Jeremy Corbyn would consider women-only rail carriages

[Antman]

Jesus Christ...

No he wouldn't be allowed in lady carriages either

 

[meridian2]

I wonder, would groups of drunk, cackling and general utterly unpleasant hen parties and such be allowed into these dainty little "I'm a Laydeee" carriages??

Or is it unacceptable to mention that such women exist now?!

Jesus Christ...

Quite, but that remark would probably put you in the same category as Richard Keyes and Andy Gray; targets of vitriolic feminists acting as moral crusaders.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've already mentioned them, hairdressers, gyms, driving schools, are they all guilty of sex discrimination in your view?

I'm not sure what "obvious reason" there is that makes you think that hairdressers/barbers should restrict according to gender?

And the "obvious reason" why you have female-only gyms, taxi companies and driving schools is the same "obvious reason" that you're mocking Corbyn for expressing about railway carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder, would groups of drunk, cackling and general utterly unpleasant hen parties and such be allowed into these dainty little "I'm a Laydeee" carriages??

Or is it unacceptable to mention that such women exist now?!

Hen parties- even the really raucous ones- don't tend to sit down next to you and sexually assault you. They might be irritating, sure, though they're no more irritating than a male group of drunks, or a mixed group of drunks, or anyone who thinks they're the Archbishop of Banterbury.

 

[BestWestern]

Archbishop of Banterbury !!! Superb

 

[Antman]

I'm not sure what "obvious reason" there is that makes you think that hairdressers/barbers should restrict according to gender?

And the "obvious reason" why you have female-only gyms, taxi companies and driving schools is the same "obvious reason" that you're mocking Corbyn for expressing about railway carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.

If you really haven't grasped the difference then there is little point in me trying to explain further, or are you just trolling as your name suggests?:roll:

 

[telstarbox]

Because women are so 'marginalised' in today's society.

PC guff...yawn.

:roll:

Perhaps men should listen to the experience of women rather than making their own assumptions about their safety on trains - which is what JC is doing by consulting. It's not a definite proposal.

 

[Haydn1971]

Perhaps men should listen to the experience of women rather than making their own assumptions about their safety on trains - which is what JC is doing by consulting. It's not a definite proposal.

Well said >thumbs up<

 

[meridian2]

Perhaps men should listen to the experience of women rather than making their own assumptions about their safety on trains - which is what JC is doing by consulting. It's not a definite proposal.

Good, because it'll be quite complex to implement,and please stop being ironic about 'men making assumptions about women'. We've already had one person on here assuming men deliberately sit next to women to sexually assault them (it was after he hastily amended his post from something far worse).

 

[Greenback]

Perhaps men should listen to the experience of women rather than making their own assumptions about their safety on trains - which is what JC is doing by consulting. It's not a definite proposal.

Perhaps we should all listen to each other regardless of gender? Everyone should be allowed to contribute to any debate.

It's fair to mention that JC has only talked about considering this, but I considered it for about 0.01 of a second and concluded it was completely unworkable.

 

[telstarbox]

I'm not being ironic. I'm saying that the membership of this forum, which is at least 95% male, is not best placed to assess whether women feel safe or not on the train.

For what it's worth I'm also against the idea, but harassment is clearly a problem and if politicians are trying to address that then it's a good thing.

 

[Greenback]

I'm not being ironic. I'm saying that a group which is at least 95% men (on this forum) are not best placed to assess whether women feel safe or not on the train.

For what it's worth I'm also against the idea, but harassment is clearly a problem and if politicians are trying to address that then it's a good thing.

Harrassment is a problem. This isn't the solution to that problem, though, and I believe that males have as much right to comment on either situation as females. The perspective may be slightly different, but both genders can make a valuable contribution to the discussion. Females are likely to be able to see the problems of segregated carriages just as easily, I imagine.

 

[BestWestern]

Perhaps men should listen to the experience of women rather than making their own assumptions about their safety on trains - which is what JC is doing by consulting. It's not a definite proposal.

Let's be clear here; it is a tiny, tiny minority of men who are out there committing these offences. Yes, blokes have a natural tendency to have a look when they see a pretty girl, but there are plenty of women who do the same. It's programmed into all of our brains, because we are animals. Most people, of either sex, are able to do this on a perfectly acceptable level, without causing alarm or distress or even the other person being aware of it. I for one and tired of this current deluge of anti-male hysteria which seems to have sprung up in recent years. I use Facebook and have vented several times at people who feel the need to share the plethora of 'We should teach men not to rape' nonsense that does the rounds - how utterly condescending; we all need to be 'taught' this because clearly we are all born ferrel and cannot be left to our own devices to behave as civilised human beings.

There will always be a minority of individuals who commit crime. Whether that is sexual assault, rape, robbery, being a paedophile, murdering, whatever... Perhaps what we need is for everybody to lock themselves into a suit of armour every time we step out of the front door? Or, perhaps we could all stop behaving like screaming paranoid loons and ensure that we are best placed to deal with those small minorities without persecuting everybody else in the process.

Have they built that colony on the Moon yet; Earth is getting plain silly these days :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

the "right on" brigade and the "absolute PC guff" sters will be loving this thread!

Surely these proposals are discriminatory. Or is discrimination only acceptable when it is "good" discrimination? After all, one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 is sex. Why should I, as a man, be discriminated against in this manner.

Imagine if the proposal was for a blacks only carriage. Would that be acceptable?

 

[Greenback]

Surely these proposals are discriminatory. Or is discrimination only acceptable when it is "good" discrimination? After all, one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 is sex. Why should I, as a man, be discriminated against in this manner.

Of course it's discriminatory and illegal under the Equality Act, which is just one of the major problems with the idea. Albeit probably the major one!

Imagine if the proposal was for a blacks only carriage. Would that be acceptable?

Exactly - where would it all end? There are many groups who could claim to be subject to more abuse or violence than some others.

Either we assume that we are all equal and should be treated the same way, while taking steps to address those problems that exist, or we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

 

[DarloRich]

Either we assume that we are all equal and should be treated the same way, while taking steps to address those problems that exist, or we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

Correct - we should be equal. Some groups are not more equal that others.

Of course these proposals do nothing to combat the army of rapists/perverts out there waiting to pounce on women the moment they leave the safety of their train carriage..................

 

[Greenback]

Correct - we should be equal. Some groups are not more equal that others.

Of course these proposals do nothing to combat the army of rapists/perverts out there waiting to pounce on women the moment they leave the safety of their train carriage..................

Exactly. That's the real point here.

Not only is the idea unworkable in practice, but it does nothing to address the problems that exist outside the train itself, on the streets, on the platforms and so on, all it does is to treat one group differently to another.

 

[KnapweedMartha]

anyone who uses the phrase "alpha male" seriously is precisely the sort of person that we all need protecting from.

Hah. Yes, quite.

 

[meridian2]

I'm not being ironic. I'm saying that the membership of this forum, which is at least 95% male, is not best placed to assess whether women feel safe or not on the train.

Neither is the very same membership best placed to objectively view the behaviour of men on trains.

Surely these proposals are discriminatory. Or is discrimination only acceptable when it is "good" discrimination? After all, one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 is sex. Why should I, as a man, be discriminated against in this manner.

They should be discriminatory, but in this PC-world it's only discrimination if it's AGAINST women, not FOR women.

Equality works on paper but for too long, sexism, racism etc has been a very one-way street.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you really haven't grasped the difference then there is little point in me trying to explain further

There's a difference between men's hair and women's hair?

We've already had one person on here assuming men deliberately sit next to women to sexually assault them (it was after he hastily amended his post from something far worse).

Well in January we had this, in May we had this and last week we had this. And that's all on one specific bit of line.

The amended post was an experience my lesbian friends had in November last year, which I referred to before, where they were followed all the way across London by a man threatening to rape them.

Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and doesn't happen far too often.

 

[dave87016]

I would like a politician free carriage !! jokes btw

 

[jamesontheroad]

While I disagree with the proposal, this thread and some of the contributions prompts me to respond...

Because women are so 'marginalised' in today's society.

PC guff...yawn.

:roll:

^^^ This is the standard misogynistic response from a man who refuses to accept the marginalisation of women in our society. Women are disadvantaged in every aspect of life in the UK today. For just a few examples:

Nationally, women are paid 19.1% less than men. Source.

Women make up only 17% board directors of FTSE 100 companies. Source.

Women who work, with or without children, spend 15 hours a week on average doing chores, while men spend only five. Source.

Cuts to benefits disproportionately affect women as benefits typically make up a fifth of women’s incomes, as opposed to a tenth of men’s. Source.

Only 1 in 4 MPs is a woman. (Fawcett Society (2010) What about Women? p13.)

Locally, just 35% of elected councillors are women and only 13% of local authority council leaders are women. Source.

Just 23% of reporters on national daily newspapers in the UK are women with only 1 female editor of a national daily. Source.

Of everyone working on the minimum wage, approximately twice as many are women as men. Source.

The gendered bias of popular media in particular perpetuates an image of feminists as "fat hairy angry lesbians" (see Natasha Walter's The New Feminism 1999 for more on this). I am proud to be a feminist because I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all men and women.

Apologies for the thread drift, but multiple responses on this thread reveal a startling blindness to the sexist state of our country today. We, as a nation, are terrible at offering equal opportunities to half of our population.

While I don't believe segregated carriages are the answer, I would encourage everyone to look again at the divisions in our society.

 

[meridian2]

While I disagree with the proposal, this thread and some of the contributions prompts me to respond...



^^^ This is the standard misogynistic response from a man who refuses to accept the marginalisation of women in our society. Women are disadvantaged in every aspect of life in the UK today. For just a few examples:

Nationally, women are paid 19.1% less than men. Source.

Women make up only 17% board directors of FTSE 100 companies. Source.

Women who work, with or without children, spend 15 hours a week on average doing chores, while men spend only five. Source.

Cuts to benefits disproportionately affect women as benefits typically make up a fifth of women’s incomes, as opposed to a tenth of men’s. Source.

Only 1 in 4 MPs is a woman. (Fawcett Society (2010) What about Women? p13.)

Locally, just 35% of elected councillors are women and only 13% of local authority council leaders are women. Source.

Just 23% of reporters on national daily newspapers in the UK are women with only 1 female editor of a national daily. Source.

Of everyone working on the minimum wage, approximately twice as many are women as men. Source.

The gendered bias of popular media in particular perpetuates an image of feminists as "fat hairy angry lesbians" (see Natasha Walter's The New Feminism 1999 for more on this). I am proud to be a feminist because I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all men and women.

Apologies for the thread drift, but multiple responses on this thread reveal a startling blindness to the sexist state of our country today. We, as a nation, are terrible at offering equal opportunities to half of our population.

While I don't believe segregated carriages are the answer, I would encourage everyone to look again at the divisions in our society.

Meaningless statistics because in real life, women are treated equally and fairly as men. You're the same person that invented the 'glass ceiling' as some sort of emotional blackmail to send unqualified women to the top of organisations BECAUSE they are women.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Surely these proposals are discriminatory. Or is discrimination only acceptable when it is "good" discrimination? After all, one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 is sex. Why should I, as a man, be discriminated against in this manner.

Because it isn't unlawful to discriminate against in terms of sex in this manner. Private members clubs can deny membership to women- the R&A golf club only voted to allow female members in September last year- and there are many exceptions.

I don't think the proposal is a good idea for many many reasons, but "it's not fair!" isn't one of them.

 

[meridian2]

Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and doesn't happen far too often.

My personal experiences were not ventured once in this thread, so once again, please stop inventing diatribe I have not uttered, it's getting incredibly frustrating. :roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

You're the same person that invented the 'glass ceiling' as some sort of emotional blackmail to send unqualified women to the top of organisations BECAUSE they are women.

Please name the "unqualified women" who have been "sent to the top of organisations" because of their gender.

I'm fascinated to hear who they are.

 

[meridian2]

Me too; I await jhamesontheroad's answer with baited breath.

 

[Tetchytyke]

please stop inventing diatribe I have not uttered

There's only one "inventing diatribe" here, and it's you when you were insinuating I was making up unfair assumptions.

Stop being so childish.

Me too; I await jhamesontheroad's answer with baited breath.

You're the one who made the allegation that women were being promoted due to their gender not their ability. Put up or shut up.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I remember Ladies Compartments on trains still in the 1960s, I think that in Japan and India that these may still exist.

 

[meridian2]

There's only one "inventing diatribe" here, and it's you when you were insinuating I was making up unfair assumptions.

Stop being so childish.



You're the one who made the allegation that women were being promoted due to their gender not their ability. Put up or shut up.

Allegation or belief, I think you're mature enough to spot the distinction without the need for a disclaimer.

 

[Simon11]

I agree with the comments above that everyone should be treated equality but should we go ahead with trying to force HR departments to increase the number of woman in senior ranks?

The best candidates should be chosen for a role (such as board directors or MP's), not because they are a woman or because of their skin colour.

Nationally, women are paid 19.1% less than men. Source.

This isn't really a far comparion, since woman are more likely to be in part time and work in different type of jobs compared to men. What does this look like when comparing like for like?

Of everyone working on the minimum wage, approximately twice as many are women as men. Source.

Turning this on it's edge, does this mean that we should be encouraging more men to get the minimum wage or become cleaners so that the % is closer to 50/50?