When women riders and drivers told us they wanted more control over how they ride and earn, we listened. That feedback led to Women Preferences, features designed to give women the choice to ride with other women. Since our first pilots last summer, we’ve heard just how much that choice matters—from feeling more comfortable in the back seat to more confident behind the wheel.
Yeah, we should just have fewer men in society in general. Reduce the number of male births.
What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to get to that conclusion?
It’d make everyone happier.
A significant portion of women don’t seem to even like men very much so they’d not miss them. Men and women would get murdered less by other men. Fewer wars. Less violence. Less rape. Incels wouldn’t exist I can tell you that much. Rightwing politics would significantly lose influence.
What in the 4B are your comments here?
I’m a dude.
I’m just saying it straight. Both men and women would be happier if we had fewer men added to the population.
I think you’re trolling and trying to make women who support this look sexist.
I’m not trolling, though perhaps I am being provocative.
That said, I would be unironically in favor of the policy I am proposing.
I’m also open to better systemic policy propositions.
Population control and eugenics tend to be bad ideas.
I’m still convinced you’re here to make feminists and women who support safety measures for other women look sexist with your “provocative” views on men.
I mean to be honest I’m not in favor of “population control” but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.
As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that’s typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it’d be unacceptable to let white people say they’re “uncomfortable” or “feel unsafe” around black people… well…
Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just… simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they’re just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.
What you don’t like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.
My idea is not me framing “birthing fewer boys” from some emotional perspective of “We should do it because we hate boys.” I’m suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we’re doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.
I’m here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I’ll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?
Men are not born inherently more violent than women. That’s a sexist assumption from the get and invalidates your entire reply to be honest.
Acknowledging the real outcome of the patriarchy that men are encouraged and allowed to use violence to further their own wants is not the same as agreeing that men should be killed or boys shouldn’t be born.
It’s not an idea that’s alien to me, I did ask what in the 4B you were talking about for a reason. I just recognize a violent and sexist idea when I see one and yours is extreme enough that it makes me think you’re doing it to further provoke gender wars on this site.
I never said they’re more inherently violent on some biological level. I don’t think it matters if they’re “inherently” more violent. If men are statistically more violent and that is just a cultural effect, my solution would still be more humane than ideas like a prejudicial ride share filter.
And if your rebuttal is “We need to fix men’s culture” my immediately question is how? Because that’s not a proposed solution: My idea and the ride share filter are explicit and specific policy. They can be compared, their effects can be studied or if not studied, their assumed effects can at least be rationally predicted.
Fewer boys being born is absolutely not the moral equivalent of killing men. And I know the whole “Kill all men” line itself is a (usually) a troll. Engaging with that is boring.
That said, how do we systematically discourage men from committing violence exactly? Obviously with the goal of reducing harm. That is, in a way that is more humane, time efficient, viable, than either other solution we’ve already discussed here? I don’t think this is a serious avenue to be explored to be honest, because I never hear any concrete solutions being offered. I’m open to being wrong. I want to be wrong because the idea that we can get men to just chill out with the violence and make everyone happy sounds legitimately like the best option, I just don’t think that we can do that.
Provoke a discussion. Like I said I’m bored at work. I don’t care about gender wars. I’m more of an equal opportunity hater. And lover.
If you must know, I avoided the “bear vs man” discussion. Now that was just a means to provoke gender wars bullshit.
Let’s be honest, things would flip after a bit of peace with few men, and women would start to violence each other, then the narrative would kick in that men would not have done that (whether it’s true or not).
Humans will never be happy, and always find reasons to hate each other.
Best to just reduce humans to a population of 800.000 and spread them out as much as possible. Just make everyone sterile, the problem will solve itself. If they can colonize Mars, or live on spaceships or something, that could work too for reducing the effective population.
That would make every single human invaluable, so they would have to treat each other far better. It would also be easier to pivot the population towards something better, and it would also make it easier for say, so species that is not a fuck up to take over. But we would have to somehow explicitly engineer that species to be almost angelic.