TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Uber and Lyft sued over gender preference programs

63daddy

November 6, 2025
251 upvotes
/r/MensRights

https://www.courthousenews.com/ride-hailing-companies-sued-over-gender-preference-programs/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Uber and Lyft sued over gender preference programs
Author

63daddy

Upvotes 251
Comments 55
Date November 6, 2025 7:31 PM UTC
(9 months ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1oq8gvw/uber_and_lyft_sued_over_gender_preference_programs/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/uber-and-lyft-sued-over-gender-preference-programs.1565947
https://theredarchive.com/post/1565947
Top posts by 63daddy

Is this sub becoming more infested with feminists?

631 upvotes
October 7, 2023
/r/MensRights

3 major feminist groups back Heard’s defamation of Depp.

294 upvotes
November 16, 2022
/r/MensRights

In your opinion, what feminist propagated myths/propaganda create the biggest obstacles in achieving equal rights for men?

251 upvotes
June 14, 2022
/r/MensRights

Even early feminism wasn’t about equality.

189 upvotes
November 18, 2024
/r/MensRights

The ridiculous arguments people make to deny discrimination against males.

146 upvotes
September 30, 2023
/r/MensRights

Why older men would rather die alone.

145 upvotes
December 5, 2025
/r/MensRights

Things college students accused of sexual assault should know.

127 upvotes
June 23, 2022
/r/MensRights

Article dismissing Griner’s guilt as a reason some Americans don’t support her release.

113 upvotes
August 13, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]bigpolar70 74 points75 points76 points 9 months ago (14 children) | Copy Link

What would happen if men asked to be allowed to filter rides to avoid single women to avoid false accusations?

[–]Perfect_Sir4820 29 points30 points31 points 9 months ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If both men and women could select drivers based on gender that would be great and perfectly equal.

[–]Tigre_feroz_2012 13 points14 points15 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, but of course they failed to do that. So often, at least in the US, it's men & White people who get discriminated against in the name of "equality".

[–]cyb3rfunk 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It would still be gender based discrimination though. Would you be ok with the same idea applied to ethnic groups?

[–]Perfect_Sir4820 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It would not be gender based discrimination in the same way that sex segregated toilets are not.

Not all protected categories require identical treatment in law.

[–]cyb3rfunk 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If uber drivers are contractors instead of employees, then a driver refusing service based on gender means their "micro business" is refusing service based on gender.

You are right, uber itself isn't discriminating. At worst one could say they are facilitating discrimination. 

[–]apokrif1 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ditto for skin color filtering?

[–]Perfect_Sir4820 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Male/female segregated toilets are A-OK. Black/white segregated are not. Not all protected classes required identical rules.

[–]apokrif1 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why?

How is gender discrimination useful?

[–]Perfect_Sir4820 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because men and women are different. Sometimes its ok to embrace those differences. 🤷

[–]apokrif1 -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No relevant differences wrt to toilets.

[–]Perfect_Sir4820 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OK bro...

[–]apokrif1 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

??

[–]Similar_Courage_6296 -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a woman, I would have no problem with this.

[–]jessi387 9 points10 points11 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I much prefer if I could request a male doctor, male nurse, male driver, you name it. But for some reason the group of people who advocates this stuff exclusively for themselves, always seems to shut it down for others. While also, demanding to enter into those same spaces, occupied by the same people they claim to be trying to get away from ?

You do see that right ?

[–]Icy-Picture-192 54 points55 points56 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm so happy to hear this! I hope they get hit hard.

[–]Kuato2012 175 points176 points177 points 9 months ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Across the US, women riders and drivers have told us they want the option to be matched with other women on trips. We’ve heard them — and now we’re introducing new ways to give them even more control over how they ride and drive,” Camiel Irving, Uber’s VP of operations, said in a press release about the program.

Let's say white people only wanted to be paired with other white people. How would that conversation go? 🤔

I hope this lawsuit succeeds and all of the male rideshare drivers get massive payouts. Companies will keep doing shit like this unless they start seeing harsh financial penalties.

[–]63daddy[S] 72 points73 points74 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Discriminating against men is no different, it’s just more politically correct these days.

[–]Business-Ocelot-9589 84 points85 points86 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What's worse is that the rhetoric/argument around men being dangerous is the exact same as the rhetoric around black people or immigrants being dangerous, yet they still don't see why it's wrong.

[–]63daddy[S] 49 points50 points51 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, people think discrimination against black people is horrible, but advocating the exact same discrimination against men is fine.

[+]Lost_on_my_quest -26 points-25 points-24 points 9 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

We call this “false equivalency”

[–]Kuato2012 18 points19 points20 points 9 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

We call this "false equivalency"

And we call this "rationalization"

[+]Lost_on_my_quest -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

False equivalence is a logical fallacy where two things are presented as being equivalent or comparable, even though they are fundamentally different in some important way. It's an argument that makes a comparison between two situations, groups, or actions that are not actually similar, and thus the comparison is misleading.

[–]Kuato2012 13 points14 points15 points 9 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And rationalizing is the act of embracing shoddy arguments in order to support or excuse an untenable belief or poor behavior.

I'm aware of what a false equivalence is. My point is that you are rationalizing in order to dismiss the actual parallels that exist between the idea of a whites-only ridesharing service and a women-only ridesharing service. If you would condemn one and condone the other, that causes cognitive dissonance which must be soothed by convincing yourself that the situations are incomparable.

[+]Lost_on_my_quest -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The parallel fails because one comes from historical exclusion and one comes from historical violence risk. “Whites-only” was about preventing access to power and safety for Black people. “Women-only” spaces exist because access to safety has repeatedly been denied to women. One is gatekeeping power. The other is harm reduction. That’s not cognitive dissonance, that’s context.

[–]MyKensho 5 points6 points7 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would love to hear about how access to safety has been denied to exclusively women. I could make the exact same argument for men. In fact, men have been legally compelled into unbelievably dangerous situations against their will.

Setting even that aside, should men not be afforded the preference of not riding with women when men are disproportionately affected by false allegations? This isn't even taking into consideration that women assault men on a daily basis and are held less accountable.

[+]Lost_on_my_quest 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For most of history, women couldn’t leave dangerous situations even when they wanted to. Not because they were weaker, but because the system literally blocked exits: If you couldn’t open a bank account, rent housing, or get credit without a man, you were financially trapped If marital rape wasn’t a crime, the law didn’t even define your home as a place you could be unsafe If police were told domestic violence was “a family matter,” reporting changed nothing If shelters turn you away for having a male child, fleeing gets even harder If medicine and safety testing are designed around male bodies, women get injured more often and more severely Men faced dangers. Women were often denied the ability to escape theirs. That’s the key difference.

[–]Kuato2012 6 points7 points8 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My bigotry is justified and OK because of these super good reasons.

  • every hypocrite in human history

One is gatekeeping power. The other is harm reduction.

If someone wants a whites-only rideshare and cites some white supremacist rhetoric about minorities and crime, you're all good with it then, I assume. It's just harm reduction after all.

That’s not cognitive dissonance, that’s context.

That's you repeatedly rationalizing your bigotry and hypocrisy even after someone has put their finger on exactly what you're doing. I hope you reach a point someday where you can look back with embarrassment at the mental gymnastics you employed in support of ugly, illiberal, dehumanizing beliefs.

[–]KPplumbingBob 6 points7 points8 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

False equivalence is a logical fallacy where two things are presented as being equivalent or comparable, even though they are fundamentally different in some important way.

So not false equivalence then.

[+]Lost_on_my_quest -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The parallel fails because one comes from historical exclusion and one comes from historical violence risk. “Whites-only” was about preventing access to power and safety for Black people. “Women-only” spaces exist because access to safety has repeatedly been denied to women. One is gatekeeping power. The other is harm reduction.

[–]_WutzInAName_ 52 points53 points54 points 9 months ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Excellent!!! I hope Uber and Lyft both pay dearly for promoting blatantly sexist policies against male drivers and passengers.

[–]63daddy[S] 19 points20 points21 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I hope so, but this case is taking place in progressive/feminist California. My fear is a biased judge will rule this discrimination is justified and set a precedent for discrimination rather than against it.

Consider how that has happened with Title IX for example.

[–]_WutzInAName_ 17 points18 points19 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The case actually has a better chance of succeeding in California than in most other states. California has the Unruh Act and a history of siding with men who were discriminated against. For example, California judges have penalized businesses that have given discounts to women, but not men, citing that act.

[–]63daddy[S] 10 points11 points12 points 9 months ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Equality laws are often ignored or twisted to permit discrimination against men.

California has at times upheld non discrimination laws in men’s favor. It also pushed anti-male affirmative consent codes and is one of the states that hasn’t adopted equal presumption of joint custody. It mandates quotas limiting men.

I hope California rules in favor of non discrimination in this case, but let’s not pretend it’s been a huge champion of equal rights for men, it hasn’t.

[–]_WutzInAName_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How many other states have an equivalent to the Unruh Civil Right Act on the books, or as many past rulings against businesses that discriminated against men?

Certainly not the majority.

No guarantees the plaintiffs will prevail of course, but I said the case has a better chance of succeeding in California than in most other states. That’s a true statement based on the current laws and legal history of California.

[–]fraktalmau5 19 points20 points21 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It included non binary along with women so what was even the point to begin with. Anyone can say they are non binary.

[–]Rural_Dictionary939 13 points14 points15 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fantastic!

[–]NoGoldDiggers 11 points12 points13 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Excellent news. The political tide is turning and common sense is finally coming back.

[–]RingosTurdFace 7 points8 points9 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We’re all equal until being treated equally isn’t enough and they want equality with preferential treatment.

[–]Maleficent-Donut6766 15 points16 points17 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm currently a driver for these guys, I wonder if I can sue them for lost wages or something

[–]63daddy[S] 11 points12 points13 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that’s part of what the lawsuit is about.

[–]Maleficent-Donut6766 6 points7 points8 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah sorry, I did read the article in the link but they're talking about places where that feature was implemented like in Cali but I'm a Texas driver

[–]Pretend-Storm4566 4 points5 points6 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

(CHEERS)

[+]BulldogOatmeal -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 months ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I didn't read the article but my gut reaction is conflicted. On one hand I see what can easily be perceived as sexist, but on the other hand I want my daughter to feel safe if she calls an Uber/Lyft in the future.

Any level-headed people wanna offer respectful arguments for or against so I might be able to formulate an opinion?

[–]Immatt55 18 points19 points20 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have no arguments for this policy but here's what I'm against.

"I want _ to feel safe" Uber / Lyft should be vetting their drivers regardless of gender. You should not feel unsafe in an Uber / Lyft and it is the merchant's responsibility to ensure that. This should be done well before a ride is even ordered by ensuring the drivers are safe. This should not even be an issue. Either the customer is overreacting due to TikTok brain rot or in the case of genuine danger, Uber / Lyft should be sued and regulated to ensure they only provide safe drivers.

[–]63daddy[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s a great point. If Uber is hiring drivers who are unsafe to passengers that’s poor vetting in their part.

[–]quandjereveauxloups 13 points14 points15 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but it may come across that way:

Stop worrying about some future potential boogeyman, and teach your daughter how to take care of herself. Teach her to pay attention to her surroundings, and always have an escape route.

Teach her self-defense (that actually works) that will help her escape. Teach her to not fear every man because they could be a rapist.

Teaching your daughter to be comfortable and confident in herself is one of the best things you can do.

[–]KPplumbingBob 5 points6 points7 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you should ask yourself first is her "feeling" unsafe justified or not. If you are feeling unsafe with half the population then it could be a you problem. Sexual assault, kidnapping, violence is much, much more often done by the person that knows the victim, not some random stranger who is doing his job. If I felt "unsafe" riding with an immigrant, it doesn't mean we should treat all imigrants as potential predators.

[–]TenuousOgre 2 points3 points4 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you assume that all men re sexual predators then it is justifiable. Since statistic do not support that claim, and less than 1% of men are sexual predators. And the percentage of women who are sexual predators isn’t all that much less, it's just sexist discrimination to have it as an option only available to women. To avoid the sexism part, the companies could make it available to men as well.

Additionally what if a man feels safer with a woman driver? Or a woman feels safer with an ale driver? Are there preferences and desire for feeling safe just ignored? If so, why? Do the drivers get a say? If so, how do the companies handle a mismatch?

Se

[+]urban5amurai -22 points-21 points-20 points 9 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I hear you, I think if you’re a single occupancy woman you should have preferential choice for a woman driver if possible.

To be fair, I’ve never had a woman uber/bolt driver before, they are all Middle Eastern/East European men (UK).

[–]rabel111 11 points12 points13 points 9 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why should women have that choice but not men

[+]urban5amurai -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because single women have a much higher chance of being raped while on their own, and I would rather wait a bit longer for a taxi if that reduces the chance of that happening.

Guys, I’m all for men’s rights and equality, I guess this is one area where being a protective father trumps that.

[–]rabel111 12 points13 points14 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Epidemiological research shows that men and boys are far more likely to be victims of violence overall, and in public. Why are you ignoring that? Gamma bias?

[+]urban5amurai -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m not ignoring this at all and agree it is the case.

However, specifically in this case, with both of us knowing what the threat is, I don’t think a single guy getting an uber home is at more risk than a single woman, do you?

[–]sakura_drop 3 points4 points5 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter