I don’t understand how her mother could *force* her to do anything.

How does that make me a misogynist? Because I don’t believe that the emancipation of women is going to be achieved through unreasoned public safety measures? Are you really go to call me a misogynist because I think that political change isn’t achieved through weak-ass small reforms like this one?

Try to be better at math. The other 70% of spots are not men only. So they get 100% of spots men get 70%.

You can be disingenuous and interpret it like that if you want, I phrased it poorly but if you really think I believe stranger rape is a myth then there is nothing for us to discuss.

There is no “reverse sexism”. There’s just one kind of sexism. A bright pink parking space for women is just the regular kind of sexism, which ultimately doesn’t solve the problem it purports to. It is paternal protectionism; it keeps women powerless—presumably for their own good.

From a safety standpoint wouldn’t it make more sense to light the dimly-lit areas? There’s nothing stopping a rapist from parking or being in a women-only area other than a possible aversion to pink.

The myth is that it happens often enough to warrant preventative measures. The reality is that, while it does happen, it’s so rare that programs like this, designed to stop it, are wastes of money and/or resources that could be better allocated towards real problems.

This article is so idiotic. You even point out yourself that the statistics from prior to the implementation of the spaces indicate that the risk was exaggerated. The spaces weren’t necessary.

Why are you making fun of the idea of changing this policy? If there was a compelling reason to protect women here, I would see the logic, but there isn’t. 30% is a lot and men are right to be disgruntled here.

Necking Frenzy! Speakeasy Culture Ruins Courtships for Jazz Babies and Flappers!

THANK YOU. Same. I remember when Gen X was getting these stupid fucking scare articles about how dating is over and everybody panic!!!!!! but it’s actually based on what like 10 super-assholes are doing in Manhattan.

Yes, it’s basically hippy era free love + Tinder.

Oh my god I’m so glad there’s a space for me to express how stupid this article is. It’s literally the exact same article papers have been writing about rich white kids in Manhattan since the 1920s, updated each year to include the new technology and trend.

I don’t think it’s wrong to categorize toys in an efficient manner. So if they do have dolls like, in the same aisle as action figures that’d be fine. They don’t need to be intermixed if they server slightly different purposes.

As someone who was a kid in the 70s, it didn’t used to be a problem. Put the fashion dolls in one section, the action figures in another, but there is no need to specific label them as “for girls” or “for boys”, or festoon them in pink or blue. That’s what we have now, and it’s just silly. A toy is a toy. Kids will…

I can’t get on board with taxpayers footing the bill for sex re-assignment surgery. However someone feels about their body, it is still functional, and there is no guarantee that surgery will solve their dysphoria or that it won’t lead to other complications. I think 30 years is probably enough time served for a bar…

I don’t agree that it has anything to do with misogyny. Its likely something else , what would you say is another reason

why would that be the only acceptable reason for a woman saying female when referring to women ?

What would you say went terribly wrong? In some communities that’s just how people communicate

What if its a woman using the term “female”