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

Frankfurt airport opens women only parking.

Infectedbumhole

August 1, 2015
70 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pink-coloured-women-only-parking-6169510
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 Frankfurt airport opens women only parking.
Author

Infectedbumhole

Upvotes 70
Comments 37
Date August 1, 2015 1:04 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3fcyia/frankfurt_airport_opens_women_only_parking/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/frankfurt-airport-opens-women-only-parking.974248
https://theredarchive.com/post/974248

Comments

[–]lafielle 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When you encounter a "women's only" parking spot as a man, you should just park your car here. If anyone objects, simply explain you are Rosa Parking.

[–]Wargame4life 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

also they cant do anything . dont pay any fine and when they challenge you in court (the only way to enforce the fine) you point them to EU directive 2004/113 and how its an illegal charge.

[–]Kneipelol 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Not uncommon in Germany. Funny enough, the parking spots are wider and easier to navigate and get into with a car.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That could actually be based on facts. Women are statistically worse at navigating cars than men. So things like scraping against the curb, backing into a light post, these are things more common with women. And for the misogynist accusers out there, yes men are more likely to break laws while driving.

[–]LilyBentley 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It's biology. Men have better depth perception, women better color perception. Isn't any more sexist than saying men can't get pregnant.

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

I knew that women had better color perception but I didn't know men had better depth perception. I wonder if it's because the women gathered colorful fruits and berries while the men hunted animals.

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

The likely answer unless you don't believe in evolution. :)

(I unfortunately worked for an evolution denier for ~4 years, which was 4 years too many /irrelevant rambles.)

[–]ezetemp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Unless there's some good research showing that all men have better depth perception than all women, and that all women have better color perception than all men, then yes, actually claiming that gender is a valid determinant for judging an individuals capacity on those traits would be more sexist.

Well, unless there's other research showing that the capacity to get pregnant is variable trait with a wide range and women as a group are just better at it on average, but some men are really good at it as well, just not world-class. In that case it would just be equally sexist.

It's not saying there's a difference between groups that's sexist, it's claiming that group membership is a valid predictor for an individuals performance. That means that it's not usually, as you say, sexist to use biological sex to infer (with a very high likelihood) the lack of capability of any specific man to get pregnant, but it would be sexist to infer that someone has worse depth perception because she is a woman or worse color perception if he is a man as that would be very much a hit-and-miss assumption with very low validity.

So saying that women are statistically worse at navigating cars is fine. But saying that all individual women are worse and giving them wider parking spaces based on gender is sexist. Giving the parking spaces to anyone who had demonstrably worse depth perception would be fine. And the fact that a majority of those might end up being women would not be sexist either, because like you say, it's biology. But it would be based on the individuals actual depth perception, not the largely irrelevant shape of their genitals.

[–]LilyBentley 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think what you mean to say is lost in the verbiage, try again? :(

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I'm not disagreeing thx.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

I already agreed with you on this, what more do you want?

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

Just trying to explain why you'll actually have more people thinking it's sexist to say 'men have better depth perception' than 'men can't get pregnant'. (I'm absolutely not accusing you of being sexist, just so you know :)

It's a tricky language problem because we tend to use words like 'men' interchangeably for both 'men as a group' and 'all individual men'. It's also very hard to guess what the author meant.

It's perfectly fine to say that, statistically, a group can be better or worse at something. But it's usually not correct (and likely to be sexist, etc) to say that members of that group are automatically better or worse at something, as aggregate group statistics say very little about individuals.

Contrast with your comment about men and pregnancy; where being male is highly accurate in predicting the inability to become pregnant. The language problem suddenly isn't an issue as it's usually true for both meanings.

So having female only parking because they, as a group, have worse depth perception than men is more 'sexist' than having female only obstetrics wards because men can't get pregnant.

This is really the root of the problem for both positive and negative discrimination. By falling for the language issue here, we end up using a statistical difference between groups to determine treatment of individuals which just ends up with two completely new groups getting unfair or unearned treatment (men with poor depth perception and women with good depth perception in this case).

tl;dr, When discussing group traits with people you suspect might be easily offended, clarify 'men have better depth perception', with something like 'men, on average, have better depth perception'. It's easier to defend and much harder to deliberately misunderstand.

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

I get it now. I try to speak in generals as a rule, but obviously there are always outliers because that is how statistics work. The statement was meant as a general, not hard fact. Unless otherwise stated I mean nothing as ALWAYS true ALL of the time. (because I am in nursing school and they will fail your test for mass application of learned 'rules')

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

Variance in trait distribution between groups is not the same as 'facts' about members of those groups.

As the group 'women' contain both individuals who are better and those who are worse than the average man at navigating cars, dedicating such parking spaces to 'women' as a group means that you're dedicating them also to individuals who are better than the average man at parking while not allowing men who are worse than the average woman to park there.

If you want to dedicate parking spaces to people who are bad at navigating cars, let those of either gender apply for a permit and pay the likely associated insurance premium for admitting to being a bad driver (or the other way around; hand the permit out to anyone involved in 2 or more parking accidents...).

Kudos to the women complaining about this though.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Airport bosses defended the move, saying they are required by law to dedicate at least five per cent of public car parking spaces to women.

Wtf is wrong with this country?

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

Nothing is wrong. This guy is just lying to defend women only parking. There is now such law in Germany. The "Stellplatzverordnung" requires a certain percentage of parking space for handicapped people but not for women.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This only reinforces the belief that women are under constant threat and require special protection, even though they represent roughly half the population.

edit:spelling

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

Eventually women's only many other things too.

Before you know it they'll be quiet in line with a bunch of Muslim/orthodox Jewish customs.

[–]pillepallepulle 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I tried to understand this comment and now i have a headache.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Islam and orthodox judiasim have a lot of gender segregated approaches to society. Just making fun of how rad fem ideals are accidentally doing the same.

[–]AtticusFrenchToast 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure all the rapists will love having a place where they can snag themselves some parking lot ladies with the knowledge that there won't be any guys around to come to their rescue.

[–]tothecatmobile 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And who said that the Germans don't have a sense of humour?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The measures we have taken do make female drivers feel safer in our car parks

I wonder if the people in charge who makes these decisions have any evidence to support the implied claim that women specifically are unsafe in parking lots. Because if they don't what they're doing is fear mongering and actually making women more scared instead of helping them become less scared of a danger that doesn't even exist.

But making women more scared (regardless if there is an actual danger or not) might be in their best interest. I'll let someone else explain why that is.

[–]garglemesh42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

make female drivers feel safer

It is all about the feelz. Women irrationally feel more unsafe than they should? Do something to make them feel safer. Is it actually safer? Probably not.

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

There is nothing wrong with helping someone come over an irrational fear, but doing so can be done in a wrong way. As has been done here.

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

let's get some White parking while we're at it.

[–]This_1_is_my_Reddit 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh Jesus Christ. What??

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

I don't quite understand the reason for it. Is this a safety thing?

Also, I like how women are complaining that this is sexist because the spots are wider too. Rather than appreciate they get these spots, they continue to find another reason to complain about them.

[–]Testsubject7 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All I can think is how the fuck do you police that?

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say "mandatory genital inspection", except that doesn't really cover trans people.

[–]Testsubject7 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Oh no Mr inspector person. My wife parked here and then got on a plane."

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Especially one well lit up so they can carefully pick and choose victims and not run the risk of attacking someone who might look like they could defend themselves.

At least in dark basements you only need to worry about Jame Gumb.

[–]chaku89 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well this equality thing right ? Didn't they want Equality ? :D

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

"The measures we have taken do make female drivers feel safer in our car parks"

Men are more victims of violent crimes so I guess they achieved their goal.

Geraldine Herbert, editor of Wheels for Women magazine told The Local: "It's very patronising for women to be singled out in this way. "All this does is reinforce the stereotype that women are bad at parking."

It reinforces a lot more sexist stereotypes than that.

Also, if you thought about its effects on men too, instead of just women, you might notice that it takes resources from men and gives them to women. It also makes the world less safe for men.

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