• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sexist cab service opens in New York

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?

I think you are mistaken. I went back and re-read the OP and it states that SheRides is an app which would direct women seeking taxi service from female taxi drivers with female taxi drivers. It does not say that men would not be provided with a taxi driver. In fact, as long as a female is in the group, they will be directed to a female livery driver. In the case where the party is exclusively male, they will be directed to another livery service.

Not only will this service provide livery service to women who, for whatever reason--religious or not religious--feel more comfortable with female drivers, but will expand employment opportunities for women whose beliefs make it impossible for them to drive for a traditional livery service which serves males and females.
 
I think you are mistaken. I went back and re-read the OP and it states that SheRides is an app which would direct women seeking taxi service from female taxi drivers with female taxi drivers. It does not say that men would not be provided with a taxi driver. In fact, as long as a female is in the group, they will be directed to a female livery driver. In the case where the party is exclusively male, they will be directed to another livery service.

How is that different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding but giving you the number of a bakery which will?

Not only will this service provide livery service to women who, for whatever reason--religious or not religious--feel more comfortable with female drivers, but will expand employment opportunities for women whose beliefs make it impossible for them to drive for a traditional livery service which serves males and females.
Allowing bakeries to discriminate against gays will not only provide cake services who, for whatever reason, do not want to get cakes from a gay-friendly bakery but will also expand employment opportunities for bakers whose homophobic beliefs make it impossible for them to work at bakeries serving gays.

Having lunch counters which discriminate against blacks will not only provide lunch services who, for whatever reason, do not want to have lunch sitting next to blacks but will also expand employment opportunities for racists whose beliefs make it impossible for them to work at integrated lunch counters.

I.e. your logic can be used to justify all sorts of discriminatory business practices.
 
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?
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
 
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
So you say, but the app still provides an all-male party a ride.

And if the customers are asking for a female driver, and get a female driver, who, exactly, is discriminating against male drivers?
 
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.
Usually communities with a Curves also have a YMCA. To note that the cost of the membership at the Y is lower than Curves AND they offer a variety of fitness programs and facilities Curves does not offer. Even though Curves in Brandon is about the same distance for me for the Brandon Y, my choice of which facility to use was certainly motivated by cost of membership and the fact I can benefit of a variety of fitness programs at the Y to include combination of working on the machines in the gym section followed by lap swimming. Further the Y takes into account the economical status of their members (to include the Livestrong program) offering reduced rates to needy families/members.

I cannot imagine there is any substantial number of males complaining they cannot join Curves. And which guy would be looking forward to be plunged into a female dominated environment where we are all chatting and yakking incessantly?;)ahahahaha! ( do I get a couple of thumbs up from guys here?)


I am a female and I avoid female gender only places....seriously, I do. I much prefer an environment where I can find lap swimming buddies and weigh machine buddies who will not incessantly try to engage me or involve me into their chattering.... I even avoid swimming my laps at the Y between 930 and 1100 a.m because there is the scheduled daily water aerobic group (mostly women) on one side of the pool and it sounds like a chicken house on a farm! yakedeyak... on and on.
 
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?

I think you are mistaken. I went back and re-read the OP and it states that SheRides is an app which would direct women seeking taxi service from female taxi drivers with female taxi drivers. It does not say that men would not be provided with a taxi driver. In fact, as long as a female is in the group, they will be directed to a female livery driver. In the case where the party is exclusively male, they will be directed to another livery service.

Not only will this service provide livery service to women who, for whatever reason--religious or not religious--feel more comfortable with female drivers, but will expand employment opportunities for women whose beliefs make it impossible for them to drive for a traditional livery service which serves males and females.

Here women cab drivers cannot refuse to pick up a male fare. Nor can they refuse to drop at liquor stores, etc. These things were decided in the early 1900s with Christian cabbies.
 
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?
Clear as mud. I am not familiar with the Koran but am with the Bible, specifically the Hebrew Bible and I do not recall anything about females not being allowed to interact with male tradesmen.

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?
Just to clarify - SheRides is not limited to extremely conservative religious women but to any woman who either doesn't want to ride with a man or doesn't want to drive a man. None of it changes the fact that it is a highly discriminatory business.

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.
I think you believe discrimination against men is a good and progressive thing in general.

Are you prepared to defend your claim in the Religious Discussion Forum?
Why should I? I was not one making that claim, but some Biblical scholars are.
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.
Bullshit. I made no claims about the Koran and I only said that some people think some of the Biblical books have been written by women, not that I think that.

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?????
Yeah, it's all men's fault. :rolleyes:
And some feminists, like for example Naomi Wolf, do support hijabs and the like.
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".
While the app could be used by religious fundamentalist women the primary purpose is just to avoid men, for whatever reason a woman wants to do that. If a man didn't want to be driven by a female cabbie he'd be called misogynist. Same with a cabbie who didn't want to pick up women. But if women do it, it's ok.

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.
Again, these religious women are not the totality of their projected customer base. And even for them, I do not see why their desires should trump anti-discrimination laws any more than desire of a Muslim man not to be subservient to a woman should cause the company to only put him answerable to male managers. If you live in US you should show some flexibility.

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?
If you didn't mind a haircut that's within their skill set I do not see them rejecting your business. But hair cutting places do specialize because average male and women's haircuts are different. Cab rides are not. If a male cabbie refused to give you a ride you'd have a good case of sexism.


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

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.
I mentioned the Bible because I know more about it than the Koran. And Bible, specifically "Hebrew Bible" (I omitted the adjective "Hebrew" because it was clear from the context), is perfectly valid name for it. Torah and Tamud are not. Torah is only one part of the Hebrew Bible, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy only. Talmud is a collection of writings not part of the Bible at all.

When referring to Muslims, the actual reference is to Koran or Quran or Qur'an. Not "the Bible".
I wasn't referring to the Koran as the Bible.

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.
Just because a sexist, discriminatory business gets customers doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
Just because there is non-sexist competition doesn't mean that the company runs afoul of anti-discrimination legislation.

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.
It wasn't a market driven demand, but PC driven one, given that in those neighborhood vast majority was still non-Muslim.

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.
Doesn't change the fact that banning non-Kosher meals is PC run amok.

Instead your Op is one more ranting outcry further escorted with mentions of radical feminism and hatred against men.
Again, the business discriminates against men twofold - as customers and as employees. That is not ok.
 
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
So you say, but the app still provides an all-male party a ride.

And if the customers are asking for a female driver, and get a female driver, who, exactly, is discriminating against male drivers?

For that matter, how is it different than a woman actively seeking a female practitioner for gynecological care?

When I go for a mammogram, all personnel are female in that area, although there are from time to time, men who require mammograms. Similarly, a number of years ago, my husband needed a prostate biopsy and he told me that all staff in that area were male. In both cases, this is done to help ensure the comfort of the patients.
 
Usually communities with a Curves also have a YMCA.
YMCAs do not discriminate against women and have both female members and employees. M is in the name only. Curves actively discriminates against men and that should not be allowed. Of course, since it is doscrimination against men, who don't matter as much as women, Curves is allowed to discriminate.

I cannot imagine there is any substantial number of males complaining they cannot join Curves. And which guy would be looking forward to be plunged into a female dominated environment where we are all chatting and yakking incessantly?;)ahahahaha! ( do I get a couple of thumbs up from guys here?)
If they weren't allowed to actively discriminate it would not be an exclusively female environment. Maybe I should sue them for membership just for the sake of principle. But I doubt ACLU would take my case. I'd also love to sue all the bars that give free admission or discounted drinks to women only.
 
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?
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.

No, it is not. It is running an app which will provide a much needed service to women who are currently very restricted in their movements as well as a much appreciated service for women who are more comfortable with female drivers for non-religious reasons. Consider as well that there are men whose religious beliefs also preclude them from riding with unknown female drivers. However, it is much less difficult for men to find male drivers than for women to find female drivers.
 
For that matter, how is it different than a woman actively seeking a female practitioner for gynecological care?
There are plenty of male gynecologists and since I presume they are not working on men plenty of women choose male gynecologists as well. Maybe because men have warmer hands or to (as Sabine said) to avoid yakking. It would be wrong though for a hospital to not hire any male gynecologists as a matter of police or to prohibit men from going to female doctors as a matter of policy.

When I go for a mammogram, all personnel are female in that area, although there are from time to time, men who require mammograms. Similarly, a number of years ago, my husband needed a prostate biopsy and he told me that all staff in that area were male. In both cases, this is done to help ensure the comfort of the patients.
Are you saying that they actively discriminate in hiring? That would indeed be illegal. Different people naturally gravitating toward different specialties would not.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is not. It is running an app which will provide a much needed service to women who are currently very restricted in their movements as well as a much appreciated service for women who are more comfortable with female drivers for non-religious reasons.
I.e. sexism.
Consider as well that there are men whose religious beliefs also preclude them from riding with unknown female drivers. However, it is much less difficult for men to find male drivers than for women to find female drivers.
As you say, most drivers are male so men who don't want a female driver are not that likely to get one. But consider a man who (for religious or other reason) does not want to work under a woman. Should he be allowed to or should he be rightly branded a misogynist and told to either put up or leave?

- - - Updated - - -

The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
So you say, but the app still provides an all-male party a ride.
Through a different service. Like being referred to another bakery for your gay wedding cake.

And if the customers are asking for a female driver, and get a female driver, who, exactly, is discriminating against male drivers?
Both the sexist customers and the sexist app that was created specifically to cater to their sexism.
 
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.
And that is wrong as well. But as long as it's only men being discriminated against our increasingly gynocratic society is fine with it and even actively encourages it.
 
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
So you say, but the app still provides an all-male party a ride.
Through a different service. Like being referred to another bakery for your gay wedding cake.
Not QUITE the same. It would be the same if the baker refused to make your gay wedding cake, but took your order to a bakery that would provide it, and brought it back to you, so there was no further burden or effort on your part. Then it would be 'like' that.
 
There are plenty of male gynecologists and since I presume they are not working on men plenty of women choose male gynecologists as well. Maybe because men have warmer hands or to (as Sabine said) to avoid yakking. It would be wrong though for a hospital to not hire any male gynecologists as a matter of police or to prohibit men from going to female doctors as a matter of policy.

Exactly: no one is suggesting that men should not be gynecologists. Plenty of women will be perfectly happy with a male gynecologist just as plenty of women are quite happy with male taxi drivers.

But why should not women who prefer a female gynecologist or a female taxi driver or a female hair dresser, etc. be allowed to select females for those services? Similarly, why should not a man be able to choose a male urologist or a male hairdresser or a male tailor, etc?

Nor is there any policy forbidding men from seeking out livery service. No one has suggested that men be prohibited from driving taxis or from providing taxi service to women. The app merely helps women more conveniently locate a female driver if that is her preference. Men can easily seek out male drivers if that is their preference.


When I go for a mammogram, all personnel are female in that area, although there are from time to time, men who require mammograms. Similarly, a number of years ago, my husband needed a prostate biopsy and he told me that all staff in that area were male. In both cases, this is done to help ensure the comfort of the patients.
Are you saying that they actively discriminate in hiring? That would indeed be illegal. Different people naturally gravitating toward different specialties would not.

I am saying that in fact, only women work in the area providing mammograms and only men work in the area providing prostate biopsies, at least in the areas which have intimate patient contact. I have no idea of the gender of the radiologists or the pathologists who examine images or tissue samples.

I have my mammograms at a very large medical provider. There are many opportunities for people of all genders to work with patients. However, it is difficult to see why a man would insist upon administering a mammogram to a female patient or why a woman would insist upon performing the prostate biopsy if there were same gendered staff available to provide those services, given that patients are generally more comfortable with members of their own gender in regards to certain kinds of exams.

I know a lot of women who actively seek out female providers for gynecological services, be they NP, PA or MD OBGYN. For most women, this is not a matter of modesty or of competence of the provider but rather a degree of comfort and feeling of assurance that when one describes symptoms, the person who is doing the exam will be better able to relate and perhaps be better at offering suggestions. Certainly not all women feel this way and many women do not have a choice as to the gender of their provider, especially if they live in an area which is underserved by the medical profession.


No, it is not. It is running an app which will provide a much needed service to women who are currently very restricted in their movements as well as a much appreciated service for women who are more comfortable with female drivers for non-religious reasons.
I.e. sexism.

Indeed, there is sexim at work if a woman accepts a ride with an unrelated male and is then punished for that, be the punishment shaming, exclusion, physical abuse, even death.

It is not sexist of a woman to wish to avoid these consequences from members of her community or of society at large in areas where this is the predominate culture.

Consider as well that there are men whose religious beliefs also preclude them from riding with unknown female drivers. However, it is much less difficult for men to find male drivers than for women to find female drivers.
As you say, most drivers are male so men who don't want a female driver are not that likely to get one. But consider a man who (for religious or other reason) does not want to work under a woman. Should he be allowed to or should he be rightly branded a misogynist and told to either put up or leave?

Or women who do not wish to work for a woman. Or for a man. Or for someone who is LGBTQ. Or of a different race or ethnicity.

However, we are not talking about someone not accepting or balking at working for someone with whom they feel antipathy. We are talking about customers being allowed to select the provider of the service they are wishing to secure, using whatever criteria they choose. This is a service which will help individuals do just exactly that.

Similarly, should a man who is seeking a blow job from a prostitute be able to insist on only hiring a female prostitute? How is that different?


The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
So you say, but the app still provides an all-male party a ride.
Through a different service. Like being referred to another bakery for your gay wedding cake.

Not quite. Bakeries which refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings are making a negative statement about the couple they are declining to provide service for. Women who, for whatever reason, prefer to ride with female drivers are not expressing disapproval of men or of male drivers or of men who drive taxis for hire. They are holding to their own personal beliefs about what is appropriate behavior for them: avoiding close contact with unrelated males as an expression of modesty. This modesty is enforced, by sometimes severe punishment, by their communities.

And if the customers are asking for a female driver, and get a female driver, who, exactly, is discriminating against male drivers?
Both the sexist customers and the sexist app that was created specifically to cater to their sexism.

How so? Why is preferring one gender to provide certain services sexist if the concern is not the competence of the service provider but rather the personal comfort and preferences of the person seeking the service.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have is that when you arrive at a destination, you HAVE to take the next cabbie in line. I thought as consumers we had a choice.
 
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?
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
It is no more sexist or discriminating than a brothel that has only women prostitutes. You have no problem with that situation, so you really need to come up with a cogent rational why this is conceptually different.
 
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?
If you didn't mind a haircut that's within their skill set I do not see them rejecting your business. But hair cutting places do specialize because average male and women's haircuts are different. Cab rides are not. If a male cabbie refused to give you a ride you'd have a good case of sexism.

I've been shooed out of a barber shop with a refusal cut my girl-hair (even into a boy cut) (as an adult, not a kid).

It wasn't a market driven demand, but PC driven one, given that in those neighborhood vast majority was still non-Muslim.

Doesn't change the fact that banning non-Kosher meals is PC run amok.

You don't get it. Those _ARE_ market driven decisions. It's not PC. Businesses rarely do things to be PC. If ever.
 
The company in question is the company running the sexist app and it is directly discriminating against male drivers and customers.
It is no more sexist or discriminating than a brothel that has only women prostitutes. You have no problem with that situation, so you really need to come up with a cogent rational why this is conceptually different.


That's a lot to ask of a person who lives in an imaginary world where men (and white men especially) are perpetually victims of radical feminists, having to fend off discrimination and false rape charges at every turn.
 
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.
And that is wrong as well. But as long as it's only men being discriminated against our increasingly gynocratic society is fine with it and even actively encourages it.
Gynocratic society. Yeah... birth control and cabs! Now that is living the life of privilege! Man, I wish I had a vagina!
 
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.



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.

Perhaps there is something I am missing, but it appears to me that this app simply allows (religious) female customers to express their own preference for a female driver. If a male were to choose to use an app called SheRides, he would still be able to order a cab.

The article explicitly notes that the developers of the SheRides app do not own any cabs, nor employ the cab drivers. SheRides is simply a middle-man in the form of an app.

I'm not seeing the discrimination here.

As for Derec, his constant anti-female outrage is simply tiring. I've shut him off to minimize how much of it I have to see :sigh:
 
Back
Top Bottom