Althouse: "This economic opportunity has excluded women — not purposefully, but women have self-selected out of it."

April 11, 2016

"This economic opportunity has excluded women — not purposefully, but women have self-selected out of it."

"And the number one reason they do that is the perception of safety or lack thereof."

Said Nick Allen, referring to the job opportunity that is Uber, quoted in a WaPo article titled "A ‘female-only Uber’ called ‘Chariot’ is coming to Boston next week. But is it legal?"

The founder of Chariot, Michael Pelletz, said: "I saw that something in this movie... I was made to take care of women, to love them respect them.... I was meant to do this.”

The movie that inspired him — for reasons left completely unexplored in the article! — is "Pretty Woman." (Julia Roberts plays a prostitute hired by a rich man played by Richard Gere. It's a rom-com.)

Notice the 2 levels of "taking care of women." Women are the drivers and women are the riders. The women-as-drivers are taken care of by only having women as passengers, and the women-as-passengers are taken care of by only having women as drivers.

Is this an option that the market should be permitted to provide? We have bathrooms for women only with only women as bathroom attendants. Gyms for women. Women are not required to limit their riding to women-driven cars, and women seeking driver jobs are not required to go to work for a women-only driving service.

85 comments:

Brando said...: How about a white only Uber? To make it fair we can have a black only Uber, too.; 4/11/16, 9:28 AM
TreeJoe said...: It's brilliant simply because it caters to a market that wants exactly what is being offered but hasn't been offered this product because of the view that offering the product is problematic.; 4/11/16, 9:29 AM
David Aitken said...: Althouse said: "Is this an option that the market should be permitted to provide?"

Of course. But it's obviously sexist. Not that the SJW's will give a sh*t.; 4/11/16, 9:30 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Hate to point out the obvious but if we can't have men-only stuff we shouldn't be able to have women-only stuff.

My preference is that anyone be able to exclude anyone at any time for any reason.

I would not use a woman-only Uber, because it's silly and I'm not a neo-Victorian.

But if others want to, good for them.; 4/11/16, 9:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Brando

How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?

The question is normally analyzed in terms of the quality of the interest that supports the classification.; 4/11/16, 9:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: My initial reaction was that this should be illegal. It's sex discrimination. It's based on the stereotype of men as dangerous and predatory.

But I want to examine that response.; 4/11/16, 9:33 AM
Michael K said...: "We have bathrooms for women only with only women as bathroom attendants."

Not for long. Gender is getting very plastic.; 4/11/16, 9:34 AM
Gahrie said...: How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?

How are they unthinkable? They used to exist, and given the tendency of Blacks to self-segregate and demand segregation, they probably will again.

Besides, aren't sex segregated bathrooms on the way out?; 4/11/16, 9:37 AM
Tank said...: Ann Althouse said...

My initial reaction was that this should be illegal. It's sex discrimination. It's based on the stereotype of men as dangerous and predatory.

It is a fact that men are more dangerous and predatory than women.

Of course women should be allowed to do this.; 4/11/16, 9:37 AM
Ann Althouse said...: It's not the government. It's a private company.

Few women want to do Uber driving because they worry about their safety. I know men tend to take the dangerous jobs, but why can't one company structure a job that is safer (or feels safer) and offer a different occupational option for the safety-conscious would-be driver?

Obviously, there's something problematic about getting to safety (or the appearance of safety) by drawing the line between males and females. But it's one way to make a service distinctive in ways that some customers and employees would like.

Those who don't like it are free to avoid it and to criticize it.; 4/11/16, 9:38 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: When I was a kid, men would complain about women drivers.

When I got older, it was Asian drivers.

I don't know what it is now. Maybe Mexicans.; 4/11/16, 9:38 AM
TRISTRAM said...: "We have bathrooms for women only with only women as bathroom attendants.'

Not for long. Transitioning and one of the many other non-bioligically determined secual identities will soon make common space bathroom (more than one person per room, rather than partion) extinct. And so rest areas will be much more expensive, and we will return to the day of the pay toilet.; 4/11/16, 9:41 AM
Nonapod said...: Assuming transgender people are banned from this service, how do they confirm that someone who may be using the service is a person with 2 X chromosomes?; 4/11/16, 9:45 AM
Brando said...: "How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?"

Using a bathroom is inherently different from riding in (or driving) a hired car; it's why we sex-segregate bathrooms but not say movie theater seats or restaurants.

But the car argument mostly comes down to safety while the bathroom argument comes down to propriety and appropriateness. Women may feel unsafe in a car with a male driver or passenger they don't know. Ok--but there are whites I'm sure who would feel the same way about a black driver or passenger they don't know. It may be unfair and racially biased to feel that way, but it is also unfair and gender-biased to feel that way about men, isn't it? Statistics may show that men are more likely to commit assaults than women do, but statistics also show blacks commit assaults at a disproportionate rate for their population. But we still consider it wrong to treat individuals differently due to those disparities, based solely on their race or gender.; 4/11/16, 9:47 AM
Roger Sweeny said...: Perhaps there is a corollary to Althouse's Law, "In polite company, one must not talk about distinctions between men and women, unless the distinction favors women." Sex discrimination is illegal, unless it favors women.; 4/11/16, 9:48 AM
Lauderdale Vet said...: "But it's one way to make a service distinctive in ways that some customers and employees would like."

Some customers might wish to extend that argument to include a preferred racial or cultural segregation. You might think it unthinkable, but seems a very short hop from one to the other to me.

"the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms"

Aren't we already waging a war on water-closets?; 4/11/16, 9:49 AM
Nonapod said...: If one wanted to start a ride sharing service that was inherently much more safer for both drivers and customers, why choose to discriminate rather than come up with a much more thorough vetting process for both customers and drivers?; 4/11/16, 9:50 AM
Henry said...: This is useful context: What information do Uber drivers know before they choose to pick up a passenger?

According to the top comment, Uber does not give its drivers the name of the prospective passenger "to discourage cherry picking male vs female passengers."

* * *

Interestingly, while Chariot may or may not be legal, the launching of a business like Chariot could never have happened under the old taxi medallion system. In my experience, female taxi drivers are incredibly rare.; 4/11/16, 9:51 AM
Bob Boyd said...: How about a service with only redneck drivers?
You have to have a pickup truck at least 15 years old to qualify.
Call it Guber.; 4/11/16, 9:53 AM
SteveR said...: There's a lot of microaggression here. I need to run to my safe space.

"Male only", "female only" just sounds so 20th century.; 4/11/16, 9:56 AM
Nonapod said...: much more safer

I hate myself.; 4/11/16, 9:57 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Tuber: rents out inner tubes for people going downstream.

Doober: only operates in a few states as of yet. You get the idea.; 4/11/16, 10:02 AM
CStanley said...: Lol Bob Boyd and Ellison but you guys missed the obvious,,,,instead of Chariot, this female only service should be "Boober".; 4/11/16, 10:06 AM
sean said...: It's funny that Prof. Althouse would choose as an analogy such a currently contentious issue as single sex bathrooms. Given the hostility to that practice in some quarters right now, I wouldn't cite it as an analogy that justifies some other contestable practice.; 4/11/16, 10:09 AM
Cassandra said...: Wasn't there a case in the Supreme Court a few years back in which a corporation was held to have unlawfully discriminated against women by restricting to men (and to women who were beyond child-bearing age) those jobs that necessarily involved chemicals potentially harmful to pregnant women? (IIRC, the discriminated against women were offered employment in other positions at the same pay.) Of course, here the safety argument is not the protection of the employee (or, if you will, the independent contractor) but the employer's women customers, but the prior case does suggest (in my view incorrectly) the primacy of the anti-discrimination principle over even "legitimate" safety concerns of the employer. Nonetheless, all may turn on the sex (or, if you will, the gender) of the ox being gored.; 4/11/16, 10:11 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...We have bathrooms for women only with only women as bathroom attendants.

We do? I'm sure you're been paying attention, Professor, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. We have sex-segregated bathrooms some places now, temporarily, but the Left is working on that as we speak. North Carolina! The Left and Media are in full war mode with NC right now, with millions of dollars to be lost and unending bad press--all over a bill that would ensure sex-segregated bathrooms continue to exist in a meaningful way. Saying "well, we still have a mens' and a women's room" but it's up to the individual to decide which is right for them at any moment means in functional terms you don't have separate rooms at all.
A transgender rider or potential driver should 100% sue this company, and quickly. Big burly dude, you know, full beard, that sort of thing--apply for a job and say you self-identify as a woman.; 4/11/16, 10:13 AM
Michael K said...: "Those who don't like it are free to avoid it and to criticize it."

You mean like Christian bakeries ?

You have got to be kidding. What happens when a "lady with a penis" applies for a job ?; 4/11/16, 10:13 AM
Todd said...: Who decides who is male and who is female?

So would Jenner be able to take a ride in one of their cars? Would Jenner be able to be a driver for their service?

If someone refuses to pick up Jenner can they be sued?

If the company refuses to allow Jenner to be a driver, can the company be sued?

Boy this new SJW world can be fun!; 4/11/16, 10:16 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Look, let's not be coy, we all know what the rule is.

If the discrimination in question is believed to help women it's permissible and in fact morally required.
If the discrimination in question is believed to not help women (or to impose some cost on them, or restrict their choice in any way, etc) then it's impermissible and probably illegal.

Does this discrimination seem to help women? Yeah, sounds like it, so it'll be found legal.

The only interesting question, then, is whether this discrimination is seen to harm the transgendered. If so then it's a question of benefitting women vs. harming the transgendered, and good luck predicting that one.; 4/11/16, 10:16 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Bakeries and wedding event locations are common carriers but an uber-like taxi service is not?
Hey, whatever it takes to get the outcome you want, I guess.; 4/11/16, 10:17 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Many years ago, when I was a little nappy-headed guy, some wackjob right-winger named Phyllis Schlafly said the ERA (that's "Equal Rights Amendment" for you youngsters) would lead to unisex bathrooms.

The left-wing wack-jobs said she was crazy.

Here we are.; 4/11/16, 10:24 AM
Walter S. said...: We took a seriously wrong turn when we decided to give up our freedom of association in order to end formal racial discrimination. Ending formal racial discrimination in public accommodations and government services was a very important reform, and it probably had to be done by law, but we should have limited that action to the circumstances. Instead, we put unaccountable bureaucrats and moralists in charge of every hiring and service decision. It will be hard to find our way back.; 4/11/16, 10:25 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: We have bathrooms for women only...

North Carolina could not be reached for comment...; 4/11/16, 10:25 AM
Peter said...: "How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?"

Because sex is an essential biological difference, race is not?

Well, no, it can't be that, can it? Not since Obergefell declared that forbidding same-sex marriage was pretty much the same as forbidding inter-racial marriage.; 4/11/16, 10:25 AM
DKWalser said...: There is a difference between what is permitted by law and what should be permitted by law. I don't believe our laws permit the kind of sex discrimination envisioned by chariot, but they should. As long as there exists at least one service that covers all customers so that a traveller isn't stranded for want of available transportation, private companies should be allowed unfettered freedom to hire and serve whomever they wish.; 4/11/16, 10:26 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...Obviously, there's something problematic about getting to safety (or the appearance of safety) by drawing the line between males and females. But it's one way to make a service distinctive in ways that some customers and employees would like.

Those who don't like it are free to avoid it and to criticize it.

If you don't like a private club's rule that membership is only for men, you should be free to criticize it but the club should be legally free to structure itself that way, is that it? I mean, unless a court decides you're not really a private club like you think: WSJ:Private Clubs That Aren't

Are you really going to assert that a business should or will be able to discriminate more than a private club can, legally speaking?
Your pals on the Left are all about dumping on the idea of freedom of association since, of course, that leads to Jim Crow. So the Gov. can restrict all sorts of choices in the name of anti-discrimination whenever a business is involved. Fine, that's the law and everyone has to live by it. Wait, though, now a group wants to discriminate as part of their business and you think the law should be ok with it? Why?

Safety? That can't be it. It's wrong to discriminate against women in making hiring and promotion decisions even when that discrimination is based on the safety of the woman and/or her workmates (see different standards for male vs female employees, etc). Appeal to the market/economic considerations? That can't be it, either--plenty of other jobs could say they'd have different market appeal and/or attract more workers or customers if they were allowed to discriminate, but they're not allowed.

What's special about this case?; 4/11/16, 10:30 AM
AllenS said...: After watching all of this nonsense unfolding for quite a while, I've come to the conclusion that it would be better if we allowed discrimination in every aspect of life. Someone will eventually fill any lack of access that discrimination creates. Freedom to choose.; 4/11/16, 10:30 AM
bleh said...: It sure shouldn't be illegal but I bet that it is unless it can somehow be convincingly structured as a private club.; 4/11/16, 10:35 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Hey, I've got an idea for a new business. It'll be women-only. OK, I'm a man, so I'll have to operate it from a arm's length, so to speak.

But women-only! It'll be great. Until we let some men in. That's part 2 of the business plan. We have some poster boards ready for that. "MEN DON'T SUCK!" etc.

Actually, we should really just create a woman-only state. Womania. Maybe we could take over Alabama or something.; 4/11/16, 10:36 AM
themightypuck said...: Hasn't there been some case law on this in the context of women only health clubs.; 4/11/16, 10:39 AM
damikesc said...: I don't remotely see how this can be even the tiniest bit legal. It seems to run brutally afoul of public accommodation law...which are terrible, but if they suck, they should suck for all.

How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?

The question is normally analyzed in terms of the quality of the interest that supports the classification.

Do women REALLY want gender-neutral bathrooms? I assure you they do not.

And the reason blacks have difficulties getting taxis is that where they want to be driven to tend to be dangerous. I don't see empathy for the drivers in that regard, tho.

It is a fact that men are more dangerous and predatory than women.

Of course women should be allowed to do this.

Absolutely not. If somebody wants to champion asinine laws for their benefit, they should also experience the negatives of said asinine laws.; 4/11/16, 10:40 AM
Farmer said...: "Women are the drivers and women are the riders."

Except the transgendered. Good luck excluding them. And, eventually, anyone who wants to "identify" as a woman.

And, of course, while women are the drivers and women are the riders, the one making all the money is a man! But hey, you can feel empowered, ladies, and that's not nothing!; 4/11/16, 10:43 AM
Michael said...: Althouse

"Few women want to do Uber driving because they worry about their safety"

Written by someone who has probably never taken Uber. As a frequent customer I would guess that 3 out of 10 drivers are female with a higher percentage being Uber X drivers than black car or SUV drivers. I have had school teachers, airline employees, photographers, artists, students and full time female Uber drivers. They are drawn to the flexible hours, extra income and the chance to interact with a variety of customers.; 4/11/16, 10:46 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...The question is normally analyzed in terms of the quality of the interest that supports the classification.

Ok, what's the interest here? Safety, ok. That takes us back to the bathroom vs. taxi discussion, though, and if public bathrooms (and gym lockerrooms, showers, etc) don't involve safety concerns it's hard to see why a taxi service would.

Ann Althouse said...It's not the government. It's a private company.

It's a little late to rely on that distinction, isn't it Professor? Besides the fact that the courts (to say nothing of the Media & Left generally) have generally not given private businesses much protection from prohibitions on discrimination just because they're private, this particular type of private business is one that the courts normally equate with a quasi-public provider, no? Uber is less-regulated than taxi services most places but I doubt they could get away with arguments than they should be treated like a contract carrier while the taxi service should be treated like a common carrier.

Data point (use as you like): Wisconsin "Curves" Law Allows Single-Sex Gyms

The law was deemed necessary to make sure gyms (open to the public, mind you) could discriminate based on gender and not violate Wisconsin's anti-discrimination law.; 4/11/16, 10:47 AM
JAORE said...: "As long as there exists at least one service that covers all customers ..., private companies should be allowed unfettered freedom to "and serve whomever they wish."

Like lunch counters, and bakeries, and the Masters Golf Club, and ....

That'll work.; 4/11/16, 10:53 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I wonder if we could pursue a disparate impact angle.

Let's say I want to run an Uber-type service and it's based in an urban area with some nice neighborhoods and some not so nice neighborhoods. I want to attract rich customers so I want drivers with nice cars. Those drivers with nice cars don't want to go to bad neighborhoods and so I structure my service such that I only accept pickups and destinations in the nicer parts of town. My app rejects any pickups or drop offs that are requested in neighborhoods I deem bad. I'm a high-end Uber, and it's all about safety--I hire safer drivers (with nicer cars, more extensive background checks, etc) and only go to safer neighborhoods. Safety first!

How quickly will I get sued? Will you defend me in court, Professor? Oh, sorry, I meant to say it turns out that the demographics of the neighborhoods varies along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. The neighborhoods I avoid are move heavily male, more heavily Hispanic (say), and more heavily racial-minority. Now I didn't draw the map that way, I ONLY used crime stats. Safety!
Do you defend me? No, no you won't. I'm sued into penury and you pat yourself on the back for defeating the vile racist. It was a private business, but that won't matter. I really was concerned about safety (and trying to distinguish my company for both customers & employees by being safer), but that won't matter.

I guess you're saying women's safety concerns DO matter, though, even though mine don't. Seems fair.; 4/11/16, 10:55 AM
Henry said...: Who Exactly Are Uber's Drivers?

So who exactly are these Uber drivers? They are primarily male, though less exclusively so than in the traditional taxi industry, and the majority (7 out of 10) are working to support either a child or a parent living at home. In other words, Uber has become a much needed source of income for a lot of Americans. Those who have never worked as a professional driver before make $19 an hour on average, while drivers who used to drive black cars professional are taking home $27 per hour on average.

According to the infographic that accompanies the article, 14% of Uber drivers are women.; 4/11/16, 10:59 AM
TRISTRAM said...: "Some customers might wish to extend that argument to include a preferred racial or cultural segregation. You might think it unthinkable, but seems a very short hop from one to the other to me."

I see no problem in that, for example: Kosher and Halal butchers. Barbershops and Hair salons that cater to Black Americans.

The really, really bad times happen when the GOVERNMENT intrudes and decides who may or may not be served. This was the problem with segration: the government forced everybody to treat people differently. Now, with anti-discriminition and public accomondation expansion, we have swung the pendulum the other way and prevent people/businesses from specializing by catering to a specific niche.

The government shouldn't be deciding who are 'valid' customers either to force service or prevent service.; 4/11/16, 11:02 AM
Theranter said...: Dang--that's my idea! I was considering doing P/T Uber work, decided not to for safety reasons. Started a business plan to approach VCs for this!

My name is better though, "Chariot" is a bit condescending.; 4/11/16, 11:21 AM
Patrick said...: A ride for horny men using topless drivers: Buber!; 4/11/16, 11:24 AM
Fred said...: There is a difference between catering to a particular racial/sexual/cultural group and excluding those outside the racial/sexual/cultural group. For example, if a Black man walks into a barbershop catering to White males, what do you think would happen if he was refused service? Or if a straight guy walks into a lesbian bar and orders a drink; can he be refused service? Similarly, if a male requests a Chariot ride and he is turned down, just because he is male, what do you think will happen?

But Chariot is free to cater to females, the bar is free to cater to lesbians, and the barbershop is free to cater to White males.; 4/11/16, 11:26 AM
tim maguire said...: "This economic opportunity has excluded women — not purposefully, but women have self-selected out of it."

An opportunity excludes women because women don't choose it? So when I ask her out and she says no, I'm excluding her? Somebody's getting lost in his PC terminology.

That said, I would support the concept of this business. I can think of legitimate reasons why women would want to be Uber drivers but be uncomfortable in a confined space with strange men, and I can think of reasons why women would want to be Uber passengers but would be uncomfortable in a confined space with a strange man. Women drivers choosing to drive only women passengers who choose to only have women drivers fills a niche.; 4/11/16, 12:00 PM
n.n said...: Pro-choice. They are trained in the latest abortion techniques and may choose you.; 4/11/16, 12:08 PM
Gahrie said...: Would someone be allowed to form an all male version of Uber?

Of course not. And the same people saying that an all female version is great would be the ones attacking the all male version.; 4/11/16, 12:14 PM
Tank said...: Gahrie said...

Would someone be allowed to form an all male version of Uber?

Of course not. And the same people saying that an all female version is great would be the ones attacking the all male version.

Well, you need to distinguish those guided by libertarian values, and those guided by SJW values. They both reach the same conclusion on the female version, but not the male version.; 4/11/16, 12:19 PM
Phunctor said...: Public accomdations act. More gander sauce.; 4/11/16, 12:24 PM
Birkel said...: With a Second Amendment read broadly, so that government may not deny a woman's God given right to self-defense, segregated services are less necessary.; 4/11/16, 12:32 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Single sex gyms are alowed, bit not single sex bathrooms? Or is it that on;y the person in question is allowed to say what sex they are - but they must make a long term decision. I guess with gyms nobody's lobbying.; 4/11/16, 12:34 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: What about the right to destroy iPhones?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/10/southern-mom-shoots-her-kids-iphones-rifle-sledgehammer; 4/11/16, 12:39 PM
jr565 said...: what about bakers? can they bake cakes for only women? how about for lesbian weddings? can they only bake cakes for lesbian weddings?; 4/11/16, 1:07 PM
jr565 said...: "Single sex gyms are alowed, bit not single sex bathrooms? Or is it that on;y the person in question is allowed to say what sex they are - but they must make a long term decision. I guess with gyms nobody's lobbying."

So, if I am a man, but tell Lucille Roberts gym that I am a woman, must they let me work out there? How do they know I'm not a woman?; 4/11/16, 1:08 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Take a moment to savor the stunning sexism represented by the idea that when women self-select against something it's evidence that women are being discriminated against and held back.
When women choose not to do something that's evidence that the system is unfair towards women.

Feminism means sexism (against women) is unfalsifiable! When women make a choice that's good. When women choose not to do something it's either good or bad depending on the needs of the person doing the interpreting. Imagine that power! A woman's choice is correct no matter what, but in some cases it's also evidence of sex discrimination. Marvelous! Women are being EXCLUDED, by someone (men? the system? capitalism? the patriarchy?) from something that they themselves have chosen not to do. The default assumption must be that everything has to be set up to benefit women--that's the only way this idea makes any kind of sense. That's definitionally sexism, right--I mean, that's textbook. It's sexism in favor of women, sure...or wait, is sexism like racism now, where the "oppressed class" can never be guilty?

It's so tough to keep up with what words are supposed to mean! Just kidding, I know they mean whatever the fuck the Left wants them to mean at any given time.; 4/11/16, 1:11 PM
jr565 said...: "How do you explain the persistence of sex-segregated bathrooms when racially segregated bathrooms are unthinkable?"

Well, when we had racially segregated bathroom we also had mens rooms and womens rooms that were also racially segregated. and we still had mens rooms and womens rooms after we no longer had racial segregation. Are they then the same thing? there may not be a rational basis to prevent black men and white men from sharing a bathroom, but its not the same rationale as to why a man and a woman shouldn't share the same bathroom.; 4/11/16, 1:11 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...Women are not required to limit their riding to women-driven cars, and women seeking driver jobs are not required to go to work for a women-only driving service.

And men who want to drive for the company, or be riders...? Isn't that, you know, where the analysis should start, with the group that's explicitly being denied service/access/employment by this particular company?

What would those heartless ol' libertarians say about something like this, Professor, and how do you feel about thinking you might come down on their side of the issue (after, you know, examining your initial response)?; 4/11/16, 1:13 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: jr565 said...there may not be a rational basis to prevent black men and white men from sharing a bathroom, but its not the same rationale as to why a man and a woman shouldn't share the same bathroom.

What's the rational basis for having (biological) sex-segregated bathrooms at all? Clearly the nation feels like there's not a rational basis for having gender-segregated bathrooms, and just as clearly we've all decided that since gender is a construct it can be defined by any given individual (for themselves) at any given time and that biological sex doesn't have any relation to gender. So what's the basis for maintaining any officially-recognized distinction at all w/r/t the facilities and the rules for their use?; 4/11/16, 1:18 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Shit, shoulda read the article: Transgender women can also drive and ride.

Ok, good. So now all they have to do is put up with guys who say they're transgender. No one can define that for you, right? Cool.; 4/11/16, 1:21 PM
pdug said...: Stereotypes like "men tend to be more dangerous and predatory" tend to be true.; 4/11/16, 1:22 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Also, do gay men pose a security threat to potential Chariot drivers? Is that a reasonable fear--of being attacked by a gay male passenger? Do any statistics back up that fear? If not why discriminate against gay men? Seems like another avenue for a lawsuit...; 4/11/16, 1:26 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Women seem to be excluded from the sanitation and roofing businesses, too, but weirdly no one seems to complain. Oh, what about highway construction and maintenance? Not a lot of women on those crews from what I can see, and those jobs pay pretty well. Exclusion!; 4/11/16, 1:28 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Let's say the company wanted to get around a legal challenge. Let's say they're smart. They open employment to anyone but make it clear they cater to women. They also let their customers pick their driver (and show the driver's gender in some way).

Hey, now it's not the company discriminating, it's the individual customers. If the lady customers decide they want a lady driver, what can the business do about it? if the male drivers aren't getting fares and aren't making money then they'll drop out. Not the company's fault, right?

Naaah, they'd still get sued, probably on the grounds that their marketing and driver-selection system was designed to preclude male drivers from making money. That also doesn't get around the decision not to allow male riders--if their system is set up such that the driver and passenger both have to agree then they're still having the company discriminate against men and that's no good.; 4/11/16, 1:33 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: "Men are more of a safety danger than women, so it's ok to discriminate in favor of women for the sake of safety."

Ok, lots of people agree with that I bet.

"Certain neighborhoods are more dangerous than other neighborhoods so it's ok to discriminate in favor of riders from less-dangerous neighborhoods for the sake of safety."

Oops, lost lots of people there.

"Members of certain groups commit more violent crimes than members of other groups (in a given location, say) so it's ok to discriminate in favor of the less-violent groups for the sake of safety."

Yikes, lost everyone on that one!

See, the "safety" justification is bullshit.; 4/11/16, 1:36 PM
Michael said...: When you call an Uber you see a picture of the driver once he accepts the ride. You also see the kind of car she is driving as well as the license number. You can cancel the ride and only lose a couple of bucks if you don't like what you see. And order another.; 4/11/16, 1:43 PM
rehajm said...: "This economic opportunity has excluded women — not purposefully, but women have self-selected out of it."
"And the number one reason they do that is the perception of safety or lack thereof."

If there were a disparity in the incomes of men and women this would help explain it.; 4/11/16, 1:44 PM
Todd said...: pdug said...
Stereotypes like "men tend to be more dangerous and predatory" tend to be true.

4/11/16, 1:22 PM

Wait, so a "stereotype" that benefits women is OK but a "stereotype" that does not is not?

But wait, that can't be 100% true cause some stereotypes that do benefit women are also considered racist and can not be supported. As an example there is really no need [yet] to feel up little old ladies at airport TSA checkpoints cause little old ladies [to date] have committed like zero terrorist attacks whereas men between the ages of 18 and 28 of a certain ethnic background and following an identifiable ideology have statistically speaking, committed the majority of terrorist attacks in the last couple of decades putting the lives of women at risk BUT we are not allowed to single out individuals that fall into that demographic for additional scrutiny even if they stand around praying loudly prior to boarding a plane and even after changing seats multiple times after boarding a plane.

So maybe some stereotypes are PC but only if they don't trump other PC stereotypes? Or wait, some stereotypes are OK as long as they are also PC? But aren't all stereotypes un-PC? Unless they are stereotypes of CIS-normal white males? In which case OK but if the stereotype targets a group other than a CIS-normal white male than they might be still not be ungood? OK, wait. Is there like a chart or graph that can show which stereotypes are now acceptable and which ones are not that could be handed out to the rest of us so we at least have clue here? If it could also include if the validity of the stereotype was dependent on if it was being promoted by other specific group's victimhood standing, that would be better. I would suggest that they be date/time stamped so we can keep up with the revisions.

Most appreciated and thanks in advance.; 4/11/16, 2:09 PM
JaimeRoberto said...: When I become dictator people and companies will be able to discriminate against whomever they choose for any damn reason they choose. There will be a few exceptions in the case of monopolies like the power company. Freedom of association FTW. That doesn't mean that I think discrimination would be a wise business decision in most cases, but people should have the right to make bad decisions. In the case of Chariot there seems to be a pretty good reason for discrimination. Let the market decide.; 4/11/16, 2:52 PM
David-2 said...: I'd allow it in order to be able to run a real-life sociology experiment. Let it run for a year or two then compare the accident rates and police interactions between the gender neutral Uber (where drivers and passengers are independently male or female) and the gender specific alternative - where women drivers who self-select for "safety" are kibitzed by women back-seat drivers who also self-select for "safety".; 4/11/16, 3:17 PM
jr565 said...: when they say employment is open to women do they mean biological woman or women as a social construct women. can women with pensies, for example, get jobs as women. Is it going to be the same standard as how NY treats bathroom access? You're a woman if you say you are? Beucase I can imagine a lot of men can get jobs by simply saying they are women. WEaring a wig or a dress may or may not be optional.; 4/11/16, 3:28 PM
the wolf said...: So Springsteen isn't going to play Boston now?; 4/11/16, 4:20 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: But of course, it will be a matter of mere DAYS before the question of who a "woman" is will once again become a hotbutton LGBTQ issue in relation to this service.

Because if a man feels like he's a woman, he is perfectly entitled to say he is a woman and drive for the woman-only Uber service.

Then the woman's-only taxi service is up for lawsuits for false advertising, the woman who refuses to take the ride when a six-foot "woman" with beard stubble and a pronounced Adam's apple shows up is guilty of gender discrimination, and in the meantime, it gives the causists something to do.; 4/11/16, 5:47 PM
JackWayne said...: "My initial reaction was that this should be illegal. It's sex discrimination. It's based on the stereotype of men as dangerous and predatory."

This from a person who teaches the Constitution. If that's not a sign that the ideas of the DofI and the Constitution are dead, I can't think of one.; 4/11/16, 7:11 PM
Doug said...: Uber creates thousands of jobs. Women and minorities hardest hit.; 4/11/16, 7:57 PM
gbarto said...: Bosom Buddies, Part 2: Open Road Edition

Could you make Bosom Buddies anymore? I'm thinking not. It might make the transgendered feel like they weren't being taken seriously.; 4/11/16, 9:50 PM
Chris N said...: The Times, They Are A Changin'; 4/12/16, 5:10 AM
damikesc said...: That said, I would support the concept of this business. I can think of legitimate reasons why women would want to be Uber drivers but be uncomfortable in a confined space with strange men, and I can think of reasons why women would want to be Uber passengers but would be uncomfortable in a confined space with a strange man. Women drivers choosing to drive only women passengers who choose to only have women drivers fills a niche.

But such limiting demands will reduce their income, leading to "Gender pay gap" bullshit complaints. Screw that.

Either public accommodation law applies to all or it applies to none.; 4/12/16, 7:30 AM
Jason said...: Wow.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa declines to cater a wedding - not even remotely a public accommodation issue - and they exercise a specifically enumerated first amendment right to freedom of religion, and Althouse is all torches and pitchforks and BURN THE JESUS WITCH.

Here we actually have a class protected on the federal level and a business that's clearly a public accommodation that exists to discriminate against a protected class, and all of a sudden she's stroking her chin and saying "hmmm. Let's examine that response."

No.

Althouse should have been examining her response a year ago.; 4/12/16, 8:57 AM