Does this company policy discriminate against men?
- Thread starter wingnutta
- Start date
Caporegime
That then becomes a minefield though! Think how many people would be given a pass then complain because they're being classed as vulnerable!
Soldato
Well you're half way to being in the free car park thenOh and for info yes im ...camp
Soldato
Based on the facts given and if there's nothing more to it, it's clear discrimination. Also an over-reaction unless the free car park and the place of work are somehow situated either side of the Centre for Housing Incurable Sex Offenders or something.
I mean yes, women are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted than men. But men are also more likely to be physically assaulted in general. And non-sexual assaults are more likely to result in permanent injury I would imagine. Regardless, the two words "higher risk" hide a multitude of sins. A one in a thousand chance is lower than a two in a thousand chance, but both odds are low. Is the risk so high that it really offsets the fact that people are having to pay more than others for their car parking every single day based on their sex?
If the company really wanted to prioritise in some way, it should probably go disabled (obviously), immediately followed by days worked. If someone telecommutes or spends most of their time away (like a salesperson or some senior managers) then they should be set at a lower place in the queue than someone who comes in every day (and therefore has to pay more in absolute terms).
Of course you need some way to prevent such a priority system trumping how long you've been waiting for endlessly so that you have people who never get to the front of the queue no matter how long you wait. If that's what's meant by seniority (I read it as upper management vs. lower ranked employees), then that makes sense.
With the current system, unless they have a very low proportion of women there, it will just end up as a women only car park. Hard not to consider that discrimination.
I mean yes, women are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted than men. But men are also more likely to be physically assaulted in general. And non-sexual assaults are more likely to result in permanent injury I would imagine. Regardless, the two words "higher risk" hide a multitude of sins. A one in a thousand chance is lower than a two in a thousand chance, but both odds are low. Is the risk so high that it really offsets the fact that people are having to pay more than others for their car parking every single day based on their sex?
If the company really wanted to prioritise in some way, it should probably go disabled (obviously), immediately followed by days worked. If someone telecommutes or spends most of their time away (like a salesperson or some senior managers) then they should be set at a lower place in the queue than someone who comes in every day (and therefore has to pay more in absolute terms).
Of course you need some way to prevent such a priority system trumping how long you've been waiting for endlessly so that you have people who never get to the front of the queue no matter how long you wait. If that's what's meant by seniority (I read it as upper management vs. lower ranked employees), then that makes sense.
With the current system, unless they have a very low proportion of women there, it will just end up as a women only car park. Hard not to consider that discrimination.
Soldato
Everyone is vulnerable. The idea that some people are invulnerable to assault is laughable. I'm sure even tough people know that if a small group attacked them (say a gang of three young men), they're at significant risk. Or if the assailant is armed which evens out physical size, I would imagine.
Put people with mobility problems first (as the free car park is nearer) for obvious reasons. And then the rest goes by seniority with people who are hardly ever there being disqualified from consideration.
If the route is so dangerous that vulnerability is even a significant consideration then nobody should be being made to walk it daily.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Agree on every point there.
Man of Honour
Should be none if people have to apply for a pass, since they asked for the pass.
How many women there are complaining about getting preferential treatment now? Any who aren't either think they're being classed as vulnerable or think they're entitled to preferential treatment for being the "right" sex. Surely they can't all be that sexist?
[FnG]magnolia;30436259 said:
Not sure this is MRA stuff, seems more like a genuine case of unfairness.
Easy solution for you though OP - simply declare tomorrow that you're now a female, granted you may need to put up with being addressed by female pronouns for a bit but you'll likely get your parking space sooner. You can always switch back once the space has been granted and claim it was just a phase.
Soldato
I get nervous walking alone at night through areas I don't know. I don't know whether men do or not because unlike women, men aren't allowed to say they're scared.
Soldato
Okay, let's try and see both sides - always a good habit. Do you feel differently when walking down the street carrying £500 visibly in your hand? More so than when you're not, at least.
You're nervous because you know there are people out there who want to take that and are not above a little force and intimidation to get it. Probably no-one is going to grab it, but someone might. And the more alone you are, the fewer people around, the more nervous you are that someone will go for it.
Women are almost always in that situation. We are the £500 carried openly in the hand. We always know that there is someone out there who wants something from us. And for most of us those people are larger and physically stronger than us. You can put the £500 in your pocket. And I guess women can wear burqas. But we're already at the limits of the analogy. The aim here, hopefully achieved, is to help you relate to how and why a woman can feel vulnerable alone at night in a way that men often do not. Yes, men are actually more likely to be physically assaulted and no, this isn't an argument in favour of the free parking for women. However, it is possible to understand another's point of view - women are always carrying something valuable to someone. Something women can't, or shouldn't have to, hide.
Soldato
Most rapes, it should also be noted, happen between people who know each other. Date rape, rape within marriage... The stereotype of the late-night assailant in the balaclava is atypical.
It's typical of women's desire to disempower men. They know it's not fair and equal, but at the same time it favours them and they know men won't challenge it because to do so would be an attack on their masculinity.
Take for example jobs traditionally filled by women, nursing, primary school teachers, secretaries, where's the initiative to get more men in these roles? Nearly every corporation positively discriminates to get women in male led jobs to meet equality targets, but the reverse is untrue.
Take for example jobs traditionally filled by women, nursing, primary school teachers, secretaries, where's the initiative to get more men in these roles? Nearly every corporation positively discriminates to get women in male led jobs to meet equality targets, but the reverse is untrue.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The number of women raped by strangers in random assaults is pretty small, almost to the point of being trivial. You're far more likely to be assaulted by someone you know. So if you're going to wear the burqa somewhere, it ought to be when amongst friends and family, not when out with strangers.
And I find your analogy flawed. If I could get £500 without consequence, I would do so without a second thought. I would not rape a woman even if I knew there'd be no consequences.
Soldato
You seem to have gotten rather the wrong end of the stick, sir.
Soldato
Not really. Most of us feminismists understand that it's part of the job.
We're often less apoplectic than you seem to think. For example, we recognize that some people are going to make jokes about ironing boards online the same way people used to make jokes about black people and jungles. It's offensive, not really very funny, but we expect that eventually people will start to get embarrassed at having ever made them and stop.
There are many different types of feminismism. Not all of us are out to be offended. In fact, one of the biggest divisions is really what you put your finger on above - is a pole-dancer being exploited or someone who exploits? Or is it in fact, just mutual trade? Some people view such professions as objectifying and sexist. Others think it can be turned around to actually be empowering. I personally think that any physical-based attraction in either direction is by definition objectifying and don't think it is a bad thing - or at least if it is a bad thing then it's also an unavoidable biological fact. The issue for most feminisimists is not really about a pole-dancer being objectified. It's when such an attitude is extended to other areas that it becomes a feminismist issue. I.e. when a woman working as a programmer for example, gets assessed based on her looks for a job role. Or asked to make the coffee in a meeting because she is a woman. THEN you might get to see apoplectic.
Anyway, hopefully a nuanced response from an actual feminismist wont cause too many heads to explode from those who think we're all hair-trigger landmines of social outrage. I could give you some stats on female education worldwide that ought to make anyone think again about whether femisimism is still important.
Soldato
For that to be actually ironic, company policy would need to be for female staff to be accompanied to their cars by a male colleague.