[Another Uber Driver]

It has yet to show up here, but if it does, I will apply just to get some lawyer who is trying to make a name for himself interested. In this town, every third person is a lawyer, so there is always someone who is looking for a chance to stand out from the crowd.

When the Revolution comes, the Washington Metropolitan Area will suffer a severe de-population.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.

Double standards...

Welcome to my world.

For years, people have profiled cab drivers as cheating, lying, no-bath-taking, non-teeth-brushing, lecherous, racist, sexist, non-English-speaking,
un-edge-uh-mah-kaytidd, poorly raised, non-tax-paying, geographically challenged criminals who drive broken-down smelly and dirty cars. Yet these same people who profile cab drivers can not stop boo-hoo-hoo-ing about how cab drivers allegedly profile.

Yup, double standards, allright. Cab drivers have been getting the short end of them for years.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it.

A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Get over yourselves.

Your wait is over. There is everything wrong with this.

The woman who refuses to ride with the male driver is the "consumer". Consumers have wider discretion than do providers. The consumer can refuse to accept the service requested at discretion. "Discretion", in this context, means that the consumer ain't gotta' give no reason fer it. Conversely, the provider can be required to render a reason for failure to provide service.

I am not familiar with the other two, or the third one cited by NachonCheeze, nor have I ever eaten or drunk at Hooters, but, as I understand it, Hooters is selling mainly bustin' loose to heterosexual males. As this is an essential part of their business model, it gets a pass. It falls under the category "sound business reason". A transvestite (apply this word in its obsolete sense) with silicone falsies will not achieve the same ends. I am guessing that Hooters does not employ waitresses with A cups. It gets a pass on this one, as well. Finally, males and less "gifted" females can secure alternate employment at Hooters as host/hostess, cook, manager, accountant, bouncer, table busser, cashier, ....you get the idea.

You might counter that Chariot is selling a safe ride to females and is using the female only driver model to achieve that, thus it has "sound business reasons". That might hold water, but it don't make no steam. An interlocutor could argue that the management of Chariot is profiling males as rapists. One could submit the argument that a male driver who passes a background check is just as safe. In fact, if the jurisdiction requires an FBI fingerprint/background check of TNC drivers, the argument would go double. While a female driver might be hard put to violate a female passenger, what would stop her from discharging a firearm in the wrong direction or committing armed robbery of a passenger? What Chariot is selling is a safe ride. A female driver is not a requirement for the rendering of a safe ride.

You do not need the female driver to sell safety to other females. You do need the "gifted" female to sell your brand to heterosexual males. The latter is Hooter's target audience. As Dan The Lyft Man correctly points out, despite Hooter's target audience's being heterosexual males, that is not a requirement to purchase a beer or a burger, there. If you are gay (of either gender), a female (of any orientation) or whatever, if you are willing to pay for a beer, a burger or both, Hooters will sell any or all of it to you.

As far as "getting over yourself" goes, I will warrant that more than a few cab drivers would love to have had that defence when they were hauled before the appropriate tribunal for refusing to carry someone to a certain neighbourhood.

In the case of Mitchell, et al. vs. DCX, I suspect that the management of DCX would have been ecstatic to have had that as a defence against those
do-gooders who sued them because their drivers did not hang out in certain neighbourhoods to wait for calls. Considering that it is still not specifically against any law for any limousine, cab or TNC driver to avoid hanging out in certain neighbourhoods to look for passengers, the management of DCX should have been able to tell those busybodies to "get over themselves". Funny, it did not work out that way.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

YOU'RE A HOPLESSLY IGNORANT MISOGYNIST.

...............because he does not agree with you? Where have I seen and heard that one, before? Hmmmmmmm...........

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Anddddd I'm a, "Neanderthal" because I don't agree with him? Wait for ittttt....

If I hold my breath while I "wait for it", I fear that I will turn blue. So far, all that you have directed at him is namecalling: misogynist, frivolous. While he has directed namecalling at you, he has stated the reason for it: assigning people nineteenth century gender roles.

So how does it work? Is everyone the same or are there certain privileges? Which is it? Pick one. You can not make one "equal" and one "privileged".

........now, if you are trying to get your group into the "privileged" class and expel the other group, that is a hoss uvva diff'rint cullah. If that is your aim, say so.

What is happening here is that people are using their opponents' reasoning against those opponents. If there is anything that sends someone ballistic, it is the reception of a taste of his (or, in this case, her) own concoction.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

it's the reverse discrimination.

While I do agree with your post, in general, I do disagree with the quoted item. It is simple 'discrimination".........ain't no reverse about it, it's-a skrimmminayshinn pure en' gen-yoo-wine unadulteraytidd.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Many women would feel safer with female drivers and I've witnessed riders cancel on me because they are a woman wanting a female driver.

But do keep in mind that under the law, the consumer has much more discretion than does the provider. The consumer can refuse the service that provider attempts to render without giving a reason for doing so, and there are no legal consequences thereto (note emphasis). This does not mean that the consumer's rejection is without consequences. The provider can advertise that there is a charge for a rejected attempt to render the service requested and charge when such occurs. If the consumer does exercise discretion on the rejection of the first attempt to render service, the provider can use said rejection as a reason to refuse service. An illustration from the cab world, back in the days or radio dispatch, if you will:

It is busy. A customer calls for a cab. I send him one. The driver reports that the customer told him that he did not want the cab. The customer calls back and requests another cab. I ask him why he did not take the cab that I sent for him. He tells me that he just did not want it. I tell him that he needs to call another service, because I am too busy to waste my drivers' time on a customer who expects me to keep sending him cabs and he will not tell me why he rejects what I send him. Now, if the customer tells me that the last cab that I sent him was filthy, the driver was drunk, the driver was nasty, the driver would not help with the suitcases, that is different. Here, the customer is waiving his discretion nad is giving me a reason. Those reasons all are valid for rejecting the attempt to render service, thus, I must send him another cab.

If the above customer tells me that he does not want a __________________(fill in ethnic group) or ___________________(fill in gender) driver, I tell him that I can not honour that request. I ask him if he is willing to take whatever I send him, assuming that everything else is acceptable. If he answers in the affirmative, I must sned him a cab. If he insists on his request that I can not honour, I have a reason to deny him service.

I suspect that this is part of the thinking behind Uber's sending drivers to stand in the virtual corner if they either reject three requests in a row. The driver subscribes to Uber's service. Uber attempts to render the service. The driver rejects three atttempts, thus Uber does not want to keep trying to render the service to the driver. Note that I stated "part". This does break down when the driver does give a reason for cancelling. Uber will put you on cyber time out even if you cancel for a no-show or incorrect address.

I also hear what you have to say. Trust me, my biggest fear with driving women is having a complaint brought against me. Then it's automatically her words against mine (in the eyes of the public). But it's also the general claim that "all" men endanger women PAX/Drivers . It's the attack is on me, because I'm a man, both a driver / PAX. I'm sure women would act in the same way if the rolls were reverse.

Does the UVA Fraternity scandal or the Duke Lacrosse scandal ring any bells? There is more than one reason why we had a Revolution in this country. One of them was that under the Oppressor's regime not only were you presumed guilty until you could prove your innocence, but there was more than one occasion on which the accused was deemed guilty even when he did prove his innocence. Further, all that the Oppressor had to do was accuse you and it was your responsibility to prove your innocence. If you could not prove it, the baseless accusation stood. Sometimes, even when you did prove it, the baseless accusation was allowed to stand.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Or by canceling on you (men) multiple times until they find a female driver. It's gonna happen one way or the other. I'm here for it.

Just as Uber puts the driver on virtual time out for repeated rejection/cancellation of trips, it could do similar for users. Miss three cars, for whatever reason, and the application does not accept you order for __________________(fill in time). The "corner time" can increase with each set of missed cars. At some point, the Law of Diminishing Returns will apply.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Try telling that to my wife!

.......or my GF, two of my three sisters or my mother. Mother is eighty-eight, though, so she gets a pass. She has earned it.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

The boys involved in that case sued the state and duke university.

You edited your post, but I saw the original. Yes, I am sure that I want to raise the Duke case. Your whole post is a rather poor use of the rhetorical tactic known as praeteritio. My point in raising it was that the Lacrosse players were presumed guilty of what the woman, the police and the DA accused them. They were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University. They were made to suffer simply based on a baseless accusation. This is the point that Dan The Lyft Man was trying to make. All that it takes is that a woman accuse a man of miscreance, especially in certain situations, and the woman's accusation is presumed substantiated and the man's life is, at best, made difficult; at worst, ruined.

Yes, I understand the trauma of having to recall and thus, re-live, on a witness stand such a horrid experience. (I understand it better than you might suspect. I have a personal story from, of all places, the Happy Valley of Western Massachusetts---you know: Amherst, Northampton and a couple of other places.) This is what is partly responsible for the presumption and assignment of guilt to the male when the female makes the accusation, these days. Still, if it is that important to an accuser that the accused suffer the consequences of alleged misdeeds, there is an investment required in that.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

I get it some women feel safer with women drivers. Some white people feel safer with white drivers. Try starting that up and see how that idea would fly over. So what's the difference between that and a women only service if that's what a passenger feels 'safer' with.

............or reverse it to state that white drivers feel safer with white passengers or women drivers feel safer with women passengers. Let a cab driver try one of those and see how long that he has a hack licence. As one of the few regulations imposed on TNCs in many places is that they not discriminate with regard to_____________________(fill in protected classes), I would suspect that any TNC driver who "[felt] safer" under those conditions would be de-activated, re-instated just so that he(she) could be de-activated a second time.

Oh, gee, I edited my post and ya "caught me." Want a cookie?

The woman probably would've been discredited early on if the DA and DETECTIVE didn't manipulate the evidence. AKA did their jobs. THEY hung those boys out to dry not the woman.

Also, if you're trying to make a point that women go around lying about rape. That's simply untrue. It has been disproven time and time again.

I could also could care less about your personal experiences because they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

*I added the last sentence at the end. I, edited it.

I will pass over the first quoted sentence and save addressing it for last, as the sentiment that underlies it is similar to the last quoted.

You contradict yourself in the third quoted set of three with your second quoted set of three. In the second quoted item, you admit that the woman in Durham lied about being raped. In the third quoted item, you state that women do not lie about rape. That is a direct contradiction. I will pass over the Charlottesville matter, for now, at least. I will add that those lacrosse players were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University before there was any opportunity to discredit what the DA and detective were doing.

Your obnoxious comments detract from the quality of your arguments, which have little substance or quality as it is.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Lol obnoxious? Because I don't care about your personal experiences? Poor you *sad face*

.......so we can add implying words from my keyboard to your "debate" tactics which thus far amount only to name calling, obnoxious comments and beside-the-point statements. Thank you for providing even more proof to my assertion that your "arguments" are sorely lacking in quality.

In the interest of simplicity, do kindly answer this question: Do you admit or deny that the woman in Durham, North Carolina both "cried rape" and pressed the matter?

I am going to help you out, a little, here. Admit it, and you contradict directly your twice stated assertion that women "do not lie about rape". Admit it and crash goes your chariot. Deny it, and you deny a verified occurrence. Deny it and crash goes your chariot.

In chess, they call it zugzwang. Your move.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

1. Lol. Wow, you're so b***hurt from your past experiences.

2. "Deny it?" Who do you think you are?

3. You saw what I wrote. Take what you want from that.

4. You should really seek counseling. You obviously have some residual trauma that you need to sort out.

1. On what do you base this? You continue to put words onto my keyboard.

2. That earns you the "HUH?" button.

3. I saw that you admitted that the woman accused the lacrosse players of rape. I saw that you admitted that the accusation was false. I saw that you stated that women do not lie about being raped. Statement Number Two is in direct contradiction of Statement Number Three. Crash goes your chariot, Mademoiselle. You just put your cyberfoot into your virtual mouth. Would someone please pass her the mustard?

4. More namecalling and trying to paint your opponent as insane simply because:

a. He disagrees with you.
b. He showed you up.
c. He shot down your "arguments"
d. He refused to take lying down your belittling of him.
e. He caught you painted into a virtual corner and pointed out to you that you did it to yourself.

Yup, you tried hard to hustle me, allright, but it did not happen, now did it? If you hustled anyone, it was yourself.

DIPSO FACTO, QED: Women have, can and do lie about rape.

The same jock itch $30,000 millionaires who will be sure to 1-star you in the morning because you weren't driving a 2017 Audi with leather seats will still request you

.........good thing that I do not drive in Dallas, I would be one starred into de-activation. If I want a Volkswagen, I will buy one. If I want a
Mercedes-Benz, I will buy one. What I will not do is pay for a Mercedes-Benz and accept a Volkswagen.

If that did not get me one-starred into de-activation, I am a proud cowboy hater. That would get me one-starred into de-activation, there.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

If men never committed sexual assaults in the first place, false accusations would be a non issue.

For a long time women were usually not believed. It still happens. In much of the world they are blamed, sometimes with dire consequences, when they are the victims.

No sexual assaults and you'll have no false accusations. So fix that.

.....and if people did not commit armed robbery, false accusations would be a "non-issue". If people did not commit embezzlement, false accusations would be "non-issue". Except in Pangloss' "best of all possible worlds", people do commit crimes and people do make false accusations. People have made false accusations for years. Check out the Eighth Commandment (Catholic tradition). There is documentation that such was a problem twelve hundred years, or so, before the birth of Christ. There might even be something about it in the Code of Hammurabi, which is older. I just looked up the Code of Hammurabi, and there are, in fact, provisions dealing with "false witness". Now I have found documentation that it was a problem some seventeen-hundred years before the birth of Christ.

The point here, is, that you can not discriminate against someone because you think that he might commit a crime and the only thing on which you base that is that he fits the broad demographic Yes, more men rape women than the other way around, but my being a man does not make me a rapist. It works both ways. Just as a woman resents being considered a sex object, I, as man, resent just as much being considered a rapist.

In this country, our justice system (with a few exceptions, that never should have been or should be allowed) demands that the accuser make his case, or, in this situation, hers. There is a reason for that. One is that it protects people against false accusations, which, as I have demonstrated, have been a problem for quite some time.

Our justice system is re-active as opposed to pre-emptive. You can not arrest someone for rape simply because you think that he will commit rape. He must at least make the attempt. There is the possibility of deterrence, but, as sentences have become less severe across the board, the deterrence factor has diminshed. I do not know how old you are, but, I, at least, can remember when rape carried the possibility of the death penalty in most states. I do not know if any states that still have the death penalty allow it for rape, or not. While I am no supporter of capital punishment, I would not complain if rape carried the possibility of life without parole. "Fix it?" I am not a legislator. The only thing that I can control is myself. I do not commit rape. That is the best that I can do.

I would say men lie about it more.

If you're worried about false accusations then you should be happy another company can handle the pesky, lying women.

Do understand that I never stated that women lie about rape more than men do. All that I stated is that women do lie about it. In fact, I would not be surprised if men denied a rape that they committed more than women lie about one committed on them. The natural reaction of the accused is a plea of innocence. People do not want to suffer adverse consequences, deserved or otherwise.

If I were worried about every possible adverse occurrence, I would never leave my house voluntarily. If that happened, I would have to leave it involuntarily, as I would not be able to pay my mortgage, so there would be a foreclosure and the U.S. Marshals would cart me out of my house.

If men were bullies to women and then people come out in arms against it. But when a women does the bullying to men and say to make us feel empowered, then it's ok.

This is the typical double standard of the Left........................and mind you, this is coming from someone who has more than a little contempt for the Right.

How is this different from a restaurant, not hiring or serving someone because of there race. It's not right, how you candy coat it. That's why the law groups everyone "because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation".

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ See above. It is not going "out of its way" to exclude males, it is flat out, up front excluding them either from using or providing the service. In the case of interstate or local transport, that is illegal.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It sounds like the service is intended for women, but isn't going out of its way to exclude men.

I just don't see what the big deal is if they're marketing towards women drivers and passengers. That's their niche. Who's hurt by that?

As stated in the discussions about Hooters, it markets to heterosexual males, but does not exclude females (of any orientation) or gay or asexual males from purchasing a beer, a burger or an order of chicken wings as long as any of the above are willing to pay for it (the heterosexual males are obliged to pay, as well) .

 

[Another Uber Driver]

I personally when dropping off a female passenger will not pull away until I see they are safely inside their destination. Some men are like that and will probably watch out more for women than other women will.

When I was a cab company Official, I made a point of emphasising this policy. The general rule was that at night, you waited until the customer (regardless of gender) was safely inside. Appended to this policy was the statement "............this applies especially to female passengers especially at later hours of the night.........". The Drivers' Handbook for this company that was published in 1934 contained a similar policy statement. This was before there were radios in the cabs (that happened here in 1949, although the first was 1947).

To this day, I do that. I have had more than one female ask me specifically to do that as she disembarked. In fact, more than one female has asked me to wait when we get to the destination when she embarked and announced her address. There was one who did not make the request, but, as I do it out of force-of-habit, she noticed, looked over her shoulder and asked why I was still there. When I explained that I wanted to make sure that she was safely inside, she gave me a dirty look. I reminded her that this was the Big City, things do happen, and, I had both cab radio and wireless telephone at the ready to summon help should someone with a nefarious purpose appear out of nowhere. That changed the look on her face to one of embarrassment. I suppose that I should have gotten out and offered to assist her in the removal of her foot from her mouth.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot. And it shows.

This earned you my "like". I am still chuckling.

I dont suffer racists gladly. Im the only white man in my housing development.
Hell, im the only white person living in my house, which also contains my non white wife and mother in law and my mixed race kids.

Dont play the race card around me.

.........not to mention that we are from Massachusetts which : a) abolished slavery by judicial review before the end of the War of Independence (in fact, the only State to abolish slavery by judicial review) and b) always allowed black people to vote....................

The 1965 voting rights act simply made the right to vote enforceable. It made it easier for blacks to do something they technically already had a right to do.

I get your point, but not everyone lives or lived in the south. Black men had the right to vote, and many DID long before ANY women. It is true there was a large portion of the country where exercising that right was difficult, if not impossible, but women didn't even have the right anywhere.

That is true. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 allowed black men to vote but not white women.

Until, that is, you need one.

...........only because some jerk sicked one on me first. Had there not been one for the aforementioned jerk, I would not need one, either.......... I will pass over some of the Studies in Ridicule that Legislatures have put into effect and Courts have upheld or interpreted; bodies with a high composition of lawyers...................................

Im discusted by the untruths bandied about by a class of human i have defended time and time again.

.....as have been I for some time, now. If I consider that some of my relatives from Colonial Times did similarly, it makes me even more unhappy.........

 

[Another Uber Driver]

Bussing was federally mandated.

Thank you, I saw the post earlier, but had to leave, so I could not reply, immediately. You took care of it for me.

 

[Another Uber Driver]

"I find that those men who are personally most polite to women, who call them angels and all that, cherish in secret the greatest contempt for them."
―Germaine Greer,The Female Eunuch

"No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility."
― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

When asked about what was then called "Women's Liberation", Joan Baez once replied "If I'm going on stage and have my baby in one arm and my guitar in the other, I'm not about to yell at some guy who holds the door open for me."