Sexist cab service opens in New York

[Tom Sawyer]

They have the same kind of bullshit thing in my city. It's called WheelTrans and it only gives rides to disabled people. I'm tired of the fucking gimps continuously oppressing me just because I can use both legs. Assholes.

So being female is akin to a disability now?
Wheelchairs require special lifts so it makes sense for specialized transport. No such requirement exists for females. And there is no warrant why female cabbies should be allowed to refuse male riders just because of their gender either.

They have a business model which caters to the needs of a specialized client base.

You're not actually being oppressed here.

 

[Derec]

. And there is no warrant why female cabbies should be allowed to refuse male riders just because of their gender either.

That's not happening, though. No one's trying to flag down a taxi and not getting picked up because of their gender.
If you use the app, you'll get a ride.

Not if you are a male.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That's not happening, though. No one's trying to flag down a taxi and not getting picked up because of their gender.
If you use the app, you'll get a ride.

Not if you are a male.

You'll still get a ride if you are male.

 

[Derec]

They have a business model which caters to the needs of a specialized client base.

They still should not be discriminating by gender.

You're not actually being oppressed here.

Not yet, as they are not in Atlanta yet. I hope they get stopped by the courts (because lefty DeBlasio will do fuck all) well before then though.

- - - Updated - - -

Not if you are a male.

You'll still get a ride if you are male.

From another company. Just because there are other competitors does not make discrimination ok or even legal.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not if you are a male.

So..you use the app and you get a ride to where you want to go. And then, um... A company of women don't get a percentage of your fare.


God DAMN, that's anti-male discrimination at its worst!

 

[Ford]

Over the weekend I went to the mall, and walked by this store that only sold women's garments. Can you believe that? What's worse, it looked like all the employees were women, too.

Victoria's Secret is sexist, I tell you! Very sexy sexist!

 

[Derec]

Over the weekend I went to the mall, and walked by this store that only sold women's garments. Can you believe that? What's worse, it looked like all the employees were women, too.

Victoria's Secret is sexist, I tell you! Very sexy sexist!

VS sells female specific products. Rides are not gender specific though. Let's say it was a store selling non-gender specific things and they barred you entry just because you were a man. That would not cease to be unlawful discrimination just because you can go to their competitors instead.

When it comes to cakes for gay weddings, the practice of bakeries refusing that business has been repeatedly ruled unlawful even though there are plenty of other bakeries that could do the job.
Existence of non-discriminatory competition does not make discrimination lawful.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Derec, you do note that it's the app that's doing the discrimination, not the company, right?
The women drivers are being selected from multiple companies, with male and female employees, not just one women-only company.
The customers using the app WILL get a ride at the end of the process, no matter the gender.

So, again, who's being discriminated against?

 

[Toni]

Well according to the business plan, it _is_ about who the driver is.

According to their business plan, it's all about discrimination against both employees and customers in an industry where gender does not affect work (unlike stripping).

I wonder what you would say if a cab company refused to hire women and refused to serve female passengers.

I'm confused: Men and women are both able to dance and are both able to dance provocatively, in a sexual manner. Men and women are both able to strip as part of a dance routine. Heck, men and women will both appeal to male audience members, if not usually the same male audience members. The male dancers will have the added bonus of attracting female customers.

Is your argument that if a strip club which caters to straight men and hires male strippers that they will see a loss in the number of clients? Or that their client base will change over to gay clients? Isn't the female dancer policy discriminatory/anti-gay? Or that their client base will change over to female customers? If so, isn't the original female policy discriminatory against women?

Hiring only female dancers allows the club to attract its preferred customer base: straight men. In fact, it is discriminatory but it is also allowed and you seem in favor of it.

An app which allows women who wish to ride only with female cab drivers allows them to select the drivers with whom they feel comfortable and/or allow them to be in compliance with their religious beliefs. Certainly you are in favor of people being allowed to follow their own religious beliefs, including non-belief?

In fact, the reason that women wish to use only female drivers based upon their religious beliefs is exactly due to discrimination against women. In some cultures, women are deemed to be unable to be within the company of unrelated males without being corrupted and compromised. There can be very dire consequences for women who violate this cultural norm and in some places: law. Up to and including death.

There is much discrimination but in this case, it isn't against men.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense. This company discriminates against both male drivers and male customers.
The business is about being driven from A to B, not about looking at the driver. Therefore the gender of the driver should not matter and this discriminatory business should be shut down!

You are mistaken. The business is about being ferried from point A to point B in a comfortable manner. If you can excuse sexism in brothels, the same rationale is applicable to taxis: the comfort and preference of the customer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Derec is making a mountain out of a molehill here, but he does have a point. It is sexist. It just doesn't matter, since you can get just as good service, with no inconvenience, or at least minimal inconvenience, since you get passed on to another taxi company. I could see an issue worth addressing here if that passing on meant you had to wait extra long or got inferior service, but as far as I can tell that isn't the case.

When it comes to cakes for gay weddings, the practice of bakeries refusing that business has been repeatedly ruled unlawful even though there are plenty of other bakeries that could do the job.
Existence of non-discriminatory competition does not make discrimination lawful.

That is a good point. What would those here saying this isn't sexist say if these bakeries refusing gay weddings wanted to pass customers on to another bakery, and there was little inconvenience or drop in service quality in them doing so? Personally, I didn't really see an issue with a bakery not wanting to serve gay weddings and I don't think they should be forced to, not unless a critical mass is hit like in the case of the "no blacks allowed" restaurants of old. I think there should be a real inconvenience and drop in service quality before you should be able to make a case (as there was with the blacks and there was not with the gay weddings or female only taxis).

Over the weekend I went to the mall, and walked by this store that only sold women's garments. Can you believe that? What's worse, it looked like all the employees were women, too.

Victoria's Secret is sexist, I tell you! Very sexy sexist!

To my knowledge, Victoria's Secret doesn't ban men from buying their clothing. Men can shop there to buy gifts for women, or to buy clothes for themselves if they want to wear women's clothing. If Victoria's Secret did ban men from shopping there then that would be sexist.

As for the strip clubs, it would be wrong for them to tell female customers they can't enter clubs with female strippers, or to tell men they can't enter clubs with male strippers. I am not aware of any that do that, but if they exist, then that should be stopped.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm confused: Men and women are both able to dance and are both able to dance provocatively, in a sexual manner. Men and women are both able to strip as part of a dance routine. Heck, men and women will both appeal to male audience members, if not usually the same male audience members. The male dancers will have the added bonus of attracting female customers.

Is your argument that if a strip club which caters to straight men and hires male strippers that they will see a loss in the number of clients? Or that their client base will change over to gay clients? Isn't the female dancer policy discriminatory/anti-gay? Or that their client base will change over to female customers? If so, isn't the original female policy discriminatory against women?

Hiring only female dancers allows the club to attract its preferred customer base: straight men. In fact, it is discriminatory but it is also allowed and you seem in favor of it.

An app which allows women who wish to ride only with female cab drivers allows them to select the drivers with whom they feel comfortable and/or allow them to be in compliance with their religious beliefs. Certainly you are in favor of people being allowed to follow their own religious beliefs, including non-belief?

In fact, the reason that women wish to use only female drivers based upon their religious beliefs is exactly due to discrimination against women. In some cultures, women are deemed to be unable to be within the company of unrelated males without being corrupted and compromised. There can be very dire consequences for women who violate this cultural norm and in some places: law. Up to and including death.

There is much discrimination but in this case, it isn't against men.

I agree with this. If gender is a key part of what you are selling then you should discriminate in hiring on that basis. You will hire female strippers for a strip club targeting straight males. You will also hire thin attractive ones and discriminate against ugly fat girls.

Where I see the problem is when and if they discriminate in hiring on a basis not integral to what they are selling, or when then discriminate against customers. If a gay man wants to go into a strip club with female dancers. Why would he go? I dunno, maybe to hang out with his straight friends who are going there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I misread the title as sexiest cab service. Was quite interested in the possibilities.

Disappointed.

 

[Starr]

Derec, you do note that it's the app that's doing the discrimination, not the company, right?
The women drivers are being selected from multiple companies, with male and female employees, not just one women-only company.
The customers using the app WILL get a ride at the end of the process, no matter the gender.

So, again, who's being discriminated against?

This. While I would somewhat agree with Derec's point if the situation were as he described, the facts of the situation seem to be quite different.
Of course even if the situation were as described, I don't see any challenge to the company being successful. Cases brought against similar endeavors like Curves have resulted in either being thrown out of court, or states changing their laws to explicitly exclude fitness centers from gender discrimination laws. This is why I say I would only somewhat agree. I don't have a problem with things like Curves gyms existing. They are discriminatory, but the effects of the discrimination are nil, and I think this is an important point. The zero tolerance our laws generally show toward discrimination are because of the incredibly bad effects of it. However the effects are not always bad, and I think certain exceptions can be made. We should always default to the position of discrimination being bad, but be willing to move from that position in specific cases if it can be shown that there is no adverse effect.

Would there be an adverse effect to a discriminatory cab company? I simply don't know.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't have a problem with things like Curves gyms existing. They are discriminatory, but the effects of the discrimination are nil, and I think this is an important point.

The effects are not nil. The effects are real and may be potent depending on a number of things, such as how nearby a gym allowing men is, etc. The argument that usually wins this debate is that the overall social benefit of an all-female gym outweighs the overall social cost of the discrimination. Derec will say it doesn't. Others here will say it does, and so far they have been winning.

But let's not pretend there is no cost when we discriminate against men.

 

[Rhea]

And in this case there is an increased safety factor from it.

 

[Starr]

I don't have a problem with things like Curves gyms existing. They are discriminatory, but the effects of the discrimination are nil, and I think this is an important point.

The effects are not nil. The effects are real and may be potent depending on a number of things, such as how nearby a gym allowing men is, etc. The argument that usually wins this debate is that the overall social benefit of an all-female gym outweighs the overall social cost of the discrimination. Derec will say it doesn't. Others here will say it does, and so far they have been winning.

But let's not pretend there is no cost when we discriminate against men.

I suppose so. I've just never seen the situation you've described, but I have not lived everywhere obviously. In a community where no gym allowing men is available, I certainly think allowing a Curves would be bad. The franchise should either not be allowed to enter that market, or forced to be co-ed until such a time as there is a diverse set of gym options available.

 

[laughing dog]

That is a good point. What would those here saying this isn't sexist say if these bakeries refusing gay weddings wanted to pass customers on to another bakery, and there was little inconvenience or drop in service quality in them doing so? Personally, I didn't really see an issue with a bakery not wanting to serve gay weddings and I don't think they should be forced to, not unless a critical mass is hit like in the case of the "no blacks allowed" restaurants of old. I think there should be a real inconvenience and drop in service quality before you should be able to make a case (as there was with the blacks and there was not with the gay weddings or female only taxis).

There is a distinct difference between the situations. With the cabs, it is the customer who is putatively preferring a female driver based on religious sensibilities or safety concerns. The cab company is still picking up fares of both genders. With the bakeries, it is not the customer but the bakery who is discriminating against a group. We don't let bakeries discriminate against customers based on their race, so why should we permit them to discriminate based on sexual preference?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is a distinct difference between the situations. With the cabs, it is the customer who is putatively preferring a female driver based on religious sensibilities or safety concerns. The cab company is still picking up fares of both genders. With the bakeries, it is not the customer but the bakery who is discriminating against a group. We don't let bakeries discriminate against customers based on their race, so why should we permit them to discriminate based on sexual preference?

I agree with you, if what you say is true. But that isn't what was stated above. They were saying that the company doesn't pick up men, and instead refers the call to another taxi company that does. In that scenario, would you agree it is sexist? Would you oppose it along with Derec?

 

[Sabine Grant]

But they are supportive of systems where men are treated as inferior persons. Systems like SheRides.

You had required documentation regarding sex based segregation while you mentioning specifically the Bible. I provided you with documentation confirming sex segregation addressing social interactions and that from Orthodox Judaism. Are you or not going to acknowledged that such sex segregation restricting mixed gender social interactions is a FACT when it comes to conservative Islam and Orthodox Judaism? And that since you showed skepticism to Keith's remarks. I am not going to let you evade what has been documented by me in response to your dismissive response to Keith's remarks. Clear enough?

Since "Muslim" was also included as part of the category of women either as customers or drivers, you need to know that "radical feminists" are usually not supporters of the tenants of Islam which deprive members of the female gender from a variety of rights male members benefit of.

But they are supportive of tenets of SheRides that deprive males of ride services and employment opportunities through their company.

How does anyone's recognition that the SheRides company is accommodating SPECIFIC women with a SPECIFIC religious profile to eliminate their discomfort in social interactions with stranger males, supposed to signify being supportive of the ultra conservative branches of 2 religions notoriously known for treating females as inferior human beings?

Is my recognition of the ACTUAL motivation based on an accommodation ( as I specifically detailed it above) to be justifiably interpreted as meaning that I support the tenets of ultra conservative Judaism and Islam? Be very careful as to which intentions you will attribute to my recognition.

To add, that most people are also aware that whether it be the Torah or Q'ran, they were formulated by males and in the context of a patriarchal culture. Meaning (just in case the implication escapes you) that males are the authors and dictators of sex segregation in both Islam and Orthodox Judaism. Not "radical feminists" living in 2014 USA. Clear enough?

Actually several Biblical books are thought to have been written by women.

Are you prepared to defend your claim in the Religious Discussion Forum? You'd better be especially the bit about involving the Bible when I made a clear reference of Qu'ran. Let me forewarn you that we do have a couple of scholars who frequent our GRD Forum. I will start a thread in GRD in the near future bringing up your claim and you'd better be prepared to quote and document your sources. Especially when applied to Qu'ran.

Also women are often first to enforce many of the supposedly patriarchal rules of their religions.

And religious women subjected to long term and from a generation to generation indoctrination which was initiated by MALES is supposed to be including "radical feminists" who live in 2014 USA? Are you kidding me?????

But lastly, even if radical feminists behind SheRides don't agree with orthodox Islam or Judaism they still love discriminating against men, and any excuse will do.

You are (once more) SPECULATING. You have been observed by multiple members as polarizing your outcries of sexism (at the drop of a hat) declaring it motivated by hatred of men. As if the customers and drivers of SheRides are looking for an accommodation of their religious beliefs based on "hating men". They represent a demand within the market of supply and demand which requires an accommodation based on religious beliefs/practices. The accommodation being about the discomfort they would experience if there were no alternative for them but have to have social interactions with stranger males. As a result a business is created for the purpose of supplying that specific market driven demand.

Do you *think* that as a female I would engage in outcries of sexism motivated by hatred against women when barber shops and designated as barber shops respond to the specific demand of a male clientele which excludes female clientele? Do I pull a drama while speculating that barber shop owners exclude a female clientele because they hate women?

Now had your OP been about your outrage to special accommodations being made based on religious identity, I am certain you would have an actively contributing audience to your outrage in this thread.

My OP is an outrage against overt and illegal discrimination against male drivers and riders by the radfem SheRides app.

Well, it appears your outrage is misplaced and not as justified as you believe it to be.

Let alone you producing such absurd replies mentioning the alleged female authorship of"some books" in the Bible while I had mentioned Qur'an. And by the way, any time you discuss Judaism, be aware that the actual terms used by adepts of Judaism regarding their sacred scriptures are not "The Bible" but the Torah and the Talmud. When referring to Muslims, the actual reference is to Koran or Quran or Qur'an. Not "the Bible". Somehow you seem to be stuck on "the Bible" as if having read it made you an expert on the variety of practices in Judaism and in Islam. (since you used the argumentation earlier of having read The Bible...blablabla...).

Further, a point you do NOT even have, is that the existence of a private business responding to a market driven demand accommodating a SPECIFIC group, in this specific case conservative branches of Judaism and Islam female members, results in males throughout N.Y city to be able to get a cab or get employment with a cab company. I sincerely doubt that there are substantial numbers of N.Y city males residents who are pulling a drama queen over the existence of SheRides claiming that it deprives them of finding a cab/taxi or they cannot find employment as a cab driver throughout the city.

Such "drama queening" would echo the outcries of folks who were outraged at a fast food chain in the UK and Ireland accommodating a market driven demand of serving only Kosher Food in some of their facilities. When the number of those said facilities was so low compared to the existing number of that fast food chain facilities and could not be perceived as depriving non Kosher eating customers from access to an abundance of non Kosher foods facilities.

Again, a solid topic of discussion regarding the existence of the business known as SheRide would have been whether accommodations for religious persons with a specific religious identity, accommodations made by a private business are detrimental to the groups (in this case gender based) who are not given access to the said business for the very reason that they are not the parties in need of such religious practices based accommodations. In this specific case and again and now duly documented (though you dismissed my rebuke to your reply to Keith) an accommodation designed to meet the needs of religious persons falling under the specific group of religious females abiding to to the practice of gender segregation applied to ALL aspects of their social interactions with stranger males. Practice which originated with the male DOMINATED authorship of a divide between genders demonstrated throughout the specific documents known as Qur'an (Koran) and The Torah/Talmud.

Instead your Op is one more ranting outcry further escorted with mentions of radical feminism and hatred against men.