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.
What’s next? The “no blacks” option? I’m sure you can find studies to validate that fear too.
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
deleted by creator
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.
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”
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
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?
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.
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
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?
Kinda telling this was your first comment when it’s about women’s safety and the rising number of abuses women have faced as passengers from the men driving.
Were you trying to miss the point or are you just naturally dumb?
Go on then, show us your racist study published by a reputable source.
Go on then, show us your sexist study published by a reputable source.
The person your replying to isn’t actually commenting on race, you just failed to understand their point.
I could show you a study showing that black people commit every single crime on earth and it wouldn’t make disceiminating against them any less racist.
You seem to be the only person arguing for that though.
Removed by mod
This is the dumbest take I’ve seen. What are you even getting on about. This is just rancid bigotry veiled as concern.
What are you even basing this on? Are you afraid of black people? Or do you just hate the LGBTQIA+ community and women? Or are you still privileged as one of those two that you don’t use Uber and are just spreading shits because you can?
Like it or not, Lyft is helping customers discriminate on the basis of gender. It may not have come from bad intentions, but it could have bad consequences. I’m not sure which genders will be less popular as a result of this, but they may have a harder time generating an income from Lyft. (If this feature takes off.)
I’m not saying that this feature necessarily has no place. I can empathize with people wanting to pick the gender of their driver, but it may not end up being fair for everyone.
Well getting harassed is also not fair.
Also this probably will have an unintended consequence of letting the popular gender choice(s) earn more, as there is less supply and more demand than if the whole driver pool was available.
So it’s reasonable to think that if your driver is a male, you will be harassed (and that if your driver is a female, you will not)? That doesn’t enable misandric bigotry in any way whatsoever. I mean, everybody knows that men are the ones who cause problems and women are the ones who suffer them.
My guess is that women don’t prefer to pay a higher price to get home safely but that’s just reality they live in. Also it’s an inconvenience to wait longer for a ride so why would they choose that just to spite men?
Also they (women) can probably decide from experience if they usually get harassed by men or someone else and choose to opt in to this program based on that. If it’s nonsense then they won’t do it because why would they.
Also only 23% of Lyft’s driver are women (based on a super fast search) so this actually happens to also help that issue as well indirectly as their demand grows.
If you could empathize, then you’d understand how shitty of a sentence, “WhAt abOUT BlAckS,” is. Or, “It’s okay to ignore the problem 'cause it’s not fair to men.”
Really think about it. Guys have no choice but to not have the option. What is taken away? This is the same BS as, “Why do we need a lactation room? MEN can’t use it.” “How come women get days off for their PMS-related things, I don’t menstruate.”
I’m just calling out discrimination by comparing it to discrimination. Just because you think one is better than the other doesn’t mean other people do.
So I’m guessing affirmative action is discrimination?
Yes.
This is just getting butthurt for an absolutely silly reason and simultaneously showing no empathy at all.
Let’s get the facts down:
For men nothing changes.
Women are disproportionately affected by sexual harassment and assault by male drivers.
Women and non-binary people get the option to use a probably paid feature to have drivers of their own gender because the companies want more customers and women and non-binary people don’t use their service since they are scared.
The reaction here in the comments isn’t “omg I didn’t know it was so unsafe for some people to use these services” or “good for them to make more people feel safe”. No.
The reaction is: “Why do THEY get a feature I don’t?? I demand to also get this, they shouldn’t have something I can’t have!! Sexist misandrists!”
No. The reaction isn’t “I want this service too” it’s “this service is morally wrong”.
How is that morally wrong? It does not hurt anybody and makes some people feel more safe.
That guy thinks affirmative action is discrimination. When you argue with a fool, you both look foolish. 😔
Marry me. Feels like so many people here miss the point.
You’d probably defend a Nazi getting punched
If they haven’t hurt anyone and they’re merely using their free speech then I would not defend assault and battery on them. Just because their ideas and speech are deplorable does not give you the right to assault them.
There it is
Sorry for not being a piece of shit.
Well, it is a valid argument. Since women are often uncomfortable around men they don’t know, it does seem fair to give them an option to avoid male Lyft drivers. What if someone is uncomfortable with a black driver? It is a similar situation.
Honestly, if I were a woman I would possibly use this feature. Personal safety goes above any moral ideals that I may be tooting around. That’s why I’m kind of split about this. People should be able to feel as safe and comfortable as possible, but male drivers shouldn’t feel like they’re less preferred by a portion of Lyft’s users.
You’re talking in circles. The problem is because men are the largest perpetrator, well also being the biggest benefactor of being a man. They are literally on both ends. Women on the other hand are largely targeted by men for crimes of various sorts, well also not benefiting from the patriarchy.
Hell they have to have separate train cars for women in japan because men can’t keep their hands to themselves.
There is nothing societal that benefits black drivers. That’s exactly the point. There is no equity here. If I’m a black driver, chances are I’m already on the back foot. People might cancel their rides once they see me, or bring cops into play and have other violence brought against me. Remember that one black dude in Central Park who was bird watching and had a woman start accusing him of stuff.
Don’t put women further on the back foot. Don’t put persons of color on the back foot. Cis white men already have the advantage in so many ways.
It’s not funny anymore.