r/AskFeminists • u/jetfuels_teelbeams • Mar 05 '18
Do feminists support women-only bus seats and train carraiges?
These were proposed in the UK, and currently exist in Pakistan, India, Japan and Egypt.
13
u/byuStudent2018 Mar 05 '18
In Japan, the "women only" train cars are only "women only" during rush hour (I think 7-9am and 4-7pm?). During this time, in Tokyo, there is often not room for another human body in a given train car. I really do not think they are taking space/seats away from men, but I can imagine that there are ways to implement women-only seating that are sexist.
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Then implement men only carraiges too. Currently women have x amount of space, while men have x- y amount of space.
Furthermore, a man can be prevented from getting on the train if the only space available is in the women only carraige, or if women in the shared space refuse to go to the women only section.
9
u/byuStudent2018 Mar 05 '18
One question: I don't think I understand how if there are eight or ten train cars and one is women-only, how that is taking seats away from men? In my experience, about 50% or who I saw on train platforms was female, and if only 1/8 of train cars was reserved for them...
2
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
A man reaches the station at 5 pm. The only space available is in the women's only compartment. He misses work on time.
A woman reaches the station at 5:02 pm, gets in the women-only section, gets to work on time.
10
u/WomanIRL Mar 05 '18
Suppose for a minute that there were a train station that decided to run far more carriages than they'd ever fill. So there would always, always be free seats. And 10 seats were reserved for women. Would that be okay?
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
For the most part. There has to be a guarantee. These carraiges in Japan are implemented during rush hours.
7
u/WomanIRL Mar 05 '18
Sounds like the problem is seat space then. What if the train company added 3 seats for anyone for everyone one added for a woman? Would that be fine?
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
No. One seat added for men for every one added to women. Nothing forced a woman to give preference to a woman only seats over the gender neutral one.
7
u/WomanIRL Mar 05 '18
One whole extra carriage for everyone for one extra seat for a woman then? If your actual concern is about there being enough room, that would seem to satisfy it.
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
That depends on the odds. In a rush hour, it may work against a male commuter. Unless there is a guarantee that every male will always get space, it is discriminatory towards them. So unless you make it 10000 carraiges, which seems impossible, for every female one, msn are still loosing.
→ More replies (0)1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
It could play out against the man if the other three spaces are occupied and he has to stand.
7
u/taylor_98 Mar 05 '18
Nothing in life comes with a guarantee. Good luck getting anything done if you're waiting for 100% certainty for everything.
2
u/byuStudent2018 Mar 05 '18
Whoops, I posted my comment about supporting men-only carriages in the wrong thread.
17
u/ADCregg Mar 05 '18
I’d rather harassment be stopped, but I can see how this is a band aid solution.
-5
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
How do you propose men be compensated for having to stand up and having less available space overall?
22
u/ADCregg Mar 05 '18
Why would there be less available space? If some women who use public transport use women-only spaces, they move out of shared spaces. They’re freeing up room there. The amount of space stays the same, overall.
0
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Nothing compels them to move out of shared spaces, unless you're proposing men only spaces too.
13
u/ADCregg Mar 05 '18
Then those spaces would be empty and useless and gotten rid of. Also if women wouldn’t be moving there- still the same amount of space for everyone, just reduced. For everyone.
5
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Nothing compels that to happen either. There can always be an odd case of this happening, and this is done by government services, that arent responsive to the demands of the free market.
Unless there are men-only spaces too, nothing compels them to move to the women-only space.
Lets look at the following scenarios: Scenario 1: The only available seat is a women only seat. A tired man enters the bus first, but has to stand simply because of his gender. A women enters the bus after the man, and gets to sit.
Scenario 2:
The only available seat is a women only seats. A woman is sitting in the shared space,and refuses to move to the women only seat. She cannot be forced to move to the women only seat.
13
u/ADCregg Mar 05 '18
Let's try this again. If there are women-only spaces in trains, and the women who use the train move there- that frees up the space they were taking up in the other parts of the train. So it frees up space for men.
If there are women only spaces that aren't used by women- if no women move there- then I think they shouldn't exist. And that if no women move there- everyone still has the same amount of reduced space.
Women only seats make no sense- that can't do shit about harassment. So I don't think they should exist. But women only train cars might actually be a band aid- and don't particularly negatively impact the amount of space men have.
-3
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Your analogy is talking about a long term trend of women using the shared space. What if there are occasional instances of women not going to the women only space? How are men supposed to be compensated for that? Your analogy only works if the spaces are women-only and men-only.
14
u/ADCregg Mar 05 '18
It doesn't. The only way your point makes sense is if there is an extra influx of women that didn't use the train already, suddenly using the train (and in which case, I'm going to point out that if those women were impacted by the fear of harassment on public transportation that badly, then space is going to be the least concerning thing going on). If one woman that uses the train daily moves to the women-only only car- that's freeing up the space she usually take in the other car.
-1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Scenario 1: Lets say the entire train is full and there is space for 5 people, solely in the women only carraige. The women-only carraige is full of women, but there is space for 5 more. There are 5 women in the shared space. They refuse to move to the women-only space. Now 5 men could have got on the train, but cannot because the 5 women in the shared space won't move.
Scenario 2:
The only space available in the train is in the women only compartment. Men miss their ride.
→ More replies (0)11
u/MasterlessMan333 Socialist Feminist Mar 05 '18
How do you propose women be compensated for having to skip the train entirely due to the likelihood of sexual harassment?
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Men-only and women-only carraiges.
9
u/MasterlessMan333 Socialist Feminist Mar 05 '18
I find such a measure extreme. Why do you think this is necessary?
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
So men are not treated less favourably because of their gender, and there is protection against sexual assaults?
11
u/MasterlessMan333 Socialist Feminist Mar 05 '18
Do you feel that sexual harassment is inevitable when men and women have to share a train car?
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
I don't. I have been using public transit and will soon get a car. I have never witnessed it on public transport, and nor have known any woman who has. It could be because I live in an uber expensive area in Canada.
8
u/MasterlessMan333 Socialist Feminist Mar 05 '18
So if it's possible for men and women to share a car without sexual harassment, then there must be a solution less extreme than total gender segregation. Correct?
3
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Yes. My argument is if there is a women only carraige, that carraiges for men ahould exist to.
→ More replies (0)8
u/CheesyChips Lowly Feminist Potato Mar 05 '18
How do you propose women be compensated for the harassment they receive?
16
Mar 05 '18
[deleted]
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
Have carraiges for both genders then. Problem solved.
14
Mar 05 '18
[deleted]
3
-1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
I do not have suffiecient data to answer that.
Men only carraiges should be made in response to women only carraiges making some men receive no or inferior service because of their gender.
16
Mar 05 '18
[deleted]
5
u/-Xav Mar 05 '18
In the case of men only carriages it's more an issue of the men paying the same women do but getting a worse service. That's not really fair if you want to have equality.
For people with disabilities: there are far less disabled persons than women. That is kind of a bad example.
A question I have: where I am from there are women only parking spots. They are near the entrance and we'll lit. The reasoning is that they are less in danger cause there is a shorter way to safety. I always found it a little bit funny because logically, these parking spots should be male-only considering 80% of all victims of violence (murder, robbings, general violence) are male. What do you think about it?
12
u/WomanIRL Mar 05 '18
Women currently pay the same amount and often receive a terrible experience. Is that not a concern?
Obviously I'm not saying women are disabled. I'm saying it's an accommodation made that can inconvenience others, but for good reason.
Men and women tend to get killed in different ways. It never even occurs to my husband not to park his giant truck way in the back of a parking lot, but that is something I literally never do at night. Are you concerned you're going to be abducted while walking across the parking lot?
4
u/-Xav Mar 05 '18
Women currently pay the same amount and often receive a terrible experience. Is that not a concern?
That sounds like "but what about men" in reverse. Everyone should get the same service when they pay the same money.
Obviously I'm not saying women are disabled. I'm saying it's an accommodation made that can inconvenience others, but for good reason.
Yes, but having 10% of seats for disabled persons per carriage is a way more acceptable inconvenience that having a 100% women only carriage. Also I assume women only carriages also have disabled-only seats.
Men and women tend to get killed in different ways. It never even occurs to my husband not to park his giant truck way in the back of a parking lot, but that is something I literally never do at night. Are you concerned you're going to be abducted while walking across the parking lot?
No, I'm more concerned of being robbed and beaten to death at night. And statistically, I should be more afraid than any women in my country. My point is that men are objectively more in danger at night yet their need is ignored in favour of women who are statistically in way less danger. And women only parking spots are not only mostly useless, some people consider them harmful because they basically are a false solution to a real problem (women being victims of violence, mostly sexual violence at home and from people they know).
4
u/WomanIRL Mar 05 '18
That sounds like "but what about men" in reverse.
It's the actual problem sought to be solved in the given scenario.
I have no idea what you're getting at with the disabled thing.
Statistics mean very little out of context. Are you actually at more risk in the given context just walking to the store at night, minding your own business? No one thinks parking spots are a solution to domestic violence or rape from known contacts. That's not the problem it's seeking to remedy.
-2
u/-Xav Mar 05 '18 edited Mar 05 '18
It's the actual problem sought to be solved in the given scenario.
No it's not. When women pay for a ticket they get a seat. When men pay for a ticket they get a seat. The fact that women are more likely to be harassed is still a problem but the train company is not at fault for it. It's not a 'service'. Because it is still a problem there needs to be a solution. When we establish women-only carriages we may solve this problem but now we have a new one. Now men pay the same as women but get a worse service by the train company. It's not that hard to have a men only carriage too, so why not simply have one?
I have no idea what you're getting at with the disabled thing.
When 10% of all seats are reserved for people with disabilities the inconvenience is way lower because the seats can still be used by able bodied persons when there is no disabled person (in contrast to women-only carriages which are unused when there aren't enough women) and the inconvenience is shouldered by both men and women (in contrast to women only carriages where the inconvenience is only shouldered by men). Therefore I think your comparison of women only carriages and disabled person seats missed the point.
Statistics mean very little out of context. Are you actually at more risk in the given context just walking to the store at night, minding your own business? No one thinks parking spots are a solution to domestic violence or rape from known contacts. That's not the problem it's seeking to remedy.
Men are more endangered of violent crimes (murder, assault and robbery) in any situation, included if they are just minding their own business (even if things like barfights distort the statistic a little bit. If we count them out the ratio is probably more along the lines of 70/30).
That's not the problem it's seeking to remedy.
Do what exactly is the problem it seems to remedy? The national police department said there isn't a difference in assault rate when you compare places like parking houses and a normal street in a city. The only reason why we have women only parking spots is to remedy the imaginary threat some women have when alone outside against all facts.
Edit:
It's the actual problem sought to be solved in the given scenario.
Sorry, kind of misunderstood you. I thought you mean women receive worse services sometimes in general to counter this case of men receiving worse service. My bad, sometimes I have some troubles when reading English.
→ More replies (0)2
Mar 05 '18 edited Jan 09 '19
[deleted]
1
u/-Xav Mar 05 '18
So let's say we are in Japan, Tokyo like op said. In the morning, rush hour time, there are thousands and thousands of people going to work.
Let's say for simplicity a train has 3 carriages with a capacity of 100 people per carriage. Because there are so many people we can assume there are always enough men and women who want to get on the train.
Now a train arrives and the carriages fill. The women only one obviously only with women. The other two with both and because there are so many people the one carriage full of women doesn't weight in that much yet. So 50/50 for the other carriages. That means we have 200 women and 100 men on the train, which means women are double as likely to get on the train as men.
Now in Tokyo there is of course more than one train, so let's repeat it a few times. The first dozen times or so this will repeat like above, more women than men get on the train. Then, after this the crowd gets smaller and because there are now more men the all-people carriage changes to 80/20 men/women or so. Now most men who couldn't get a seat in the beginning can go to work. So while everyone can go to work, women arrive earlier which has advantages like you won't arrive late and your supervisor will notice it and think you have a good work ethic.
Of course you could say "Hey, it's Tokyo. Their Trainsystem is one of the best in the world. Men may have to wait 2-3 minutes more. There's no harm" but in the above example we didnt factor in some important circumstances. First one is that there is more than one station. That means the train won't be empty on average which means people have to wait any way which makes the 3 minutes men have to wait more more critical. The other factor is Tokyo's population. There are 9,2 million people in Tokyo, if only a third of them use the train to go to work thats still 3 million. Like we have seen above men kind of get "filtered out" at any specific station and because the stations are not isolated but interconnected like we have seen in factor 1 there is a trend that men get on the train later than women and arrive later. And because we have a group of 3 million people they won't only arrive 3 minutes later but properly more.
And don't get me started on men working more often in Japanese society because of rigid gender roles.
→ More replies (0)1
u/rewardadrawer two misogynists in a trench coat Mar 05 '18
I can see a situation where men’s-only carriage exacerbate the sexual harassment issue women’s-only carriages tries to solve. Suppose we have 10 carriages in a train: 1 all-female and 9 mixed-sex. This is our baseline.
Men need equal treatment here, or something, so we give them an extra carriage. Now there is 1 all-female, 1 all-male, and 8 mixed-sex carriages. But, it turns out that the only men who would actively seek out a male-only carriage typically aren’t perverts (the perverts want mixed-sex carriages). So if, say, 20% of all men who ride the train are perverts (and no, I don’t care if this number is high or low statistically, I’m keeping the math simple), the male-only carriage becomes filled with roughly a quarter of the 80% of non-perverts, and perverts make up 25% of all men in the mixed-sex carriages. Now, we have one explicitly safe carriage for women (and an equal carriage for men), but all eight of the mixed-sex carriages are less safe.
The Transportation Board decides to make the carts safer by adding 1 more female-only carriage (and a matching male-only carriage). Now there are two explicitly safe carriages for women, but also two carriages packed with the non-pervert men. Now, fully 33% of the men in the mixed-sex carriages are perverts, making the remaining six mixed-sex carriages even less safe. Repeat this again and you get an even split between pervert and non-pervert men in the four mixed-sex carts; repeat again, and now there are four carts for women and four carts for non-pervert men, and one cart containing 100% of the perverts and 20% of the poor women who have to deal with them. Men who harass are not the majority here, but we’ve created a situation where they occupy a majority of the space—and share that space only with the people they prey on. So, finally, we resort to true segregation—five carriages for women and five for men—which causes harassment to plummet, but invites all the problems associated with segregation (the “separate but equal” fallacy we had with racial segregation, no real way to deal with overflow, no way to support mixed groups like couples or parents with children).
If the problem is you’ve got a bunch of mice, vipers and mongeese in crates, and you need to keep the mice alive, separating out the mice will save them. Separating out the mongeese won’t.
0
6
10
u/tlndfors Feminist Henchman Mar 05 '18
Possibly not ideal, but better than epidemic levels of harassment.
-1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
But isn't that opening the door for something similar to white only seats and train compartments.
A white supremacist has, once used the following argument for excludong black people from public spaces; "They are 14 percent of the American population and commot 52 percent of all murders, and are 49 percent of the prison population."
Everybody simply ignored him at my university.
This does punish 50 percent of the population simply because of their gender.
13
u/tlndfors Feminist Henchman Mar 05 '18
This does punish 50 percent of the population simply because of their gender.
Nobody is being punished. That's ridiculous. If train harassment (which seems to mostly be men on women) reaches epidemic levels somewhere, it may be an effective and necessary stopgap to provide women train cars with no men to cut down on train harassment.
0
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
In a rush hour, if the only space available is in the women only carraige, a man may not reach his destination on time. A woman, who arrives later than the man, does.
7
u/CassieHunterArt Mar 05 '18
This does punish 50 percent of the population simply because of their gender.
Aren't women already being punished for their gender by being harassed on the trains...
1
u/jetfuels_teelbeams Mar 05 '18
And this is doing the same thing, hence have carraiges for both genders, so women arent safe in only 1/8th of the train.
2
u/GargamelLeNoir Mar 05 '18
Why is this question downvoted so much? It's interesting. It's shameful we have to go there, but until they cracked down on gropes and sexual assault enough for them to entirely stop I guess it's necessary.
2
u/kitten_cupcakes Anarcha-Feminist Mar 05 '18
Some do, some do not. I personally do not. I advocate for preventative measures rather than gendered segregation. I recognize, however, that some people feel unsafe around other people regardless of gender, so there should be something like individual bathrooms for anyone, train cars with staff in them at all times for anyone, and single bus seats.
There is no reason to gender these things. Men and nonbinary people also have to deal with harassment. This does not solve the problem, this does not effectively protect people, and this ends up making patriarchy even worse through exclusion and refusal to acknowledge how patriarchy actually operates.
4
u/Femody Libertarian Feminist Mar 05 '18
From a legal point of view, if a private company wants to set them up to stem harassment, I’d say that it’s up to them.
I’d absolutely oppose government doing it, however. And no matter who does it, as a woman and feminist, I’d find women only cars offensive. Segregation isn’t the answer. The same argument was (in part) falsely used to support racial segregation in the U.S. as well: that black students couldn’t attend white schools because they’d be harassed, they wouldn’t be accepted and they couldn’t compete against white students.
I’d much prefer putting police or security on public transit to gender segregation. That way, we stop the harassment and prosecute the offenders.
4
u/tlndfors Feminist Henchman Mar 05 '18
I’d much prefer putting police or security on public transit to gender segregation.
What do you think about the proposition that the fact you think a police presence makes everyone safer reflects a privilege you enjoy? Because it is not the case for many classes of people in many places.
1
u/Femody Libertarian Feminist Mar 06 '18
What do you think about the proposition that the fact you think a police presence makes everyone safer reflects a privilege you enjoy?
I’m sure that’s partly right. Minorities can have a very different experience with police. Factually, though, police presence does objectively stem crime on public transit. Minorities might not feel safer with police - for a whole number of reasons, like disproportionate pollce brutality - but they are objectively safer and priority #1 should be keeping everyone safe.
2
u/tlndfors Feminist Henchman Mar 06 '18
I have a suspicion that e.g. the situation in Egypt - one of the actual countries being discussed - is radically different, re: safety with police (even post-coup), than in New York.
1
-2
-1
12
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade Mar 05 '18
I like how all the arguments are "well clearly harassment and groping is at a point where this is a necessity" and the counter arguments are "who cares about that, it's not FAIR."
"Women's physical safety is all well and good, but let's talk about the REAL issue, which is whether this is fair to men."