Margarita Ma Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Ah, right, I can see where you're coming from now - apols it's taken so long. It's only that way if you choose to see it in those terms. Some will that all men are being tarred with the same brush, others will see it as giving a women a choice of feeling safer. And some will see it as an opportunity to coral women or put them in Purda. I repeat we have been trying to increase respect and understanding in this country not divide and segregate. We need confidence and assertiveness classes not separate railway carriages. What next Completely segregated busses, schools, universities, hospitals, shops? Do we designate streets as women or men only, railway station platforms must be a prime place for a target by a lowlife groper why not separate the sexes altogether and give us all a burqa to protect us from prying eyes. We could go one better and emigrate to Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexAtkin Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Also, if this is just to make women feel safer rather than necessarily being safer, is it valid to begin with? I would feel safer if I didn't have to travel on the train with drunken football supporters, but I have no choice. I would definitely feel discriminated against if women could choose to be in another carriage away from them (for the same price I paid), yet I could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Seen as we cant compare a UK city, shouldnt we look at Delhi and see how it works, if it works, and how it could be improved? thats just common sense. I don't think we want to copy anything that Delhi does, or model anything in the UK on something from Delhi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I`m sorry I haven`t got time to read this entire thread, but has anyone made the obvious point that if trains have all women carriages (with no corresponding all male carriages) then, by definition, there would be fewer seats for men ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I`m sorry I haven`t got time to read this entire thread, but has anyone made the obvious point that if trains have all women carriages (with no corresponding all male carriages) then, by definition, there would be fewer seats for men ? In a roundabout way, yes. To summarise, everyone realises it's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons, except for TJC1, who thinks all of his fellow male gender are rampant perverts just waiting for an opportunity to grope and rape at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 In a roundabout way, yes. To summarise, everyone realises it's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons, except for TJC1, who thinks all of his fellow male gender are rampant perverts just waiting for an opportunity to grope and rape at will. Re my bold. That is your opinion...not fact...unless of course you have incontrovertible proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Re my bold. That is your opinion...not fact...unless of course you have incontrovertible proof. The proof is in the thread which I was summarising for the benefit of someone who admitted they couldn't be arsed to read it all. Maybe "everyone" is hyperbolic, but based on posts and the poll it's around 90%. Is that proof enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 The proof is in the thread which I was summarising for the benefit of someone who admitted they couldn't be arsed to read it all. Maybe "everyone" is hyperbolic, but based on posts and the poll it's around 90%. Is that proof enough for you? In what context of the word did you want me to understand "maybe?" Since when did 90% come to mean "everyone?" Admittedly it's a long time since I was at school but unless mathematics have changed I've always equated "everyone" to tally with 100%. So to answer your last question my answer is no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 In what context of the word did you want me to understand "maybe?" Since when did 90% come to mean "everyone?" Admittedly it's a long time since I was at school but unless mathematics have changed I've always equated "everyone" to tally with 100%. So to answer your last question my answer is no! Now you're just being a pedant. It was an approximate way to summarise the content of the thread, not a basis for statistical analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Now you're just being a pedant. It was an approximate way to summarise the content of the thread, not a basis for statistical analysis. Not "everyone" then. Pedant or not...just get your facts right in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now