Women-only parking bays in Perth CBD

[Deepak]

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD... men will not be fined if they park in them.

So I'm less concerned about the spots themselves, and more concerned about the fact that they know that assaults are an issue in parking lots yet they don't improve lighting and monitoring universally.

I'm pretty certain that there are at least 30 people who would be at risk of an assault in the parking lot, so why do early commuters get the safety privilege?

 

[RavenSky]

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD... men will not be fined if they park in them.

So I'm less concerned about the spots themselves, and more concerned about the fact that they know that assaults are an issue in parking lots yet they don't improve lighting and monitoring universally.

I'm pretty certain that there are at least 30 people who would be at risk of an assault in the parking lot, so why do early commuters get the safety privilege?

^^^ that

The whole thing seems more like a PR stunt that an actual safety measure

 

[TV and credit cards]

Please tell me what percentage of women fear getting raped in parking lots and that this fear is debilitating enough for the State to violate its own laws on gender discrimination.

You'll of course have statistics to back up your 'vast majority' statement.

If there hasn't been any surveys done, would the number of countries who have instituted this policy and the frequency of which they have instituted it be an accurate gauge of this "fear" or is this wrong on an international scale?

 

[Metaphor]

Violating what laws

Per the portion of the article YOU quoted in the OP:

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD... men will not be fined if they park in them.

"Female-friendly" is not the same as "female-only" and the article explicitly stated men can park in them too.

The article did not say that men were equally welcome to the spots, only that they won't be fined. I imagine that's the case because to make them female only really would violate s.22 of the Act.

Why can't the spots be 'safety friendly'? Why this need to segregate the genders?

 

[laughing dog]

No, I do not realise. ..

Of course not, you are too busy pitching a hissy fit over nothing.

I cannot figure out why the 'fear' of some people in a demographic is enough for the State to discriminate by gender.

There is no actual discrimination, as a number of posters have pointed out.

It's possible, but unlikely given the facts that we know about frequency and location of assaults and gender.

Your assault statistics are not relevant to the issue of rape or assault in parking bays.

If the bays said 'Muslims only' and had the star and crescent painted on them, would you say no actual discrimination is occurring so what's the fuss about?

Well, "only" is different than "friendly", so yes.

I was waiting for someone to compare women to the disabled.

No one did that.

No, I am not upset by disabled parking spots, because there is a good reason for disabled people to have larger parking bays closer to entrances and exits. And inclusion in the 'disabled' group is by evaluation by a doctor that you warrant a disabled parking sticker.

So as long as you approve of the reasons for the discrimination, it is okay. Wow.

 

[Draconis]

The extra lighting will probably only make the victims feel safer, rather than actually making them safer: women get raped in all sorts of places, even in broad daylight. As for CCTV, if the assailant wears a mask, it's pretty useless.

 

[Metaphor]

So as long as you approve of the reasons for the discrimination, it is okay. Wow.

Of course. There is a good reason to discriminate against able bodied people in car parks and favouring better placed and larger spots for the disabled.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think I've isolated the problem:

"The bays will not be policed..."

Rather than pretty-up a section of the parking lot for the ladies, how about hiring some security? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that?

aa

 

[laughing dog]

So as long as you approve of the reasons for the discrimination, it is okay. Wow.

Of course. There is a good reason to discriminate against able bodied people in car parks and favouring better placed and larger spots for the disabled.

The issue is not actual discrimination based on personal characteristics in general, but perceived "discrimination" against men. Wow.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course not, you are too busy pitching a hissy fit over nothing.

Yes, every post is a hissy fit. I'm usually accused of that when I use elevated language but it turns out I'm accused of it even when I don't use elevated language. So it turns out I'm just a hysteric. Probably my womb needs to be affixed in place by getting pregnant.

There is no actual discrimination, as a number of posters have pointed out.

When people discuss the pay gap, no-one excuses a 'blokey' workplace as something to let slide because it's not 'actual discrimination'.

Deliberately fostering an environment that highlights genders and asks for differential treatment while stopping short of actual denial of goods and services may not be 'discrimination' but is it desirable?

Your assault statistics are not relevant to the issue of rape or assault in parking bays.

I must have missed the part of the story where Perth council furnished statistics that women were more likely to be the targets of rape and assault in the parking lot.

Well, "only" is different than "friendly", so yes.

First, one of the signs says 'Kindly reserve this space for female drivers'. That is more than 'female friendly'. It is at the very least official disapproval of men parking in the spaces.

Second, if the signs said "Muslim friendly parking" and "Kindly reserve this space for Muslim drivers", would you be fine with that too? Why?

No one did that.

You did it, of course, by implying that I ought also to object to disabled parking spots, as if having women-'friendly' parking spots had the same kind of solid reasoning there is to have disabled-only parking spots.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course. There is a good reason to discriminate against able bodied people in car parks and favouring better placed and larger spots for the disabled.

The issue is not actual discrimination based on personal characteristics in general, but perceived "discrimination" against men. Wow.

I'm sorry, what?

Would you object to female-only parking spots?

 

[laughing dog]

When people discuss the pay gap, no-one excuses a 'blokey' workplace as something to let slide because it's not 'actual discrimination'.

Huh? Either there is pay discrimination or there is not.

Deliberately fostering an environment that highlights genders and asks for differential treatment while stopping short of actual denial of goods and services may not be 'discrimination' but is it desirable?

So why bring up the discrimination aspect?

I must have missed the part of the story where Perth council furnished statistics that women were more likely to be the targets of rape and assault in the parking lot.

I fail to understand how that justifies your irrelevant statistics.

First, one of the signs says 'Kindly reserve this space for female drivers'. That is more than 'female friendly'. It is at the very least official disapproval of men parking in the spaces.

OMG!!!!!!!

Second, if the signs said "Muslim friendly parking" and "Kindly reserve this space for Muslim drivers", would you be fine with that too? Why?

Wouldn't bother me in the least.

You did it, of course, by implying that I ought also to object to disabled parking spots, as if having women-'friendly' parking spots had the same kind of solid reasoning there is to have disabled-only parking spots.

No, I did not. I was asking about the another form of discrimination in parking spaces which does not require equating the two groups whatsoever.
I was asking to see whether you were against discrimination based on personal characteristics as a matter of principle. And you are not.

I'm sorry, what?

You are not against actual discrimination based on personal characteristics, since you approve of giving disabled people preferential parking spots. However, you are against perceived discrimination against men with female friendly parking spots.

Would you object to female-only parking spots?

Yes, I don't think it is a big deal.

 

[Metaphor]

Huh? Either there is pay discrimination or there is not.

Evidently you do not read enough third wave feminist arguments.

I fail to understand how that justifies your irrelevant statistics.

My statistics are not irrelevant. They show that it is men, not women, who are more likely to be assaulted and when they are assaulted, men are more likely to be assaulted outside their homes than women.

The bays are described as being about safety. I produced statistics that men are likely to be less safe than women in parking lots, yet the bays treat the assault gap as if it were in the opposite direction.

Wouldn't bother me in the least.

I'll let that speak for itself. You are for the State discriminating by gender even when there's no good reason for the State to do so.

No, I did not. I was asking about the another form of discrimination in parking spaces which does not require equating the two groups whatsoever.

I was asking to see whether you were against discrimination based on personal characteristics as a matter of principle. And you are not.

Of course I'm not and I never have been.

I am against discrimination by the State and private actors in certain public spheres, based on personal immutable characteristics where there is no good reason for the discrimination.

Hell, I'm against discrimination based on mutable characteristics unless there is a good reason for the discrimination.

Would you object to female-only parking spots?

Yes, I don't think it is a big deal.

Yes you'd be against them or no, you wouldn't be against them because it's no big deal?

 

[laughing dog]

Evidently you do not read enough third wave feminist arguments.

Apparently you waste your time reading trivial stuff.

My statistics are not irrelevant. They show that it is men, not women, who are more likely to be assaulted and when they are assaulted, men are more likely to be assaulted outside their homes than women.

Which has nothing to do with assaults in parking lots or rapes in parking lots. Your statistics are irrelevant.

The bays are described as being about safety. I produced statistics that men are likely to be less safe than women in parking lots, yet the bays treat the assault gap as if it were in the opposite direction.

No, your statistics had nothing to do with parking lots.

I'll let that speak for itself. You are for the State discriminating by gender even when there's no good reason for the State to do so.

Since this is not discrimination, why do you persist in deliberately mischaracterizing it?

Of course I'm not and I never have been.

I am against discrimination by the State and private actors in certain public spheres, based on personal immutable characteristics where there is no good reason for the discrimination.

You are for discrimination you favor and are against discrimination you don't.

Hell, I'm against discrimination based on mutable characteristics unless there is a good reason for the discrimination.

Yes you'd be against them or no, you wouldn't be against them because it's no big deal?

I said yes to your question, but, unlike you, I don't think it is big deal.

 

[Metaphor]

Which has nothing to do with assaults in parking lots or rapes in parking lots. Your statistics are irrelevant.

I know you're not unversed in statistics, laughing dog. So your current blanket dismissal is puzzling.

Assaults in parking lots form part of the total of all assaults. Assaults in parking lots form some of the statistics for assaults outside the home.

Unless assaults in parking lots show a general trend in the opposite direction to 'all assaults', the statistics are not irrelevant. They are some kind of evidence that the danger is in the opposite direction that would justify female 'friendly' parking bays.

But in any case, I'm not the one justifying gender discrimination for 'safety' reasons.

You, on the other hand, seem content to justify gender discrimination for any reason or no reason at all.

Would you object to 'male friendly' parking bays, with signs saying 'kindly reserve these spots for male drivers'?

No, your statistics had nothing to do with parking lots.

My statistics were not restricted to Perth either.

Also, unless you imagine that 'all assaults' is not composed in part by 'assaults in parking lots', then it is ludicrous to suggest my statistics have 'nothing' to do with assaults in parking lots.

Since this is not discrimination, why do you persist in deliberately mischaracterizing it?

I'm talking about you. You approve of discrimination, by the State, on the grounds of gender, for any reason or no reason at all. You just said 'female only' would not bother you.

You are for discrimination you favor and are against discrimination you don't.

Of course I am. So are you. So is everyone. What a pointless tautology to say that I am 'for' the things I am 'for'.

I said yes to your question, but, unlike you, I don't think it is big deal.

Yes you'd be against female-only parking spots?

You'd never guess it from the way you've attacked my anti-gender-discrimination-for-no-good-reason position.

I'm glad you favour discrimination that you favour.

 

[RavenSky]

Violating what laws

Per the portion of the article YOU quoted in the OP:



"Female-friendly" is not the same as "female-only" and the article explicitly stated men can park in them too.

The article did not say that men were equally welcome to the spots, only that they won't be fined. I imagine that's the case because to make them female only really would violate s.22 of the Act.

Why can't the spots be 'safety friendly'? Why this need to segregate the genders?

So you acknowledge that there is no actual discrimination.

Good.

The pink-washing is stupid and your hissy fit over it is worse.

 

[fast]

Discrimination gets such a bad rap, and people are so quick to rally around anti-discrimination efforts, especially since most every socially relevant sense of "discrimination" carries a negative connotation. We make comparisons (and contrast) all the time. Of course we should be against discrimination, but a blind-eye perspective that dismally fails to allow for exceptions is unfortunate. When people discriminate for ungly purposes or intended ugly ends, there should be a group of us to stand up against such socially unacceptable discrimination; however, like not every killing is an unethical occurance, so too is discrimination not always an evil to squash. My point is that some instances of discrimination is done for good reason and intention, and when it can be done also with a good end, why not find a glimmer of acceptance in efforts to discriminate morally, ethically, or just plain hospitably?

 

[Metaphor]

So you acknowledge that there is no actual discrimination.

You know, there's a lot of talk about toxic masculine cultures in some workplaces. For example, if an investment bank hired female strippers for its Christmas party, the female employees of the bank have not been 'discriminated' against. They're just as free to watch women take off their clothes as the male employees are.

But people would rightly object to strippers being hired for a Christmas party, or for client meetings to take place in strip clubs, even though none of it is 'discrimination'.

The pink-washing is stupid and your hissy fit over it is worse.

Where have I shown hysteria?

 

[Metaphor]

Discrimination gets such a bad rap, and people are so quick to rally around anti-discrimination efforts, especially since most every socially relevant sense of "discrimination" carries a negative connotation. We make comparisons (and contrast) all the time. Of course we should be against discrimination, but a blind-eye perspective that dismally fails to allow for exceptions is unfortunate. When people discriminate for ungly purposes or intended ugly ends, there should be a group of us to stand up against such socially unacceptable discrimination; however, like not every killing is an unethical occurance, so too is discrimination not always an evil to squash. My point is that some instances of discrimination is done for good reason and intention, and when it can be done also with a good end, why not find a glimmer of acceptance in efforts to discriminate morally, ethically, or just plain hospitably?

Discrimination by gender by the State has had such an ugly history that there is a reason there is a Sex Discrimination Act.

I am not against discriminating by gender when there is a good reason to do so. And the reason better be good, because I don't want the State to think it is okay to discriminate by gender as a matter of course, to take it lightly.

Now, some people here are also pointing out there is no discrimination 'per se', and yet in different contexts no discrimination 'per se' isn't a good reason not to object to a practise.

There's a reason shopping centres have 'parents with prams' parking spots and not 'mothers with prams' parking spots. It's because there's a good reason for parents with prams to get certain spots, and no good reason to discriminate by gender to allocate those spots.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a matter of the overall risk of assault, but the risk of assault (probably sexual) in the parking lot. Thus you are attempting to rebut this with irrelevant data.

I already addressed that, Loren. Men are more likely to be assaulted and are more likely to have their assaults happen 'in the street' compared to women. See the Crime Victimisation Surveys from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Which does not address the issue.

It seems to me that male drivers would also benefit from being closer to entrances, having better lighting, and additional CCTV cameras monitoring their safety.

True (consider downtown here at night. It's not a good part of town but so long as you stay in the coverage of the security cameras of the casinos the only issue is pickpockets. Walk a block east and you're in drug-dealing territory)--but women probably benefit more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The extra lighting will probably only make the victims feel safer, rather than actually making them safer: women get raped in all sorts of places, even in broad daylight. As for CCTV, if the assailant wears a mask, it's pretty useless.

The casino cameras here do provide a lot of security. Masks will keep the camera from seeing the face but if a guard notices a mask the guy is liable to be caught. Of course not every camera is monitored all the time but they keep switching around--the bad guy has no way of knowing if they're watching him or not.

Furthermore, wearing the mask will be noticed--even if nobody was watching the cameras I would expect security would be alerted.