deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The nearest university to me has a gender ratio of 60% women to 40% men, and yet they have publicly boasted that they give preference and scholarships to women to boost their enrollment.
Giving preference to the most overrepresented group has not attracted any negative press.
Most employers will have an “equal opportunity” clause on the footer of their website that notes that they give preference to women.
Those employers are not suffering from lawsuits, sanctions, or lost business.
No one seems to care that the goal of these programs and their explicit policies contradict.
The news had a story about a man who sued his school for gender discrimination because they gave preference to women despite being majority women already- the anchor and the journalist on the ground both talked negatively about him and basically accused him of being a bigot.
Sexism will probably play out well for them, unfortunately.
How are women protected by disallowing men the same option to choose drivers of their own gender?
Most people, even most men, acknowledge that men are more violent.
When are we going to take the next step and acknowledge that didn’t happen by accident, and it’s due to the conditions men live under.
What’s the feminist explanation for why so many men turn out this way and not women? I’ve never heard a good theory for this from that perspective, just that men choose to be bad, for unspecified reasons and the conversation ends there.
Men have pressures and expectations on them to compete and provide for those around them in a way that pushes them to this. Those same pressures aren’t on women, and if they were they would turn out just the same.
Any ideology that demonizes someone based on their gender, and uses dehumanizing ideas like “this gender just choose to be bad, while the other choose to be good” is oversimplifying it and ignoring the actual causes for these outcomes.
I know people who have muscles and full beards who identify as nonbinary.
They aren’t “assholes” but they qualify to pick up women under this system, while the many small, soft-spoken cismen won’t be able to use this feature in any way.
The kicker is that the creeps who women are trying to avoid are assholes. Someone who sexually harassed women isn’t going to have qualms about putting nonbinary, whether they feel that way or not.
Yes. A masculine-presenting person can put non-binary and pick up women.
But a man who wants to have male riders isn’t allowed to.
So it doesn’t really achieve it’s goal, but if a driver notices he has easier conversations with other men? No way.
It’s needlessly sexist.
“Creepers” can put nonbinary in their profile and pick up women.
A guy who prefers to drive other men isn’t allowed to do that under this system.
Restricting this feature to everyone but men is needlessly exclusive, without achieving the safety feature it’s nominally there for.
The easiest way to do this would allow anyone to have this feature.
As it is built now a predatory man could identify as nonbinary, and choose to only pick up women and nonbinary people.
So what the harm in just letting anyone use it? Some men may prefer to pick up other men, but that’s not allowed with this new feature.
People should be able to say “let’s make this gender equal” without being accused of “wanting to be oppressed”. Ostensibly being progressive means support gender equality, so why are you criticizing the people asking for exactly that?
deleted by creator
SCOTUS has already blocked similar bans in the past, like in Chicago.
This specific ruling was also just blocked.
The Supreme Court also ruled recently that firearm owners can file off serial numbers, to give some context for their stance on the 2nd amendment.
I’m not sure where you got the impression they were in favor of states blocking owning/carrying firearms in public. There’s little to no precedent for that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator