That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.
Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I’m not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
they are choosing women drivers for their safety, you are throwing a tantrum because women wanting to feel safe in the face of a systemic and well documented issue has hurt your feelings.
Allero@lemmy.today 4 weeks ago
A small percentage of women will ever face any sort of harassment from male drivers.
At the same time, all male drivers will be affected by this feature, reducing their life-supporting income through no fault of their own, simply because they have “male” in their documents. I think that’s the point.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Ask any women in your life, it is not a small percentage. And you dismissing their safety concerns and prioritizing your comfort is the exact reason why this is necessary.
If all men would look at this and say “Sucks that this is needed, but way too many men are genuinely dangerous and we should actively purge them from our institutions so in the future solutions like this won’t be needed” then we would not have a problem in the first place. It is people like you that makes half the population afraid and anxious about the other half.
Allero@lemmy.today 4 weeks ago
No, prioritizing male survivability. Be it any other group of people, people would react much differently. We have to come to solutions where the basic needs of all are met, not at expense of others.
Absolutely! No conflict here between us, harassment should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. I just think that simply “removing men” is not a good solution even as a band-aid.