Women-only parking bays in Perth CBD

[Toni]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31337445/female-friendly-parking-bays-trialled-in-perth-cbd/

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD.

The bays, which are marked by pink signs, walls and poles, are being rolled out for three months in the City of Perth’s Pier Street car park from next week.

The bays will not be policed and men will not be fined if they park in them. They are closer to entrances and exits, have better lighting and additional CCTV cameras have been installed to boost safety.

Of the carpark’s 700-plus bays 28 of them will be marked female-friendly.

Women-only parking bays exist in many other countries, including Germany, Austria and China. However, the trial is believed to be a WA first.

Some countries have experimented with making women-only parking bays wider than regular bays, prompting criticism for suggesting women cannot park as well as men.

The bays used in the Perth trial are the same size as regular bays.

Perth’s acting chief executive Martin Mileham said the aim of the trial was to offer more parking options to improve service and customer experience.

“This has been done overseas and the city is conducting this trial to determine if there's a demand for this type of service,” he said.

Mr Mileham said while the city would not be policing the bays it would encourage men to support the concept.

Diversity Network director Kristie Young said she was concerned the bays risked putting both men and women offside.

“Perhaps the bays would be better of being termed safe park bays for those individuals who are concerned for their security when utilising parking bays,” she said.

“A gender neutral colour could be used, such as orange. We cannot assume that women are the ones requiring such parking bays.

“There would likely be a myriad of individuals who would not feel safe using parking bays at certain times of the day, due to a number of different reasons.”

One wonders who comes up with such policies. Certainly actual objective levels of threat can't be the motivator, since men are more likely to be assaulted compared to women, and of those assaults, women are twice as likely to experience the assault in their own homes compared to men (making the parking location of their car less relevant to assault prevention).

It's a good job that the bays are not policed as such, since the city's actions appear to be a violation of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) by discriminating by sex in the provision of goods and services.

Isn't the relevant comparison whether men or women are more likely to be assaulted in parking lots/structures?

I'm all for providing better lighting and security to prevent assaults and robberies.

I think that it is reprehensible if there is a need or perceived need to provide a separate car park for women vs men. And then there is the idea that such spacesake it easier for predators to locate female victims.

 

[Metaphor]

Isn't the relevant comparison whether men or women are more likely to be assaulted in parking lots/structures?

Yes, but nobody has provided any evidence that women are more likely to be assaulted in parking lots. However, three lines of evidence point to men being the more likely victims
* Men are more likely to be victims of assault overall
* When assaulted, this is more likely to be outside the residence for men than it is for women
* When assaulted, men are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger (parking lot situation) than women are.

I'm all for providing better lighting and security to prevent assaults and robberies.

As am I.

I think that it is reprehensible if there is a need or perceived need to provide a separate car park for women vs men. And then there is the idea that such spacesake it easier for predators to locate female victims.

It isn't a separate car park; they are re-purposed spaces in the existing car park painted with pink paint and marked 'female friendly' and 'kindly reserve this space for female drivers'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never had a guy ask me to walk him to his car in a dark parking lot, but plenty of the office gals have asked me to do that and I have. So the deal seems to make sense because I'm guessing that if the gals were closer to their cars when they came out the door they'd feel safer.

But where are the statistics saying these measures actually had an effect in countries where they have been instituted? I'd like to see some data.

 

[bilby]

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.

Two cities less similar than Perth and Las Vegas would be hard to find in the developed world.

 

[bilby]

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?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7876-Caninephiles-in-Colorado-flout-the-law-service-animal-fraud
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7767-Do-female-tennis-players-deserve-the-same-prize-money-as-male-tennis-players
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?6614-Feminists-don-t-understand-statistics-or-care-about-the-truth
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7602-On-your-rag-Take-paid-menstrual-leave
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?6158-College-women-admire-male-drag-troupe-want-to-destroy-it-by-demanding-entry-as-performers
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5602-What-my-female-senior-executive-boss-told-me-today
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4189-Everyday-Feminism-Women-can-objectify-men-on-the-micro-level-but-it-doesn-t-matter
etc., etc. ...

We get it. You don't like women; they have little value or role in your life, and you think they get more than their share of loads of things, and you take it personally when they get preferential treatment.

You dress up your whinging and resentment about this as a concern for equality; but I don't recall a single thread you have started about any of the myriad examples of situations where men get preferential treatment over women - which suggests that your motives are not what you imply them to be.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I was accused of hysteria in this thread, despite my deliberate dialling-back of my hyperbolic style.

But that wasn't enough. I was still accused of having a 'hissy fit'. No-one can point to anything hysterical I've said, but that didn't stop the accusation.

We get it. You don't like women; they have little value or role in your life,

That's nonsense on stilts. I love my mother and sisters and female friends; some of my most enduring friendships are with women. You simply know nothing about my personal life but you imagine you do.

You also know nothing about the issues I've changed my mind on because of feedback from women; situations where I've specifically sought out the views of individual women to understand an issue.

and you think they get more than their share of loads of things, and you take it personally when they get preferential treatment.

I object when the State discriminates based on gender for no good reason, and I take it personally when the discriminated-against gender is mine.

You dress up your whinging and resentment about this as a concern for equality; but I don't recall a single thread you have started about any of the myriad examples of situations where men get preferential treatment over women - which suggests that your motives are not what you imply them to be.

Perhaps if I did not get so much resistance to what seem to me basic facts, so much vitriol, so much parsing of language, excruciating debates about throwaway figurative language like 'drowning out', so much denial, so many accusations, so many thread 'drop ins', like this one, telling me my priorities are stupid and I'm a misogynist, perhaps I would not start so many threads that appear one-sided.

But your false accusation of misogyny aside, do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread?

 

[bilby]

No. I was accused of hysteria in this thread, despite my deliberate dialling-back of my hyperbolic style.

But that wasn't enough. I was still accused of having a 'hissy fit'. No-one can point to anything hysterical I've said, but that didn't stop the accusation.



That's nonsense on stilts. I love my mother and sisters and female friends; some of my most enduring friendships are with women. You simply know nothing about my personal life but you imagine you do.

You also know nothing about the issues I've changed my mind on because of feedback from women; situations where I've specifically sought out the views of individual women to understand an issue.

and you think they get more than their share of loads of things, and you take it personally when they get preferential treatment.

I object when the State discriminates based on gender for no good reason, and I take it personally when the discriminated-against gender is mine.

You dress up your whinging and resentment about this as a concern for equality; but I don't recall a single thread you have started about any of the myriad examples of situations where men get preferential treatment over women - which suggests that your motives are not what you imply them to be.

Perhaps if I did not get so much resistance to what seem to me basic facts, so much vitriol, so much parsing of language, excruciating debates about throwaway figurative language like 'drowning out', so much denial, so many accusations, so many thread 'drop ins', like this one, telling me my priorities are stupid and I'm a misogynist, perhaps I would not start so many threads that appear one-sided.

But your false accusation of misogyny aside, do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread?

All I know about you is what you post here. If your posts here are out of character for you, then perhaps you should be yourself a bit more.

As to your large number of threads being due to their poor reception, it seems unlikely that that cart is going to have much success pulling that horse around.

If my accusation of misogyny is false, then you might want to work on not making such an inaccurate impression.

When there are a stack of people who all respond the same negative way to your threads, it would be the smart move to at least consider that you might not be coming across as the level headed fighter for just laws and conditions that you claim to think you are; so a change of tone could be a good plan - unless you enjoy being (perhaps mistakenly) called on your apparent hysterics.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You can hop, skip and jump all around it, but it is up to you to show why anyone in their sane mind would think an assault statistics that include assaults in bars, stadiums, etc.. are relevant to the issues of 1) assault in parking lots, and 2) rapes.

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

No one is justifying gender discrimination in this case because there is no discrimination. It is disingenuous to claim there is, especially after one has admitted there is no discrimination.

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.

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.

Apparently we all approve of discrimination by the State. I said I did not approve of female only but I do not think it is big deal. That is not approval.

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.

Since there is no discrimination in this case, it is clear you are using false information to fuel your conclusions.

BTW, you should pay attention to bilby's critique: his impression is shared by others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Other than it being a huge red flag!

 

[RavenSky]

No. I was accused of hysteria in this thread, despite my deliberate dialling-back of my hyperbolic style.

But that wasn't enough. I was still accused of having a 'hissy fit'. No-one can point to anything hysterical I've said, but that didn't stop the accusation.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up discrimination in the very first post even though you know seem to be dialing that back. You also, in the very first post, trotted out your hobby horse about men being the greater victims of violence.

The irony is that almost no one here (male or female) disagrees that pink parking spaces are a rather stupid idea for a lot of reasons. Had you really wanted to "dial back" your obvious distaste for women, you could have started the OP with comments more like Toni's

I'm all for providing better lighting and security to prevent assaults and robberies.

I think that it is reprehensible if there is a need or perceived need to provide a separate car park for women vs men. And then there is the idea that such spacesake it easier for predators to locate female victims.

Instead, you immediately went to 'men vs women' with why men have it sooooooo much worse. This is a typical Metaphor hissy fit.

Now, would you like to discuss why pink-painted parking spaces are a stupid idea, or continue to talk about you?

 

[dismal]

In this thread, you are the one who brought up discrimination in the very first post even though you know seem to be dialing that back. You also, in the very first post, trotted out your hobby horse about men being the greater victims of violence.

How is spending money to create better parking garages for women not discrimination in favor of women?

Tip: if it were not discriminatory they would create better parking garages for people.

 

[bigfield]

Yes, but nobody has provided any evidence that women are more likely to be assaulted in parking lots. However, three lines of evidence point to men being the more likely victims
* Men are more likely to be victims of assault overall
* When assaulted, this is more likely to be outside the residence for men than it is for women
* When assaulted, men are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger (parking lot situation) than women are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_parking_space

According to the Hessian State Office of Criminal Investigation, the furnishing of women's parking spaces is an ideal means of raising women's feelings of safety. However, according to federal criminal statistics published by the German police, molestation and attacks on women occur no more often in parking garages than in other places. In Hesse, in 2003, only one of 1000 crimes in parking garages was sexual in nature.

According to Ruth Becker's research about risk zones in town planning, neither men's nor women's risk assessments are in line with actual dangers, and the actual zone of risk is different for each gender. Women have more to fear in personal surroundings and at home, while men are objects (and dominantly subjects) of attack in the outside world. Becker refers to Elisabeth Wilson's book Sphinx in the City and assumes that women overestimate the dangers of urban surroundings.

Feelings of safety are what matters here!

They could break up the solid pink walls with a few posters like this:

So empowering!

 

[dismal]

Feelings of safety are what matters here!

But if you're going through life on the assumption that men are just looking for a dark place to rape you, it sounds to me like you are an anti-male bigot.

I'm not sure how this garage is much different than a "No Muslim" garage intended to relieve people's fear of getting blown up or groped by Muslims.

Note: there would be a bacon smell and audio of bacon frying pumped into the garage, but muslims would not actually be ticketed so there is no discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Two cities less similar than Perth and Las Vegas would be hard to find in the developed world.

The security effect of CCTV should be similar, though.

Although I'm not sure if you guys know what security is--last time I was in Perth I found myself what was in hindsight way too close to the launching point of a major fireworks display. The shells were being fired over our heads, a dud round would have a reasonable chance of falling into the crowd.

 

[Metaphor]

Since there is no discrimination in this case, it is clear you are using false information to fuel your conclusions.

Fostering an environment where resources are officially 'encouraged' to be used by one gender over another is the same kind of 'not discrimination' that business meetings in strip joints is.

Women are not banned from taking jobs where they need to discuss deals in a strip joint, so there's no discrimination.

BTW, you should pay attention to bilby's critique: his impression is shared by others.

When somebody can point to something misogynist I've said, I'll take the critique seriously.

If someone thinks I don't value women because I balk at much of the output of the third-wave-feminist insane-o-sphere, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Metaphor]

In this thread, you are the one who brought up discrimination in the very first post even though you know seem to be dialing that back. You also, in the very first post, trotted out your hobby horse about men being the greater victims of violence.

It's directly relevant to the parking spots. If it's about safety, the parking spots should be for men, not women. If it's about 'feelings' of safety, I wager that it is indeed the case that women feel more unsafe, but it's an entirely different question as to what we should do about feelings.

The irony is that almost no one here (male or female) disagrees that pink parking spaces are a rather stupid idea for a lot of reasons. Had you really wanted to "dial back" your obvious distaste for women, you could have started the OP with comments more like Toni's

"Obvious distaste".

Can anyone point to anything I've ever said that shows I have "obvious distaste" for women?

Instead, you immediately went to 'men vs women' with why men have it sooooooo much worse. This is a typical Metaphor hissy fit.

The OP is about gendered parking spaces so it is by definition 'men vs women'.

Now, would you like to discuss why pink-painted parking spaces are a stupid idea, or continue to talk about you?

If we all agree that they're a stupid idea, there isn't much to talk about, is there?

 

[bilby]

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.

Two cities less similar than Perth and Las Vegas would be hard to find in the developed world.

The security effect of CCTV should be similar, though.

Although I'm not sure if you guys know what security is--last time I was in Perth I found myself what was in hindsight way too close to the launching point of a major fireworks display. The shells were being fired over our heads, a dud round would have a reasonable chance of falling into the crowd.

She'll be right mate, if it's a dud, then it's not a problem, is it?

Life is risky. You can embrace that fact, or live in constant fear.

It must be exhausting to maintain the level of fear that seems to be typical for Americans. Attempts to entirely eliminate risk very quickly hit the law of diminishing returns. You guys need to learn to relax and have another beer.

 

[laughing dog]

Fostering an environment where resources are officially 'encouraged' to be used by one gender over another is the same kind of 'not discrimination' that business meetings in strip joints is.

Perhaps on planet hissy fit, but certainly not on planet Earth.

When somebody can point to something misogynist I've said, I'll take the critique seriously.

If someone thinks I don't value women because I balk at much of the output of the third-wave-feminist insane-o-sphere, I don't know what to tell you.

Your response is proof of that.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps on planet hissy fit, but certainly not on planet Earth.

When somebody can point to something misogynist I've said, I'll take the critique seriously.

If someone thinks I don't value women because I balk at much of the output of the third-wave-feminist insane-o-sphere, I don't know what to tell you.

Your response is proof of that.

Evidently.

Meanwhile, when someone can quote something misogynist that I've said, I'll take the critique seriously.

 

[Toni]

Rape and sexual assault are kinds of assault, but they are not the same thing.

2) Are the statistical likelihoods of being a rape victim different between men and women? What is that difference?

Yes, women are more likely to be victims of rape.

3) Is the statistical likelihood of a being raped in an unlit parking bay different for men and women? How different?

No idea, frankly. The 'stranger in the street' is the least common version of rape.

But I also don't know why these parking spots are justified on the grounds of 'allaying the fear of rape'. The article mentions 'safety', but not the specific kinds of crime that women, but not men, need to be protected from, in parking lots.

Finally, did you even bother to read your own OP article where indicates there is a good chance those parking spaces will not be designated for a specific gender, hence rendering your entire OP moot?

I'm sorry, but did YOU read it? There's no chance that they won't be designated to a specific gender, because they've already been designated to a specific gender.

Are you confusing the quotes advocating a different model with what has actually already happened?

But you do believe that anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.

Do you believe that 'fear of rape in a parking lot' (whether congruent with the facts of rape or not) is a sufficient reason for the government to discriminate by gender?

As far as I can tell, these suggested--not demanded -'female friendly' parking spots were not requested by women nor are they supported by women who instead see value in some color other than pink identifying safer parking spots for whoever wants them.

The discrimination appears to be more along the lines of believing that all women are afraid of being raped in car parks and more lighting and the color pink will make them feel safer. Obviously a scheme devised by some shallow 'thinking' man who is looking for publicity.

Which is utter bullshit. This seems much more like a paternalistic scheme to encourage women to park and shop by painting stuff pink, as though women were the four year old children being raised bu a joint venture by Mattel and Disney.

If safety in car parks can be improved by better lighting and more and better security cameras or other actual safety oriented measures, then that would be a good thing for all users. Such measures should be undertaken. The color pink?? Not even the girliest woman I know would feel more safe in a pink stall. Save $ on paint and use it for lighting.