Skip to main content

A solution to a social problem that couldn't be tried here

Mexico is now joining a number of other countries (Japan, Brazil, Egypt, and South Korea), reports World Changing, in offer "women-only" transit.

Sexual harassment is a maddeningly ubiquitous problem for female transit users in Mexico City, where subways and buses carry an estimated 22 million passengers every day. Women on the city's overcrowded buses face lecherous comments, groping, and worse. Efforts to stop sexual harassment on public buses have been futile; women report having men put hands up their skirts, kissing them, and following them off the bus.

Mexico City has long had "ladies cars" on subways during rush hour. This month, the city rolled out the first two of what will eventually be more than a dozen women-only buses; the buses are plainly marked with a pink (ugh) sign that says "WOMEN ONLY."

While "separate but equal" public accommodations raise legitimate concerns (will women get the oldest and least reliable buses? will segregating women from men be seen as legitimizing harassment on regular transit? does it create a false sense of security?), it's worth noting that the service originated with requests from women for a safer way to get around the city. Virtually all of the women quoted in stories about the buses speak positively of them, calling it a relief to be free from pinching, groping, and leering. "Traveling among women is so much more pleasant," one said. "With this type of transport, I can dress a little bit better, wear skirts without anyone bothering me," another added.


While I'm not sure that I think this is a good solution, what struck me about this story is that you couldn't try this in the United States, because you run immediately afoul of everyone from the ACLU to the Department of Justice.

When did we get to the point where we allow the government or self-appointed watchdog organizations to tell us, American citizens, what remedies to social problems we may or may not try?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thanks for covering this.

As a dad, I fully support my daughter wanting to ride on an all-women bus.

It is the second best solution available, considering I am no longer allowed to ride behind her wearing a firearm which would be the more masculine and therefore preferable method to curb male misbehavior.

But of the two options, I think my daughter would prefer an all women bus.
In full accord with your primary solution, my second-best solution (moving yours to third) is to teach my daughter how to use the firearm and get her a permit.

Since Delaware is not a state wherein I can do that, I made her the point guard in a boy's basketball league, so that if necessary she can simply kick their ass.

Oops, that wasn't politically correct was it?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...