 100% happy with that. It sounds like a good service, but I see no reason not to offer it to men.
This whole thread pisses me off so much I am not fit to argue my case. The above remark is typical of the whole.
NYC has the same service although not limited to women. It doesn’t drop you off at your place, but you can ask the bus driver to stop anywhere along the route between certain hours . Say for example, the bus stops on 86 st and then again at 91st. If I need to walk down 88 st to get to my destination, I can ask the driver to stop at 88 st during the specified hours.
Are you lobbying for a women-only thread to discuss women cab drivers being provided for women passengers upon request? 'Cause, ya know, this is America.
What dude77 posted seems to me to be a logical extension of what this thread is about. Does it upset you because it highlights an aspect of the situation that exposes it to ridicule? Speaking of edifying, it is not very edifying for a poster to come into a Great Debates thread and say “This whole thread pisses me off so much I cannot … cannot … aieee!”
It depends on how you look at it; this isn’t just about providing a service to women, it’s also about denying a service to men. Men might have something to say about that.
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.
That, like I said above, is what answers dude77’s concerns. We had to make laws against white-only accommodations because in practice, allowing for that kind of “preference” meant that there were no accommodations for blacks. Then we had to make laws against “separate but equal” because enforcing the status quo through segregation was inherently biased against minorities. Those are real world negatives. A fair reading of a situation where we’re allowing white people to exercise a “preference” based on their safety concerns is that that looks exactly like a return to the era of segregation, for just about the same reasons that we already dispensed with.
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 women a year a ride in a women-only cab? What larger evil does that support, and how and how much does it support it?
We should also recognize that it’s convenient for the groups who discrimination historically has benefited, now that there has been movement toward sort of proactive discrimination to benefit minorities, to say now that we should have a hard-line rule against any discrimination whatsoever – “all discrimination is wrong, end of story.” When women couldn’t vote and blacks couldn’t read, it wasn’t the rule that all discrimination was wrong. Now that cab services want to cater to women and universities want to bring in mad blacks, now all discrimination is wrong.
I would flip that around.
It was convenient for groups that were historically underprivileged to use the “everyone is equal” argument to persuade the groups in power to give up some of their privileges, only to turn around and start hedging on that principle when they’re looking at the prospect of themselves being beneficiaries of inequality.
Nevermind. Didn’t notice I was replying to an early comment in a long thread.
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.
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.
Flip it however you like. If you think it’s important to consider that Brown v. Board of Education benefited black people / Reed benefited women, and that affirmative action also benefits many black people/women, consider it considered.
The point is that one side of this debate has actual real world consistency in its favor and the other has only an abstract, in-principle consistency. The formal equivalence between the two kinds of discrimination is meaningless when you consider the actual harms which each causes. 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.
Now we’re in a different context. If these things are the same, then we should be able to point out the devastating consequences the discrimination is likely to cause. So… what are they?