In my city women-only taxis was suspended. How this should be seen by a MRA?

Hi!

I write rarely about my city, mainly since this sub-reddit is US-focused, but here happened something interesting.

In 2010, the previous mayor of Mexico City, a well-recognized feminist, launched a women-only "pink taxi" project. Everything went smoothly... apparently.

But now 2014, there are 140,000 regular taxis and only... 60 women-only taxis. Why? Well, i think because a mix of bad management and the decision of the new mayor who is a divorced dad

As in other administrations, each mayor launches a new chromatic design for public transport and all taxi service types, is a tradition here. He has launched his design pamphlet and there is NO one for women-only taxis. that is translated to NO women-only taxis anymore.

Also believe it or not, the new color design for all taxis is basically pink and white. But remember, it doesn't mean that men won't be able to take a taxi no more.

How this should be seen? Not only that, he has ordered that some women-only buses would be used for public high school students regardless their sex.

[–]nysv 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellularPeptideCake 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaxL 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mtrucker 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RaxL 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaxL 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whoah whoah whoah. Okay, first of all, I never advocated for the nationalization of anything.

And you're wrong. Deregulation does not lead to increased competition. It just simply doesn't. Removal of regulation leads to monopolies through corporate consolidation. I mean, this is why we even have the Sherman Antitrust act.

This business of getting rid of regulatory controls is a bunch of nonsense. Did removing Glass-Steagall have a positive effect? I mean, you do realize that when you say "deregulate" you're not just saying, "remove regulation x and p because that will have the benefit of..." you're making a blanket statement. I mean, let's get rid of that pesky Securities and Exchange Commission. After all, free-market anarchy knows best. Usher in that Neofeudal utopia.

There are many faults with Reagan's deregulation policies. Western Europe has largely taken a different course as we have over the last 30-50 years. Remember those "socialists", well their numbers on small businesses per capita are striking. This is also seen in agriculture, and in nearly every area you look at. Businesses are not popping up right and left to take the place of those businesses that are closing or being bought out. At some point, you have to ask yourself if you want to live in a world where everything you buy is from Walmart. And I'm not talking about Enron, I'm talking about Standard Oil and I'm talking about this

Capitalism is dog-eat-dog and 'may the best man win'. This is indisputable, and what makes capitalism work so well. But unregulated competition of any kind isn't the solution. Rules exist for good reasons.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nysv -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuramo[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRabid 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkturnstoblu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRabid 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkturnstoblu 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheRabid 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It should be legal (and it appears to be) to restrict a business to one gender, if not having the other gender around is an actual feature of the business.

You can't have "no women" movie theaters, because the purpose of the business is to show you a movie, and it doesn't matter who else is in the theater with you. But you can have "no men" gyms, because the purpose is to allow women to exercise while never having to worry about the opposite sex judging her body.

Of course, it should work both ways... I've never seen a men-only gym though. Maybe there just isn't demand for them, I don't know.

It also works for employees as well. You can't discriminate by gender... unless the purpose of that job requires someone of a certain gender. Women's clothing companies do not have to hire male models to show off their clothes, for instance.

[–]Kuramo[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkturnstoblu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkturnstoblu 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Being a bigot doesn't cost money if people like it! Or I mean, if the bigots themselves are willing to pay.

It does if (for example) the blacks in your city boycott your service. Or perhaps you have a restaurant and don't want blacks in it. Well, you've just voluntarily reduced your customer base. Alternatively, you've allowed bigots to voluntarily isolate themselves from the rest of society.

Look, ultimately I'm going to suggest you examine your "programming". What if it's more important that you come up with a solution to bigotry that works rather than one that makes you "feel good"? You're here presumably because you sympathize with the MRM. Should women-only gyms be allowed? Should men-only gyms therefore also be allowed? Should white-only and black-only establishments therefore also be allowed? What if the best solution, in the long term, was to allow private businesses to choose their customer base... Think about it.

[–]pinkturnstoblu 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It does if (for example) the blacks in your city boycott your service.

Yes, or potentially, there's enough people who sympathize with the bigot to make their business financially sound, etc.

Alternatively, you've allowed bigots to voluntarily isolate themselves from the rest of society.

That's still possible if customer discrimination is legal. Also, there's less isolation! Yay.

What if it's more important that you come up with a solution to bigotry that works rather than one that makes you "feel good"?

Fair! However, I'm interested in the messages being sent - feelings matter. So when, say, a women-only establishment exists legally, I'm interested in how that makes people feel, and the effects that has.

Should women-only gyms be allowed? Should men-only gyms therefore also be allowed? Should white-only and black-only establishments therefore also be allowed?

No to all.

What if the best solution, in the long term, was to allow private businesses to choose their customer base... Think about it.

I still disagree. Take the women-only gyms for example - allowing them to exist only perpetuates them. To allow bigotry to be legally permissible is to, on some level, tacitly endorse it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm interested in the messages being sent - feelings matter.

No, they don't. Results matter. If somebody is upset that say... they cannot sacrifice their child to Baphomet, their feelings on the matter might be perfectly honest. The reason for them is still not legitimate however.

So when, say, a women-only establishment exists legally

Do they exist legally under current legislation? If they do not, why does nobody seem interested in prosecuting?

To allow bigotry to be legally permissible is to, on some level, tacitly endorse it.

It's really not. Think about what you've just said. "To allow bigotry to be legally permissible." Bigotry is something that happens in the mind of a person.You're talking about thought control. "You thought a bad thought about <protected class>. Off to jail with you!" I would suggest that racism in America has been not only perpetuated but extended and endorsed by legislation forcing private business to behave in an "approved" manner.

[–]pinkturnstoblu 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stalgrim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stalgrim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuramo[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Stalgrim 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	In my city women-only taxis was suspended. How this should be seen by a MRA?
Author	Kuramo
Upvotes	1
Comments	38
Date	September 20, 2014 12:34 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2gwtdz/in_my_city_womenonly_taxis_was_suspended_how_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/in-my-city-women-only-taxis-was-suspended-how-this.995567 https://theredarchive.com/post/995567

Comments