8 ms·
If this form of discrimination is ok, can we get other filters?
by hexyl_C_gut 6mo ago
If this form of discrimination is ok, can we get other filters?
- glouwbug 6mo agoWomen's only gyms and hours exist already. If there's a need, and they feel safer this way, let them have it
- GaryBluto 6mo ago> they feel safer this way, What if somebody started a Whites-only gym because it made them feel safer?
- sanswork 6mo agoAre there many assaults on uber passengers because they are white? Are there many assaults on uber passengers because they are women? There is your answer.
- ShowalkKama 6mo ago[flagged]
- sanswork 6mo agoI understand socioeconomic factors so I just ignore racist talking points.
- ShowalkKama 6mo agothe fact that skin color can be a proxy for socioeconomic factors does not change the statistics. Do you investigate why a rapist has raped someone and then ignore it if the reason is socioeconomic factors? If applying your logic on skin color leads to discrimination then maybe it's discrimination even when the discriminated party is males.
- sanswork 6mo agoIt doesn't but it contextualises them. An inability to recognise that is a signal. Have you seen any correlation between socioeconomic factors and perpetrators of sexual assaults? Recognising that one group commits the majority of certain crimes isn't the issue, as you said it's just stats. The issue is entirely in ignoring other factors.
- ShowalkKama 6mo ago[flagged]
- sanswork 6mo agoThe driving factors do exist though in the case of race which make filtering by it unacceptable. SA is common across race, socioeconomic status, etc. There are certainly some argument for some cultures encouraging beliefs that make it more common for them no argument here. That said filtering out drivers of a certain race is unlikely to make any difference in your risk profile where women filtering out men is likely to make a huge difference in their risk profile.
- waterhouse 6mo agoIf Whites had, on average, 2.5 standard deviations lower upper-body strength than non-Whites, then maybe.
- commandlinefan 6mo agoThat's not why women ask for women-only gyms.
- waterhouse 6mo agoIt's one of the relevant factors. It, and related facts, make it usually possible for a man to overpower a woman (and a predator self-selected for being somewhat above average in fighting ability might be confident of overpowering multiple women, or at least being able to get away in the worst case), which has implications for safety.
- bombcar 6mo agoWomen-only gyms are because women don't like being oogled whilst exercising. Maybe some claim it's for safety but the fact they're often 24hr would decry that.
- ihsw 6mo ago[dead]
- kelseyfrog 6mo agoNo one owes anyone moral consistency.
- voxl 6mo ago[dead]
- _cenw 6mo agoTypically? I mean sure, those spaces exist, but the typical "leftist space" is usually still drenched in rape culture, maybe with some pretense of not being so (ending up as a bad experience for everyone except the self-important people running it).
- zen928 6mo agoA similar uncomfortable reality exists in rightoid spaces where theres hemming and hawwing at articles like this being blindly misandrist, despite the evidence and statistics on a societal level that men overwhelmingly commit more acts of sexual violence on strangers and deserve higher even segregation (its not even close to the same ballpark), but alas, they flee the consequences and promote a culture that critiques their legitimate and statistically backed reluctance to participate (like this thread). Despite the name, cherry picking isnt that fruitful of an activity.
- voxl 6mo agoYou realize your argument works double well for black people right? This is the textbook misandry I was talking about. Bigotry based off statistics is what we call stereotyping. Also, sexual violence against strangers is nothing in comparison to violence perpetuated by people you know.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- glouwbug 6mo agoYour average woman subjects themselves to a spectrum of sexual harassment ranging from cat calling to approaches - or even worse - by just leaving the house. Imagine them in gyms in workout clothing, or night club dresses in locked vehicles. If the solution is to limit what they wear, we're part of the problem
- hexyl_C_gut 6mo agoIf people feel safer with white only gyms, can people have that?
- kelvinjps10 6mo agoGo and have yours. Like nobody stopping you
- hexyl_C_gut 6mo agoCivil Rights law
- bombcar 6mo agoThere are so many ways around that you really don't even need to bother with it, just don't be putting up "No Irish Need Apply" or such. Hints: membership clubs, religious organizations (Gainz Я God)
- stackedinserter 6mo ago[flagged]
- khazhoux 6mo agoI hardly think letting women choose female drivers qualifies as “full steam towards sharia.”
- stackedinserter 6mo ago[flagged]
- wosined 6mo agoWhy does the same argument never work in reverse? When men want something for themselves then the same people say that that would be sexist.
- baggy_trough 6mo agoWe are all equal; it's just that some are more equal than others.
- brookst 6mo agoConsidering that 90% of sexual abuse in Uber’s safety report was committed by men, it seems disingenuous to frame this as some unreasonably discriminatory “oh they just want to have their own space”.
- krapp 6mo agoFor the same reason that white people wanting "White History Month" doesn't work.
- CSSer 6mo agoHonestly, thank you. I and many of my other friends have had this happen so much that we don't even react beyond an eyeroll, empty stare, or slight look of contempt for the perpetrator, when we tell each other the stories. I've had a ten minute drive in an unfamiliar city feel like an hour because a brief moment of conversation turned into a man repeatedly asking for my number, explicit details about where I live (not just the city, but the neighborhood, streets and even using phrases like "How can I find you if I visit?"), and my social media accounts. He did all of this despite clear, polite and repeated declinations towards his requests. He said things like "I'd like to be your friend" and further "I'd like to get to know you", and despite being firmly and clearly told, "No, thank you," each time he continued onward until the moment I stepped out of the vehicle. He was not subtle. It was very direct, and his tone sounded more and more frustrated as he persisted. For anyone reading who has not previously considered it, please imagine what it feels like to be in a moving, locked vehicle you're not in control of, in an unfamiliar place, with someone who is much stronger and taller than you who's not respecting your verbal boundaries. What guarantee do you have it will stop there? What could happen if I truly upset him? How much more unpleasant could it become for me? Meanwhile, I'm paying for this. Even with the option, I'm still paying with the extra time I willingly choose to wait.
- scoofy 6mo agoThe difference is the business structure. Women's only gyms are operated as private clubs, and must follow a very strict set of laws. Uber is a public accommodation. It cannot discriminate based on sex. If someone wanted to start a private club where women joined to drive and be driven in a not-for-profit way, that would also be legal.
- xenospn 6mo agoThis is as discriminatory as choosing strawberry ice cream over chocolate. To say, not at all.
- marky1991 6mo agoWhat is your justification for that? If an employer did the same thing, would you argue that's also not discriminatory? Or, to pick a notorious example, if a cake shop only agreed to sell to straight couples, would that be the same? If not, why not?
- commandlinefan 6mo ago> If an employer Actually, in this case, the rider _is_ a (temporary) employer.
- bc569a80a344f9c 6mo agoIn your cake shop example, the more accurate version would be some gay couples only agreeing to buy wedding cakes from cake shops with gay bakers. On account of it's the customer choosing the service provider, albeit with the help of filters provided by an aggregator, instead of service providers denying service to customers based on their belonging to a class. edit: I missed that you can, as a woman driver, also filter out male riders.
- brookst 6mo agoYou mean a cake brokerage or something? These platforms connect service providers and consumers. That should be obvious, I think. A better challenge would be if these same platforms allowed racial selections. Which I think everyone would be uncomfortable with in a way “let women avoid men” does not evoke. Probably because of motivation. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence of racially motivated bad behavior on these platforms, but there certainly is for gender-based bad behavior[1] So the apparently-similar hyptothetixal is not that similar, though still useful for rhetoric. 1. https://uber.app.box.com/s/lea3xzb70bp2wxe3k3dgk2ghcyr687x3?uclick_id=6b27dc11-0998-4130-992c-40544d0e83e2 https://uber.app.box.com/s/lea3xzb70bp2wxe3k3dgk2ghcyr687x3?... (Page 20)
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- paxys 6mo agoDo you think having women's only bathrooms is discrimination as well?
- Ekaros 6mo agoYes unless there is almost same amount of male only bathrooms. As member of most hated minority I can accept that there is correspondingly to population less bathrooms. So 51% of bathrooms should me female only and 49% of them should be male only.
- bombcar 6mo agothis is actually an interesting problem for building designers, because the "fair" scenario of equal space for each ends up in too few female restrooms (assuming a natural split of clientele) because the men get urinals which can be packed in like sardines, the women don't. Even if you go "fair" and have the same number of drains regardless of size you often end up with lines for the women. Most large place compensate by putting in way too many toilets on average or just hope there isn't a crush-time. The best place to see this in action is at a stadium with 50/50 fans during half-time or other break.
- 1718627440 6mo agoIf the others would be shared men and women bathrooms, yes?
- belorn 6mo agoIn places where unisex bathrooms is the norm, it not that uncommon to see men's only bathroom while the other rooms are unisex. Is that discrimination?
- atmavatar 6mo agoYes. I'm rather curious where this is actually the case, particularly as you claim it's not uncommon. My experience has been the opposite, though I'd hardly claim it to be representative. My prior employer had all single-occupant, unisex bathrooms originally, until one woman high up the management chain demanded there be women's only bathrooms. So, a women's only placard was placed on a couple of the unisex bathrooms, and suddenly, guys had to semi-frequently wait on for the remaining available unisex bathrooms during the day. It was very clearly discriminatory, and I have no problem claiming the reverse would be just as bad.
- nout 6mo agoI think as a society we moved away from trying to say that women are exactly the same as men in every aspect, so this change seems reasonable to me.
- john_strinlai 6mo agowhat are some example discriminatory filters you want, and what is your reasoning for wanting them?
- xnx 6mo agoLow scent preference: no perfume/cologne, car air "freshener", food smell, smoking
- john_strinlai 6mo agoi dont think preference for no perfume/cologne or no smoking is typically seen as discriminatory from a legal standpoint, is it? my workplace has a no perfume/cologne policy, and we have lawyers on staff, so itd be interesting to find out it is.
- bombcar 6mo agothe fun begins when it appears to be a stand-in for a protected class. "No perfume" is pretty simple, but "no smelling like curry" would clearly be at or over the line.
- slowmovintarget 6mo agoAre you saying it's not acceptable for a woman to choose a female driver over a male driver for a sense of her own safety? Deep breath in... There are two types of discrimination. Paraphrasing Thomas Sowell, let's call them Type I and Type II. Type II discrimination is the evil awful kind we rightfully rail against. It is "treating people negatively, based on arbitrary aversions or animosities to individuals of a particular race or sex..." Type I discrimination is of the broader sort; "an ability to discern differences in the qualities of people and things, choosing accordingly." We run our lives with this kind of discrimination: is this food safe to eat? is this activity safe to participate in? do I trust this person given what I know about them? >> Ideally, Discrimination I, applied to people, would mean judging each person as an individual, regardless of what group that person is part of. But here, as in other contexts, the ideal is seldom found among human beings in the real world, even among people who espouse that ideal. If you are walking at night down a lonely street, and see up ahead a shadowy figure in an alley, do you judge that person as an individual or do you cross the street and pass on the other side? The shadowy figure in the alley could turn out to be a kindly neighbor, out walking his dog. But, when making such decisions, a mistake on your part could be costly, up to and including costing you your life. [1] This kind of discrimination is what we're talking about. I'd venture that not only is it OK, it is necessary. In this case, men that have had no background check, and whose form of employment is as an Uber driver are more likely to harass women (or do worse) than a female driver. Allowing women to make a selection based on this likelihood means that female customers that are alone can make choices to still use the service while reducing the overall risk. Mitigation of this risk in normal taxi services take the form of background checks, bonds, and a chain of responsibility running from employer to employee to customer. It places more risk on the employer deliberately. Uber deliberately chooses to avoid this risk and responsibility. That choice is baked into their business model. That means enabling this kind of discrimination from their customers is a required feature of the service. [1] Discrimination and Disparities, by Thomas Sowell
- ShowalkKama 6mo ago> Allowing women to make a selection based on this likelihood means that female customers that are alone can make choices to still use the service while reducing the overall risk. I'm failing to see how anything you say could be used as a guideline to pick between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination. The major distinction you draw between "Type II" and "Type I" is the fact that one is fueled by "arbitrary aversion" which is not a particularly useful distinction. What if I denied entry to black people from my bar because ""they commit more crimes"" and ""are more likely to break stuff"", is it morally ok? Why not? My opinion is that no, it's not ok because the majority of people punished were never going to behave in an uncivil way. The same logic can be easily applied to this situation. Are men more likely to behave sexually inappropriately (which ranges from verbal harassment to assault)? Sure. Is it the majority? Hell no, it's nowhere close. (Of course it's worth nothing that the "majority" does not necessarily have 50.01%, it's just an arbitrary line you can draw as long as you are consistent about it)