Lyft’s new feature lets women and non-binary riders request their driver’s genderlocked
Lyft is introducing a new feature that lets women and non-binary riders choose a preference to match with drivers of the same gender.
The ride-hailing company said it was a “highly requested feature” in a blog post Tuesday, saying the new feature allows women and non-binary people to “feel that much more confident” in using Lyft and also hopefully encourage more women to sign up to be drivers to access its “flexible earning opportunities.”
The service, called “Women+ Connect,” is rolling out in the coming months. Riders can turn on the option in the Lyft app, however the company warns that it’s not a guarantee that they’ll be matched with a women or non-binary person if one of those people aren’t nearby. Both the riders and drivers will need to opt-in to the feature for it work and riders must chose a gender for it to work.
Lately we seem to be going backwards in equality. Men are getting shat on, especially those that haven't even committed the atrocities they are being punished for.
Why pick and choose who can use the feature to request gender. Make it fair and allow everyone or none.
There's a lot to unpack here...
But mostly I suggest you learn about the difference in equity and equality.
Equality (what you are arguing for) is treating people the same.
Equity (what this feature promotes) is giving people what they need to be successful.
Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help. Equity appears unfair, but it actively moves everyone closer to success by "leveling the playing field."
Equity involves trying to understand and give people what they need to enjoy full, successful lives. Equality, in contrast, aims to give everyone the same thing, which does not work to create a more equal society, only to preserve the status quo, in the presence of systemic inequalities.
Given that violent crime in the ride share industry is committed almost universally by men and disproportionately against women, this feature aims to provide equity to support more women as both riders and drivers.
Now, I dare you to apply the same logic to black driver vs. white.
Sure.
Are black drivers disproportionately affected by problems in the ride share industry? Yes. Let's fix that!
it aims to provide equity, but through a really shitty and half-assed method that results in systemic discrimination
Lyft could be vetting their drivers, taking a hardline approach on drivers which are reported, a trusted driver program, etc, anything that would actually be protecting vulnerable people from abusers, but instead went with the easiest most simple minded approach (which also doesn't protect any vulnerable men) because they have no problem treating their drivers like shit
Equity is antithetical to equality. They are oppositional ideals. Either you aim to provide equal opportunity for everyone, or you intentionally limit opportunity to ensure equal outcomes. Democracy and multiculturalism is premised on equality. It seeks to ensure the right of different groups to behave differently and arrive at different outcomes. For example, Asian high-school students spend significantly more time studying and doing homework than any other ethnic or racial group. You can verify these stats yourself by going to the cited source. Unsurprisingly, this group earns more, has higher employment, and lower crime.
Equity, on the other hand, is authoritarian. To use the example above, it means either forcing Asian children to study less, or forcing children of other ethnicities to study more. There is no room for cultural differences or free expression. Equity is only achievable under an authoritarian system, because in order to achieve it, it requires ensuring every child has exactly the same experience in life. The same amount of homework. The same schools. The same friends and family. The same sports and extracurricular activities. The same hobbies. They must study the same subjects in school and universities. It requires complete homogeneity. No modern society wants this, and the use of the term "equity" is deeply alarming to anyone who considers themselves democratic or liberal in the classical sense.
Right. And don't forget to address the issue of them all being differently situated as a starting condition. You'll have to kneecap some and put others on wheels.
In this specific situation no one is kneecapping anyone though. For men nothing changes. Some here in the comments are just butthurt that others get a tiny feature to make it more safe for them. While men didn't have any change to their safety by being able to just have male drivers.
It's literally just people being uncompassionate and angry over nothing.
if male drivers are deprioritized, that results in them getting less riders and being a second class worker. I think we can all agree that the gig economy is shitty enough already and we dont need to add a caste system on top of it
This is something they do to get more drivers. It was a caste system before because the higher probability of women and non-binary people to get assaulted, harassed, even raped was a factor keeping them away from that job.
Yes, they introduced a lazy solution to try and make more money
That's not a caste system, and introducing actual systemic discrimination is not a solution to a safety issue.
If Lyft actually wanted solutions, they could vet their drivers more, take reports of vulnerable people seriously and give consequences to drivers which act abusive, create a "trusted driver" program, etc, there are tons of solutions that don't involve discriminating on 3/4 of their drivers because they're trying to make more money
Lol no.
Equity in this case is providing additional opportunities for education to those who need it.
That would be equality. Everyone given the same opportunity to benefit from resources on the basis of need. Equity would be providing additional resources to people on the basis of race, for example, irrespective of their need. The purpose of which to ensure outcomes are equitable.
Again, no.
Equity is explicitly about need. Equality is irrespective of need. This is literally the definition I gave at the start of this discussion.
Obviously to enact equitable policies, you can't handle things on a case-by-case basis, because that doesn't scale. You have to find metrics that correlate with need. The only policies that scale are those that target cohorts rather than individuals.
In the example of school funding, reasonable cohorts can be derived from income level and relatedly (for historical reasons in the US) race.
In the case of ride-share safety for both riders and drivers, gender is a decent axis for defining cohorts.
You gave an example of a school. It's really obvious that the above poster was addressing the example that you gave.
That wasn't clear to me but thanks for clarifying. I'll edit my comment above.
If you are providing additional X to a subset of people it is by definition not equality. The two are jot compatible.
If the two people didnt start in the exact same place then they were already unequal though. So the equity option just makes them closer to equal, equality is not measured in simply 'how much you get for free'. I work with people with disabilities getting more 'free' support than you or I will ever see, are they more equal than the rest of us for it?
That is literally the distinction between equality and equity. There are different words that mean close to similar things.
Because the goal is equality of outcome. Like I said equality between people is not measured in "how much stuff you are given"
Why not just not allow men to be drivers? Problem solved, equity maximized.
Neither "equality" nor "equity" involve any amount of equality, equity, fairness, nor justice of any kind. They're all hot garbage.
What people need is freedom and liberty maximized, and artificial barriers removed. And don't expect equal outcomes.
Men have it so hard! 😔
Its not punishment. Its making the playing field equal.
It's not equal if it gives special treatment to one but not both. Why can't I request a specific driver as a man. What if I don't feel safe with a woman driver based on stereotypes like the woman and trans passengers are. If they assume the male driver is going to make comments or passes at them then I as a male passenger should be able to assume the woman driver might be bad and get me in an accident.
To be fair, the only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't have an option for males
And based on another comment, it doesn't let you pick a driver, rather it lets you pick the same gender as yourself.
So the option probably should be available, and would only allow a male to request another male.
There are thousands of sexual assaults on ride share apps every year which disproportionately affect women so the current system is not equal. We're talking about the difference between equal outcomes and equal treatment.
https://imgur.com/9tmxW07
I don't think that's a problem with the riders being able to choose their driver. I think that's a problem with the rideshare apps not doing their due diligence and disqualifying sex offenders and felons from driving people around.
Damn, I'm glad we have you around to unilaterally decide that (and who knew that problems could only ever have one cause?)
[citation needed]
No problem: https://helpingsurvivors.org/rideshare-sexual-assault/statistics/#:\~:text=The%20report%20revealed%20that%20Uber,a%20non%2Dsexual%20body%20part
Statistics and rational thought is not on your side here. You just come off as incredibly unempathetic. Imagine being so butthurt of something not revolving around yourself that you get angry at a feature that will increase the safety of other people.
The law is on his side though. Good to see that your only response is belittlement and insults, though.
Absolute brickheaded response
Makes sense tho. If you can base the driver selection on stereotypes, why not?
It doesn't really make sense because he compared women systemically not feeling safe around men with the "haha women bad at driving stereotype"
"Haha men are violent" stereotype is okay, tho?
How is this equal when men are explicitly excluded…?
Women and non-binary people gain more safety from this. What are men going to gain from a feature letting them have only male drivers?
It's such an incredible dumb thing to be mad about.
Arguably where is the harm in making it allowable to all for it to be equal?
Arguably, men can gain more safety too, or are you claiming the same can’t happen to men?
What an incredibly narrow sighted view point.
How can men get more safety by this?
So you’re saying women can’t commit the same crimes that men can?
Do you commonly fear for your safety around women? It's not the same
Do you not think traumatized men might not? Me personally no, there’s also women who don’t fear for their life around men.
So… what’s your point? It applies to both sexes as I hopefully just helped you with.
Or of you the group that think the same can’t apply to men?
There's a big difference in the amount of traumatized men and the systemic oppression of women. Have you ever thought that maybe everything isn't about you? Do you actually listen to women when they talk to you or do you just go "but but men this men that!"
Of course there is, I never claimed otherwise.
We are just pointing out that the same can apply to men, if men aren’t included it’s not about equality, which is what EVERYONE should strive for.
I would be making these exact same arguments regardless of gender or races, as most people here probably would to. But there’s always a group of people (you, this is about you) that seem to think people fighting for overall rights are “men’s rights activists”. I’m sorry that you seem to have some bias in your life that all men are bad, but I myself am fighting for equal rights, not men’s, not women’s, equal rights.
I certainly don't think all men are bad but just putting fingers in your ears and going "I fight for equal rights for everyone!" extremely downplays real issues that a significant amount of women are facing. This feature isn't an "equal rights" issue, men don't need it because men don't face this problem like women do
Where am I putting fingers in my ears?
There’s no justification for having discriminatory options, and who’s downplaying anything?
SOME men will need it, and that’s discriminatory, I’m sorry your sexual bias isn’t allowing you to comprehend this. And it’s sad it will likely have to come to the same thing happening to someone else for it to change. So to say that men don’t face this problem is just outright ignorance.
I’ll ask once more time, where is the harm in allowing men to use it?
There’s multiple ways this will harm men and potentially women as well, it won’t fix anything, but that’s not a discussion I’m having with you. I am specifically asking what harm is there in having men use it?
There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been.
You're trolling right? What a wild statement
Not at all. I'm as serious as a heart attack. We've had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.
But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.
People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to "share some of the power" that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the "Declaration of Sentiments" of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term "feminism." He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.
Fearing for your safety from relational aggression from women is completely rational. Women are just as aggressive as men — it just takes a different form.
The exact same way women and nb people get more safety. You're not that special. It goes both ways, the rate may be much higher one way, but it exists the other way too.
What "playing field" are you talking about, what is unequal, and what does this do to supposedly equalize this... playing field?
Violent attacks like sexual assault are disproportionately done my male drivers upon non-male passengers. Why do you not see how this is unequal?
I guess I just have a problem with your phrasing. You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.
A "playing field" is an analogy for a field of opportunities, like the job market or access to services like education.
What?