TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • 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/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /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/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • 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 Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Women-only Uber set to open in Boston. Isn't that illegal?

tito333

April 10, 2016
69 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0410/Women-only-Uber-set-to-open-in-Boston.-Isn-t-that-illegal
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Women-only Uber set to open in Boston. Isn't that illegal?
Author

tito333

Upvotes 69
Comments 61
Date April 10, 2016 7:11 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4e742v/womenonly_uber_set_to_open_in_boston_isnt_that/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/women-only-uber-set-to-open-in-boston-isnt-that.952138
https://theredarchive.com/post/952138
Red Pill terms in post
set
Top posts by tito333

"Hillary Clinton’s campaign has expanded its team by bringing on a writer whose has previously written that those accused of sexual assault should automatically be treated as guilty, regardless of the actual evidence brought against them"

998 upvotes
February 13, 2016
/r/MensRights

A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’ - WSJ

185 upvotes
September 6, 2021
/r/MensRights

Brazilian men are are more than 10 times as likely to be murdered as a woman, but women report higher feelings of "insecurity"

172 upvotes
October 14, 2015
/r/MensRights

"Female prison staffers make up the majority of perpetrators nationwide, but DOC doesn’t generally track the gender of staffers accused of abuse."

171 upvotes
August 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

New Bill Would Require Women to Register for the Draft

143 upvotes
May 1, 2016
/r/MensRights

Fuck off if you don't wanna be a dad to this 18-year-old's newborn baby!

142 upvotes
April 29, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

36% of men in Sierra Leone want to end Female Genital Mutilation. Only 13% of Women

141 upvotes
February 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Judge calls for Jackie to release documents in Rolling Stone lawsuit

121 upvotes
January 13, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]SporkTornado 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to how many drivers they will get. I know the overwhelming majority of taxi drivers out there are men. Additionally men are more likely to work night shift. How many women are interested in driving a taxi at 2am giving women rides home from bars. Will they get enough female drivers signing up to make this successfull. Or will a lack of women signing up to be drivers crash the system.

[–]tito333[S] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think that as long as a fear of rape culture persists, this could succeed, and now we can clearly see how there's a financial incentive to create rape hysteria.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah just wait until you get old enough to figure out that rape culture isn't actually a thing... There's jokes. There's actual rapists. There's no culture of rape. There is no Rape Cultural Heritage Foundation, no Rape Arts Center, no Ladies Rape Auxiliary...no one studies the history of rape, no one passes down story's of the first rape Grandpa got.

It's not a culture. There's immature jokes, and childish men who don't know how to correctly deal with a woman or women's issues, there's actual rapists, and people do commit one off rapes...but a culture? Hardly.

This word culture is just another way for women to generalize blanket statements...such as we can't call all men rapists, so we'll call it their culture and then make it seem like that's all they do and talk about. Because male culture is rape culture....makes me sick when I hear it.

No. This is just a form of mental and emotional abuse against men. And it's time to call them on it.

[–]tito333[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only culture that there is is one of paranoia, and it's getting worse. I wouldn't even go into an elevator with a strange woman.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really great analysis. Best I've seen.

[–]franklindeer 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It won't. A woman in NYC tried the same thing and opened a women only taxi service and went under almost immediately when she couldn't find drivers.

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't even think of that, but a lot of businesses go under because they don't have capable employees.

[–]5isoutofthequestion 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love how their exists a "glass cellar" argument all in it's own as a parallel to the rape discussion already going on.

But of course I imagine that if I start this conversation with a majority of millennials, gender doesn't matter, they would love to discuss the rape aspect but not the gender-discrimination when it comes to shitty jobs.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How many women are interested in driving a taxi at 2am giving women rides home from bars.

Also, there will be no surge pricing. Rates will be the same throughout the day, so there will be no incentive for drivers to work late.

[–]ablemabley 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Under Massachusetts law this company is illegal. Do I care enough to do anything about it? Not really. If an unemployed guy happened to apply for a job to this company, was passed over for a woman, then decided to sue, would I support him in his endeavor? Definitely

[–]franklindeer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It won't even get that far. If this gets off the ground at all it will last weeks or at best months. There simply aren't enough women that want to drive a cab for a living, and this isn't the first attempt at a female only cab company in recent years.

I'm also a little confused as to why its existence is justified. Some women may feel uncomfortable with male cab drivers but the number of criminal incidents involving cab drivers is so minute that any fear is totally irrational. You're about as likely to get struck by lightning as be assaulted in any way by a cab driver in the U.S.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that's like those stories we keep hearing of programmers and university professors who refuse to keep the door closed and be in a room alone with a woman. Ordinary people will think it's ridiculous but these professions face a very real threat of somebody using the rape or assault accusation against them just for simply talking to them the wrong way or perhaps more likely giving them a low grade.

A lot of women for some time now seem to have realised they can use rape accusations as a way of extorting whatever they want out of a man.

[–]franklindeer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are two documented examples I can think of just off hand. One in Edmonton where the driver was accused of sexually assaulting 3 women but had video of the entire ride, and another from a driver in Israel. In both cases their only protection was video recording. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think police officers are the only people that would benefit from body cameras. Accusations against teaching staff, particularly men, but also women, at all levels of education I think justify having cctv in classrooms at all times.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There was also the one with the young female driver also all caught on video. She even physically assaults the driver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-otd29xd0UU

[–]tito333[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't even risk having a job where I have to contact with strange women like this. And if she ran, I wouldn't chase.

[–]ghebert001 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Female only drivers and passagers? Great. Less chance of false rape accusations there.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism will find a way

[–]TheDude41 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Every subscriber living in Boston -- call a ride in from them, then sue.

[–]chocoboat 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds pretty illegal to me. If law enforcement doesn't shut this down in a hurry, I look forward to when a competitor opens up a "whites only" driver service. It should be quite a show.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm interested in this only so far as capitalism is concerned. I don't know it's legality, but I feel it should be legal and allowable. If it is, however, expect uber and lyft to quickly add options to their apps for gender preference.

But why stop there? I'd rather not be driven by some kid who's had his license for less than a decade. I want an experienced driver. And I don't like anyone with religious crap all over their car, so I'd like to select based on that too.

I'm perfectly serious about the above, btw. I feel customers should be given the option to discriminate however they so choose. Of course, the downside is that they're going to be waiting longer for a ride or in many cases there won't be a ride available that matches their criteria, but them's the brakes ( pun intended ).

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]RainDrizzle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel customers should be given the option to discriminate however they so choose.

Considering a car is also a weapon in the wrong hands, and a car ride is one of the closest person-to-person interactions we can have with strangers, it makes some sense.

Why can you pick a tutor for yourself, but not the person driving you around?

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you were to cloak those desires in religious requirements, the law would find it difficult to take them down. Like, imagine a church that only allows females: the church of female taxi drivers... how can the state argue against that?

[–]Revoran 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the US, the legal standard is usually that the religious belief is bona fide (that is, genuine/real). The state could easily argue that the Church of Female Taxi Drivers didn't have any actual true believers and it was just an excuse to make money/whatever.

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The state could argue that, but it's an expensive and difficult argument to make. Hell, they can just say it's an offshoot of the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

[–]5isoutofthequestion 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The interesting thing about this all is not that women want a by women transportation service. I can totally understand this, albeit flawed, but understandable logic.

What I don't understand is the then blanket logic being applied that is "women are incapable of raping other women," which is just asinine.

I'm not going to argue with someone over an imagined or legitimate fear of being raped or sexually assaulted when out late at night while drunk. If a women would feel more comfortable being driven home by another women then fine, I have no qualms with that.

What does offend me is the reason why. The underlying logic here is that a women wont rape another women, meanwhile a man would rape a women, or under 13-year old males as they can also use this service I believe.

It's that kind of rational which perpetuates rape culture, which to me is not that men rape women a lot, it's that men are believed to rape women a lot. Which is statistically uncertain because there exists no certain criteria of rape that can be unilaterally applied to both genders and accurately reported.

I just wish someone would come out and say "I would feel more comfortable having a women drive me home at night because it is an irrational comfort that I wish to enjoy," a totally justifiable reason to want a capitilistic service. But stop demonizing men as the reason why this service is needed.

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just wish someone would come out and say "I would feel more comfortable having a women drive me home at night because it is an irrational comfort that I wish to enjoy," a totally justifiable reason to want a capitilistic service. But stop demonizing men as the reason why this service is needed.

They have an irrational need to bash men while doing so.

[–]5isoutofthequestion 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's unfortunate that so many people today, men and women alike, have lost the ability to form an independent opinion from what is spouted on the news and tv.

The men and women who spout rhetoric about rape culture and male privledge are just regurgitating what the media displays, because that's what is selling right now.

And of course if you want to have a mature honest conversation about opposite viewpoints the person on the "right" is shut up and told they are (insert desired hate speech).

I am totally willing to admit I could be 100% wrong about why I think this service is a bad thing. But that implies you have to listen to my side of the story too, something sorely lacking in today's narratives. The other side.

[–]tito333[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only that, it's going under the assumption that rape is the worst crime that can befall a woman. There are women who kidnap and enslave other women, I'd say slavery is an equal-gender affair, with both having historically benefited. I would more trust my daughter with a Dominican guy I know than with a strange white woman.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What's the cutoff age for boys? If he's 17 will she turn him away?

[–]eekamike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read another article on this and it said the cutoff is 13 y.o.

[–]Revoran 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Waiting for a 14 year old kid to get mugged because an asshole Uber driver refused to pick him up.

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess then you'd have to take race and height into appearance. I mean, why not just go for maximum safety and keep anyone out who could be dangerous?

[–]MindlessElectrons 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why not just say you identify as a female and say that just because you have a penis does not mean it isn't a feminine one?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very good point, and not only that, what happens to those of us who may be non-gender conforming? In my native Dominican Republic you have guevedoces, who are born female and then grow male parts. Are they banned too?

[–]ChaosOpen 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can we have a men only Uber? To protect Uber drivers from constantly being accused of rape by women who don't want to pay for their ride.

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have the connections, I know enough Dominican taxi drivers in NYC.

[–]qwerty12qwerty 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So someone cant refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple despite being their morals, yet something like gender can?

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See, gender orientation isn't a choice but gender is a.... *head_explodes

[–]Ceruleanbluedolphin 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did anyone notice that they are including transwomen? Does that mean anyone who identifies as a female, or do they have to be post-op transwomen?

[–]tito333[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They could have a physical inspection at the car door.

[–]RainDrizzle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It'd be sad if this happens and it gives access to accident statistics for when only woman are the ones driving...

It could potentially make them look bad and reinforce the stereotypes they probably don't want to reinforce. If it ends up statistically safer to be driven by men then that'd be quite embarrassing.

[–]aokusman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is good news. Will keep women drivers off uber.

[–]BigJ76 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://i.imgur.com/RMZGX3b.gifv

[–]twoheadedhorseman -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Private business can accept or reject customers or employees because of anything they want

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope, not true at all. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[–]desterion -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They can't. Just like you can't refuse someone for being gay or a minority. It's just that nobody usually sticks up for men or cares. You can decline service, but if you use something like somebody being gay as a reason you're screwed.

[–]BurstSwag -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps that's what Libertarians want, but that's not the case.

[–]Revoran -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In some areas that may be true (it's certainly not true in my country). But in any case, they shouldn't be able to.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Probably as legal as Hooters.

[–]Tazoo 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was under the impression there were male staff and wait staff at hooters, it's just rare to see one, i remember seeing one on the coast here in Aus

[–]johnjesse2122 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No. It is not. As I understand it, women are considered a "suspect class" under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Thus, any government regulation discriminatory toward women receives intermediate scrutiny. Which is only relevant because of the inverse.

I believe businesses can operate under "women only" conditions because it isn't against the law - because in the VMI supreme court case, the Court ruled that not only must VMI admit women into a previously all male school, but also that women MAY receive special treatment to offset years of oppression (same with minorities, but that happened way earlier, and in a different court case).

[–]xynomaster 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source on this? As far as I know, the US Supreme Court has never held that any specific group may receive preferential treatment to compensate for years of oppression in any sense. In fact in the current affirmative action case they could NOT argue that affirmative action was legal because it helped make up for past oppression, they had to argue that it was necessary for a benefit to the school as a whole (namely, diversity).

I read the wikipedia on the case and couldn't find anything like what you mention either.

[–]TBFProgrammer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sex classifications may be used to compensate women "for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered," Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313, 320 (1977) (per curiam), to "promot[e] equal employment opportunity," see California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U. S. 272, 289 (1987), to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, see Goesaert, 335 U. S., at 467, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.

~ United States v. Virginia (Emphasis mine)

It should be noted that 'particular' has a specific legal meaning, such that the party in question must show direct relevance between a specific "economic disability" and how their "remedy" functions. So it isn't a blanket holding, but it does exist. For instance, exemption from the draft could not be reasoned to fall under this policy, nor could a discrimination favoring women in positions typically dominated by women.

[–]johnjesse2122 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nailed it. Thank you for the sauce, my good man.

[–]johnjesse2122 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm basing my understanding off of my legal education, comprehensively. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, but, the specific case I'm thinking of is the Virginia Military Institute one. I don't even remember the actual name of the case.

As I recollect, the court didn't refer to it as "preferential," but actually necessary. I think they brought up the issue of not requiring women to enroll in the selective service as well.

Also - again just to my understanding - those policies and practices you referred to apply to racial minorities; not women. Racial minorities are similarly classified as a suspect class, but those regulations would require STRICT scrutiny- not intermediate (as is the level for women). Accordingly, court decisions regarding each should be analyzed independently.

Maybe I'm not making sense, but I think I'm right.

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So, if I understand correctly, discrimination is legal where it is necessary (up to some level of scrutiny, depending on the type of discrimination) for some reason or another. You can't say "I'm going to allow discrimination because it's fair to make up for past oppression", but you can say "I'm going to allow discrimination because it is necessary to increase diversity".

Similarly, you couldn't say "we'll exempt women from the draft because it's only fair since they get paid less than men", but you could say "we'll exempt women from the draft since they're not as physically fit as we need in the army".

Does that sound right?

[–]johnjesse2122 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you're on the right track. It'd be really difficult, I imagine, to fully understand a complex legal concept like equal protection without any formal legal education. I'm not trying to seem like a prick - I just wouldn't want to oversimplify the issue, which your analogies may do.

As the poster below noted, women are allowed to be given "preferential" treatment under the VMI ruling only when the discriminatory practice can be directly applied to a "particular" economic disadvantage. To that end, think of it this way: if our history as a country mirrored Saudi Arabia's in that women were not traditionnaly allowed to drive, then this all woman Uber would 100% be legal after the VMI case. The reason why is because women could legitimately argue that as a consequence of years of unfairly being prohibited from driving, they cannot compete with male counterparts in the field of being a professional driver.

Make sense? I hope so.

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sort of. I totally get that it's very complicated, so thanks for explaining it as best as you can.

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