Yep. It is in issue. Whether women only carriages is the answer, I don't know, but it is certainly an area that needs more attention.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Female covering in Islam serves a similar purpose to the carriage only it is a barrier that travels with the women wherever they go.
This was an interesting article posted a few pages back
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34061094
It seems that the carriages were unpopular even when they were available in much more dangerous times for women. I think that it is a regressive step and that we should continue to improve traveler safety on public transport by way of security and more importantly continue to modify men's attitudes towards women to being respectful.
It is worth noting too that young men are more likely to be physically assaulted. I don't like taking night transport either if I am sober. I dread becoming engaged by a drunken idiot, or worse a group of them.
I would wonder as to the definition of physical assault, here. If we simply mean 'shit that leaves bruises or cuts' I'd find that very likely. I do however suspect more women are groped on public transport than any physical assaults of any kind that happen to men.
Yes I agree with that. I think the stat relates to hospital treatment for assault.
Corbyn calls for Ian Duncan Smith to resign.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eath-figures-says-jeremy-corbyn-10475017.html
Not exactly a surprising comment but the kind that indicates why he's winning. He is in touch with how many of us that would rather red than blue think.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eath-figures-says-jeremy-corbyn-10475017.html
Not exactly a surprising comment but the kind that indicates why he's winning. He is in touch with how many of us that would rather red than blue think.
I admit that Corbyn's straight talking is refreshing. He is right on IDS. Resignation is too good for him though, he should be publicly flogged.
Last edited:
Having been through the fit for work assessment, and spent over a year recovering from it, I would quite gladly go along with that.
I miss the days he was just a hilariously bad leader, who put his wife on the payroll.
No I'm suggesting an optional carriage for ethnic minorities who wish to avoid potential racial abuse on a train and are therefore free to choose to go on said carriage or not would be seen as a retrograde step and a stupid idea, and that it essentially accepts the abuse that goes on making it the victims own fault for not avoiding the situation.
you know just like the independent report into separate carriages for women for the department of transport and British transport police concluded women only carriages would be a retrograde step as it is seen as accepting inappropriate behaviour.
tackle the cause not the symptom
I'm totally behind your point, but your point doesn't have anything to do with women's carriages. Tackling the causes of sexual assault is going to take a generation of teaching kids that it's entirely unacceptable. That doesn't save the women who gets groped on a tube tomorrow by a 40 year old man who is never going to change his attitudes. Women who have experienced sexual assault know better than anyone that, yes, women should be safe everywhere, but that's not the world we live in now. It's vital to work towards that world, but pretending we already live in it serves no purpose but to expose thousands more women to unwanted sexual behaviour
With that in mind, these would be my suggestions
- invest hugely in education to stop these attitudes becoming prevalent in our young men
- train security and police staff better so incidents that might in the past have been shrugged off as 'banter' are clamped down on
- put more security and police staff on trains and give them the power to impose on the spot bans or fines for unwanted sexual behaviour.
- introduce women's only carriages in the short-term to reduce sexual harassment now and give women for whom train journeys are generally very uncomfortable and intimidating a place where they can feel safe and comfortable.
We essentially agree on the first three points... (though I am not sure about on the spot fines - I think any unwanted sexual behavoir should be prosecuted fully rather than a on the spot fine like using a mobile or dropping litter)...but the last I don't see at all
I believe if you have women only carriages it essentially becomes any women on what will presumably become known as the "grope wagon" is game / asking for it and god help her if she is wearing a short skirt as thats like actually getting down on your knees and shouting I love bukakke type begging for it.
I don't see how a move which according to the independent reports essentially is seen as accepting of the behaviour can be good for educating a new generation about it being wrong.
When I mention fines and bans I mostly mean for the sort of harassment that David Cameron has repeatedly refused to criminalise. Of course when possible these people should be put on trial, but I'd supplement that with being bans.
You're contradicting your earlier (very true) 'no-one asks for it' point here though. The policy wouldn't cause men in the mixed carriages to be worse, those attitudes already exist, you don't create a misogynist by creating a women's carriage. This is where policing would come into it.
Another point is that you have to realise that for a lot of women, apprehension around large groups of men in enclosed spaces is unavoidable due to past experiences. We're in a situation where a lot of women will avoid public transport altogether because it's too much of a drain on their mental health. Providing a women's carriage on trains and tubes therefore serves a greater purpose than preventing harassment or assault, it allows people who might not otherwise be able to get through their day without suffering severe anxiety, panic attacks, etc. to do so.
Doing something practical to help deal with problem behaviour is not accepting it - it's saying "we know this is happening, it's wrong and we want to change hearts and minds, but in the meantime we don't want you to be distressed and at-risk on your night-time train journey".
I've stayed out of this as I'm right on the fence of seeing where Corbyn is coming from and men needing to improve whilst not thinking women only carriages are the actual answer, even in the short term, if they were then surely places like India would be safe havens for women when clearly the opposite is true.
I'd argue that this could well turn out to be the opposite however, the train system in the UK is chronically under funded and overcrowded as is, introducing a women only carriage that would invariably be less crowded, cleaner and smell better than the others would affect how men view things and could colour their judgement. I don't think the vast majority of men in today's society are inherently misogynist but I do believe that attempts to redress the gender imbalance through increasing positive discrimination does irk many men and this is just another hurdle put in their way. Penalizing someone for being born a male caucasian in an affluent western society by introducing a handicap system that favours others might seem like a politically sound ideal but all that white male feels is the increasing burden that has been placed upon him and the greater difficulty he faces in reaching the finishing line and that can lead to resentment and the very non-PC, lad banter attitude you are looking to stamp out.
I'd argue that this could well turn out to be the opposite however, the train system in the UK is chronically under funded and overcrowded as is, introducing a women only carriage that would invariably be less crowded, cleaner and smell better than the others would affect how men view things and could colour their judgement. I don't think the vast majority of men in today's society are inherently misogynist but I do believe that attempts to redress the gender imbalance through increasing positive discrimination does irk many men and this is just another hurdle put in their way. Penalizing someone for being born a male caucasian in an affluent western society by introducing a handicap system that favours others might seem like a politically sound ideal but all that white male feels is the increasing burden that has been placed upon him and the greater difficulty he faces in reaching the finishing line and that can lead to resentment and the very non-PC, lad banter attitude you are looking to stamp out.
Because that where thr argument ends.
Just like the no smoking argument, it never is a case of "just this one step".
It isn't though. It's just a case of doing things that make sense at the time, if they do.
I know this isn't the subject at the moment, but in regards to the "electability" debate, which has been quite important so far, I'm not sure the argument that people like Burnham and Cooper are anymore electable than Corbyn particularly stands anymore.
At the moment, Cooper and Burnham seem incapable of even getting about a quarter of the first preference votes within their own party. Sure, plenty of Corbyn voters will stick with them if he loses, but a sizeable number will probably just abandon the party for good, instead flocking to another left-wing alternative. I really don't see how someone like Burnham is going to convince the country that he's a viable candidate when he's incapable of actually proving it to his own party.
At the moment, Cooper and Burnham seem incapable of even getting about a quarter of the first preference votes within their own party. Sure, plenty of Corbyn voters will stick with them if he loses, but a sizeable number will probably just abandon the party for good, instead flocking to another left-wing alternative. I really don't see how someone like Burnham is going to convince the country that he's a viable candidate when he's incapable of actually proving it to his own party.
Would I feel safer with my female loved ones being in a female only carriage? 100%.
Do I trust every guy out there is as respectful towards women as I am? No chance.
All this bleating and idiocy about repressive and retrograde is nothing but bullshit. There is nothing repressive about it. It is the opposite. Will women be more or less worried in a women's only carriage? Will they be more or less confident in a women's only carriage? Can you imagine a woman travelling late at night alone being more comfortable in a women's only carriage or not? It's simple.
This is a really simple argument that many of you are adding unnecessary pseudo-male pride ego shit into.
This is it in a nutshell.
It is a workaround solution for a problem we've all seen happen before our very eyes.
Do I trust every guy out there is as respectful towards women as I am? No chance.
All this bleating and idiocy about repressive and retrograde is nothing but bullshit. There is nothing repressive about it. It is the opposite. Will women be more or less worried in a women's only carriage? Will they be more or less confident in a women's only carriage? Can you imagine a woman travelling late at night alone being more comfortable in a women's only carriage or not? It's simple.
This is a really simple argument that many of you are adding unnecessary pseudo-male pride ego shit into.
This is it in a nutshell.
It is a workaround solution for a problem we've all seen happen before our very eyes.
I agree that way more money needs to be invested in public transport regardless, I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise. As I've said before, women's carriages should be part of a larger strategy. I get that you're against women's only carriages but I'm not sure what your solution is.
Also I don't really understand your critique, you say that women's carriages would be 'just another hurdle put in their (men's) way' - how do women's only carriages disadvantages men in any way, shape or form? I don't really see the issues as being related.
But if we're talking about positive discrimination, do you suggest we stop aiming for equality for the less privileged because it annoys the most privileged? That's anathema to the point of the Labour Party. To take an analogy - If you take someone with a million in the bank and someone with nothing in the bank and you give each of them 50 quid a day, at what point to they become equal? The answer is of course, never. You're treating them equally but you're not making them any more equal. That's the logic behind both variable rates of income tax and positive discrimination. Personally I'm not going to lose sleep if the route towards equality means ruffling the feathers of people who have benefited from a century or so of structural privilege.
Im not sure that's a real problem. Ed Miliband only won because of the Union votes after all, both MPs and Labour members preferred David M, but not many people remembered that while Ed was around.
Politics moves real quick. Whoever ends up leader will be judged on their performance and policies rather than how they got there.
Ed Miliband managed to get something like 34% of the first round votes, though. Cooper/Burnham are touted as being around the low 20's, if even that at the moment, due to how well Corbyn's doing.
Also, this leadership election has been a lot more controversial and divisive than the last one, where a lot of disagreements were perhaps smaller and less significant.
Not to mention that the contest until now has largely been a farce, with the whole purge that's been going on, people who have been purged not getting their money back, and the sheer number of people who seem determined to discredit Corbyn, yet are incapable of doing so.
A lot can change, but someone like Burnham or Cooper managing to retain all the Corbyn voters would involve them being a convincing, capable leader who's able to turn things around. And there's very little evidence that it would be the case if they were to take over.
Because even the vast majority of Labour voters aren't members/registered supporters. There's a massive difference between being popular among your base, who don't particularly want to hear the uncomfortable truths about what the country at large thinks on spending and benefits, and having 40% of the country behind you come election day. I personally doubt all or even half of the 300,000 likely to vote Corbyn would abandon the party should he not win, and the number that does abandon ship is likely to be dwarfed by that of those avoiding the party because of him.
No-one outside politics cares about the difference between a low 20s vote a a mid 30s vote in the first round. As I say, that'll be forgotten.
Beyond that, as that ComRes study shows, Corbyn is the most divisive of the potential leaders. If he wins he may retain a higher % of those registered supporters than Burnham, but it would be optimistic to believe that he won't also lose more votes/members from the centre side of the spectrum.
My solution would be in greater security measures and a more active response taken to verbal sexual abuse or intimidation, make it clear that it's not acceptable in society to act in these ways.
The reference to women's carriages being a hurdle in mens' way references the reality that our rail system is a dirty, overcrowded shambles. It's a disgrace that people £5,000+ per year to commute into London in rush hour and the service is so crowded they can not always get on the first train to arrive, let alone get a seat or expect the service to be clean and not leaving you feel like you need a shower after you arrive. You can opt to pay another £3,000 for a first class carriage which should guarantee you a seat or at least greater comfort but that's a fairly big ask out of someone's yearly income. Now 70% of those using that rush hour train in my town every morning are men (legacy of past discrimination maybe, but that's past, not their current discrimination), try telling them that there's one or two new carriages that they are excluded from on the grounds of gender when it's obvious that those carriages will be less crowded and cleaner too and that is clearly a new hurdle put into their everyday life. How is that not running the risk of fueling further misogyny.
Your analogy is slightly off too as there is no magical source for the £100 per day being doled out, be closer to reality if you took £100 out of the millionaires account and gave both £50 per day which whilst not making both equal in any sensible time frame will foster resentment from the millionaire. Variable rates of income tax work and ensure that each gives back to society commensurate with their ability to pay, positive discrimination however is often a sop in apology for previous generations misdeeds and will never achieve equality but can foster resentment and create the very environment we are talking about trying to eliminate here.
Its OK we are all wannabe rapists who cant be trusted not to grope at any woman who comes within range... we deserve to be treated like scum.
And just to be clear - most trains run max carriages in rush hour anyway as in extra ones just overhang the stations so you cant get on them anyway... as such the reality is there would be the same carriages - just more overcrowding in the ones open to most people... infat presumably there would need to be a womens first class as well so possibly on some routes you would have to take out a standard carriage and add an extra first class one in (if there was only one to start with).
Wouldn't it be easier just to have a 'rapists only' carriage?
If anybody else has not recieved their ballot yet you might want this handy for 1st September
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/havent-received-your-ballot-yet
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/havent-received-your-ballot-yet
That's repressive, retrograde, and rapist-ist, though.
The idea of the banter carriage shouldn't be ignored though. I'd pay an extra couple of quid for those twats to have their space.
There has only been one instance where i have been a victim of crime on public transport, and it occured on the top deck of a bus. If the stairs are blocked and the driver busy doing his job, it can be a dicey situation (more so given the age i was at the time i suspect).
What if these women-only carriages have no on-train guard? The female passengers could still end up being alone and isolated, with the interconnecting door providing access to a person(s) of criminal intent.
Last edited:
what if the train guard was a man... surely they couldn't advertise for women only guards afteral that would be sexist wouldn't it?
You support a football team where they only take male playing staff, but I doubt you term that as sexist.
Corbyn wants to nationalise railways and there are very strict employment laws and processes in place... I genuinely don't think you could recruit people (or not recruit people based on gender)
Manchester united can of course point out that the FA bans mixed football from age 11 (or is it age 8) - anyway they are not allowed to field women players - I imagine if a woman applied for say a physio job and was rejected because she was a woman united would (rightly) find themselves either making a hefty out of court settlement or being lambasted in court.
My point was that in the same way that it is seen as justified for the FA to stop women playing in the men's competition, it would also be justified for women's only carriages to be staffed by women. To give a far more cogent example, employing women in women's shelters is rightly seen as necessary to ensure the comfort of those in their care, employing women to secure women's only carriages would serve exactly the same purpose.
Just to get back to the leadership race, anyone see Burnham flailing on the Guardian hustings last night? Since Corbyn has emerged as the front-runner he's swung from 'Labour is seen as being too soft on people who don't want to work for a living' to 'The benefits system is dehumanising'. Whilst I like his new tack far more than his old one, I don't understand in the slightest why anyone would vote for someone who has a weather-vane instead of a moral compass.
Much as I am not a fan of corbyns policies I will probably vote him 3rd... because i cant stand Burnham and his fluctuating policies
At least Cooper has said she wont serve in a Corbyn cabinet as she does not believe in his policies, likewise Kendal has not backed down from what she believes is right... and nor has Corbyn (even when its to my mind ridiculous)
I'm in a similar boat in the sense that, whilst I don't agree with Kendall on policy, I admire that, unlike Burnham, she has positions and sticks with him and, unlike Cooper, she doesn't lower herself to jibes at other candidates to score cheap points. I still think she comes off a bit of a polished patronising politician, but I also get the feeling there's something underneath it all, which is not a feeling I get with Cooper or Burnham.
we are indeed on different ends of the labour spectrum... but at least we find common ground wanting candidates who believe in what they say.
I know you're speaking theoretically on behalf of other people but that's just bonkers. I really hope society isn't in the position you've painted there. These carriages (which are only an idea not proposals) should send the message to these "LADS" that they're ignorant oafs that are making women feel uncomfortable and they should take a long look at themselves. As for turning upstanding citizens into misogynists or the positive discrimination somehow creating resentment, I don't believe anyone who isn't already a dick would feel this way, nearly everyone can empathise what female friends partners or relatives have to go through on these late night trains.
If it wasn't impossible a sober carriage would be bloody welcome
I've not got that much faith in society and sadly the standard political and media reaction to hang things on convenient scapegoats has greatly eroded society's patience. Just read the PC gone mad thread for a snapshot of people getting touchy about relatively innocuous attempts to redress the balance.
I'm a realist when it comes to everybodys lot in life and the simple fact is that we're forever being squeezed harder and harder, the train fare always rises faster than our wages, the number of people crammed on always seems worse and a great many people are, as a result approaching breaking point during the morning commute. I can't see any way this proposal could be implemented on all rail services without ensuring that your average commuter doesn't find himself 15% closer to somebody elses armpit or headphone buzz for one hour every day and that's just the sort of thing that does turn people into dicks. I know from the half a dozen or so unavoidable meetings I have to get the 8:00 commuter train into London for each year that I would go postal if I had to face the current situation every morning, make it worse and I'm sure people a lot more reasonable than me who endure it at present will begin to unravel too.
It's not just women who feel threatened in society, the old, the young, ethnic minorities hell even fit young blokes who can handle themselves all find themselves in situations where they feel intimidated or threatened and we are all wary where we go at times. We need to improve society for everyone though, not provide sops that only benefit a specific portion of society, especially not when doing so would worsen the situation for anyone who does not fall into that specific category. I genuinely thought we'd grown past the radical feminist "All men are rapists" bullshit of my student days but clearly not and whilst I could feign agreement in the hope of getting a leg over back then I actually feel personally insulted when that sort of bullshit is spouted now.
Nice quote that.
I'm too cynical to concur 100%, but I like the optimism. You can see why St. Augustine became a standard bearer for a transformative religion.