Should trains have female only carriages?

Reply 100

jblackmoustache

17

Haha what sort of backwards ass stuff is this?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 101

Goody2Shoes-x

14

We once had a similar segregation method on public transport if I recall correctly... now what was it for... :rolleyes:

Definitely not a good idea.

Reply 102

zeb786

10

Original post by Hylean

Segregation is not the issue. It will only create calls of sexism and piss people off. Instead of preventing the perves from acting on their impulses by separating them from the stimulation, we should be teaching the perves not to act on their impulses in the first place. Seriously.

-How we supposed to do that? We live in a country with one of the most sexually retarded societies, actually retarded generally too... :ahee:

Reply 103

HowardChloe

What if you was to go out with a your boyfriend/girlfriend? They'd have to split while on the train?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 104

Trigger

18

In all the years i have used public transport i have never been felt up or flashed...

I am insulted that as a woman there is even the idea that i should be put segregated "for my own safety" and I am insulted on the behalf of men that they are being treated like salivating, sex starved perverts.

Teach women and girls self defense and how to say no and punish men who can't keep their hands to themselves.

Reply 105

SarahAnne

I agree with the several other people who do not feel there is a need for them.

Does this thread have anything to do with the current debate about female passengers on the London Underground? A lot of people were complaining about whether pregnant women should have the right to 'priority seats'.

Nah.

It's ridiculous, talk to most people today and they think it's awful that black and white people were separated in buses and trains and stuff, how is this any difference?

Reply 108

StarGazie

All I can really foresee this doing is pervs thinking that women who get on the normal carriages with men are 'asking for it'. Optional segregation would lead to enforced segregation.

Reply 109

W-Three

1) The whole idea is sexist. Its assuming that only women are the victims, and only men are the offenders. Its also punishing all men for a crime of a few, because of their gender (sexism in it's purest form), and treating all women as a kind of 'glass vase'. Why not have racially segregated carriages, otherwise the black people will rob everyone, the muslims will blow themselves up, and the white people will put the others into slavery.

2) Its unnecessary, it isnt that common. Sexual perversion occurs in all manner of places, and I've seen nothing to suggest it's a significant enough problem to implement such a major reorganization of public transport for the issue.

3) A more serious issue is the size of the tube trains, and if something could be done to open up space and allow people moving space, you could solve a whole series of issues at the same time.

Reply 110

LaughingBro

OP

17

^ Japan is an advance, modern country and they have it!!! How the hell is it a 'major reorganisation' of public transport?! All the have to do is stick signs on just ONE carriage of the whole bloody train innit! :facepalm:

Reply 111

W-Three

Original post by LaughingBro

^ Japan is an advance, modern country and they have it!!! How the hell is it a 'major reorganisation' of public transport?! All the have to do is stick signs on just ONE carriage of the whole bloody train innit! :facepalm:

If anything, the fact that Japan has it is a reason to not use them as a role model.

But it's a major reorganization of public transport because you'd have to account for the transportation issues during rush hour. There would be one (or more) less carriages for men to get on, while also not providing any extra space for them, leading to more congestion. You would also have to make people aware of the changes, institute punishments for riding on those carriages, and working out the logistics of which carriage should be the 'women only' carriage.

Reply 112

minimarshmallow

18

Having been felt up on public transport on more than one occasion, I find that 'GET YOUR ****ING HANDS OFF ME' negates the need for segregated carriages.

Reply 113

LaughingBro

OP

17

My partner had a man's ass rubbed onto hers accidently. Both of us agree that if there was a female carriage then it wouldn't have happened. We both agree that's it's fine if a woman rubbed her ass onto hers - accident or not :P

Reply 114

Genocidal

19

Yes, and we should also segregate carriages by race, age, and income.

Reply 115

Trigger

18

Original post by LaughingBro

My partner had a man's ass rubbed onto hers accidently. Both of us agree that if there was a female carriage then it wouldn't have happened. We both agree that's it's fine if a woman rubbed her ass onto hers - accident or not :P

hilarious....

Reply 116

LaughingBro

OP

17

Original post by Genocidal

Yes, and we should also segregate carriages by race, age, and income.

I definitely agree with the race part. It's harder by income unless people have to bring their bank statements with them.

Reply 117

limetang

19

So essentially. Men can't be trusted. So we need separate carriages to keep them away from women. Yeah. Erm. That's discrimination I'm afraid, and it's wrong. In the same way that having black people sit at the back of the bus was wrong.

Reply 118

limetang

19

Original post by LaughingBro

^ Trains have quiet-zone carriages but are all carriages on that train are like that? :facepalm:

It doesn't segregate the people though. ANYBODY can go on a quiet carriage. They just have to abide by rules pertaining to electronic equipment etc.

Reply 119

cl_steele

2

What a blindingly stupid idea. I mean if anything a children/baby carriage should be created... ired of hearing the little gob ****es cry and scream for long journeys -_- oh and also one for the hoi-polloi :colone:

Should trains have female only carriages?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you