Enough that there are lawsuits being filed against Uber for negligence in screening drivers, following up on assault complaints, or implementing safety measures to stop assaults by their predatory drivers.
Enough that Uber saw fit to implement a system that would allow people who feel vulnerable to seek drivers who they feel safer around. This is Uber, the company that calls its drivers ‘contractors’ to get around employment laws and who puts all of the onus of responsibility on their drivers and passengers so they can try and keep their hands as clean as possible. That Uber thought that enough people were being assaulted by their drivers to actually do something about it.
But you weren’t actually asking for a real answer. You just wanted to score your little points.
I’m not against a policy like this in all cases, because men are obviously going to commit many times more assaults than women. Very controversial take among some but separate male and female spaces should exist, as long as they are part of community resources though, not corporate branding shit, not reactionary political groups (duh, but whatever you guys all have law enforcement infested with this rather than LEO cracking down on it). This is however collective punishment against men who have already been forced into gig work, particularly migrant dudes with families they send money back to (Uber loves taking advantage of dubious situations this is a way that the US exploits third world labor power). What you’re describing is a company famous for doing illegal shit adding a dumb filter instead of actually pursuing harassment and assault reports. Doesn’t that score a point against the policy if they threw it out as a red herring? He’s right that a shitton of marginalized men are catching strays here.
If you think Uber is this really epic progressive company btw they famously had to delete a post where they used customer data to show how many people experienced a one-off hookup followed by a walk of shame on Valentine’s Day. Doesn’t that just make you so excited? I will be delighted to see what new kinds of eugenics experiments that you let tech companies run on all of you & your families!!!
Should I even bother raising the question of whether a company ought to dictate social policies like this? Don’t want to trigger too much cognitive dissonance at once. People on here are too fragile. Like lol the implication that men won’t rape other men or it’s not worth considering. Typical. Of course no nonbinary person would rape either. Believable premises.
Oh and on top of all that, women and “enbies” are supposed to accept worse service for a lower likelihood of being raped. Thank you so much Uber!!! Awesome company!!! Race filter next!!! /s /s /s
Hell what is even the point of a society where you know that Uber banning a driver is the most punishment the rapist will receive if they’re not brown enough for the cops to give a shit. How the fuck does anyone take this kind of thing seriously from the company that just straight up ignored laws everywhere and got away w it i will never understand
So the answer is to remove the option and let women fend for themselves?
Who cares if it’s a marketing decision, or comes from an absolute festering hole of a company? Stopped clocks and all that. This feature is obviously desirable if women are using it. And again, I think the safety of one group of people outweighs the wallets of another.
No I just said that this policy could be acceptable if it was being implemented as an industry-wide regulation by the state. This would require a non-bourgeois controlled state. Don’t deflect from my point that this is being thrown out by Uber to distract from them failing to respond to user abuse reports and the women have to accept lower quality service (fewer available drivers even if prices are equalized to make up for that by the algo and do we know how their proprietary algo works or will work going forward?) to utilize it.
Since this is being challenged in courts as OP’s post shows it’s even more of a nothingburger from Uber…
“Enough” is a statistically significant delta between the rates of men assaulting women and women assaulting men. Once that is identified, remedial action is justified.
It seems like the system allows women and non-binary people to request female or non-binary drivers.
This was put in place because of several sexual assault and harassment suits against Uber due to their male drivers assaulting women.
Now there are men suing to force women to accept rides from people they feel unsafe with because “not all men”.
But enough men have. Too many men have.
It’s a shame that male drivers lose out in this situation, but I think the safety of the customer outshines the petulant demands of a few drivers.
Please could you define the threshold for “enough men have”, just so we can use it for other causes of discrimination?
Enough that there are lawsuits being filed against Uber for negligence in screening drivers, following up on assault complaints, or implementing safety measures to stop assaults by their predatory drivers.
https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/uber-sex-assault-lawsuit.html
https://federal-lawyer.com/injury-lawsuit/sex-abuse/uber/#previous-uber-sexual-assault-lawsuit-updates
Enough that Uber saw fit to implement a system that would allow people who feel vulnerable to seek drivers who they feel safer around. This is Uber, the company that calls its drivers ‘contractors’ to get around employment laws and who puts all of the onus of responsibility on their drivers and passengers so they can try and keep their hands as clean as possible. That Uber thought that enough people were being assaulted by their drivers to actually do something about it.
But you weren’t actually asking for a real answer. You just wanted to score your little points.
I’m not against a policy like this in all cases, because men are obviously going to commit many times more assaults than women. Very controversial take among some but separate male and female spaces should exist, as long as they are part of community resources though, not corporate branding shit, not reactionary political groups (duh, but whatever you guys all have law enforcement infested with this rather than LEO cracking down on it). This is however collective punishment against men who have already been forced into gig work, particularly migrant dudes with families they send money back to (Uber loves taking advantage of dubious situations this is a way that the US exploits third world labor power). What you’re describing is a company famous for doing illegal shit adding a dumb filter instead of actually pursuing harassment and assault reports. Doesn’t that score a point against the policy if they threw it out as a red herring? He’s right that a shitton of marginalized men are catching strays here.
If you think Uber is this really epic progressive company btw they famously had to delete a post where they used customer data to show how many people experienced a one-off hookup followed by a walk of shame on Valentine’s Day. Doesn’t that just make you so excited? I will be delighted to see what new kinds of eugenics experiments that you let tech companies run on all of you & your families!!!
Should I even bother raising the question of whether a company ought to dictate social policies like this? Don’t want to trigger too much cognitive dissonance at once. People on here are too fragile. Like lol the implication that men won’t rape other men or it’s not worth considering. Typical. Of course no nonbinary person would rape either. Believable premises.
Oh and on top of all that, women and “enbies” are supposed to accept worse service for a lower likelihood of being raped. Thank you so much Uber!!! Awesome company!!! Race filter next!!! /s /s /s
Hell what is even the point of a society where you know that Uber banning a driver is the most punishment the rapist will receive if they’re not brown enough for the cops to give a shit. How the fuck does anyone take this kind of thing seriously from the company that just straight up ignored laws everywhere and got away w it i will never understand
So the answer is to remove the option and let women fend for themselves?
Who cares if it’s a marketing decision, or comes from an absolute festering hole of a company? Stopped clocks and all that. This feature is obviously desirable if women are using it. And again, I think the safety of one group of people outweighs the wallets of another.
No I just said that this policy could be acceptable if it was being implemented as an industry-wide regulation by the state. This would require a non-bourgeois controlled state. Don’t deflect from my point that this is being thrown out by Uber to distract from them failing to respond to user abuse reports and the women have to accept lower quality service (fewer available drivers even if prices are equalized to make up for that by the algo and do we know how their proprietary algo works or will work going forward?) to utilize it.
Since this is being challenged in courts as OP’s post shows it’s even more of a nothingburger from Uber…
Aww snap you got owned 😂
“Enough” is a statistically significant delta between the rates of men assaulting women and women assaulting men. Once that is identified, remedial action is justified.