# Chariot for Women (only)



## Dan The Lyft Man

www.chariotforwomen.com

Hey Everyone,

Is anyone working for this company or has tried to apply for them. Chariot is in New York city and is moving to Boston starting April 19th. As the App says it's for women only, I know that might fly running under the same as women only gyms. But as for terms of employment that would be discriminatory of a persons sex. I have looked at there driver employment application and it doesn't ask the question. (Which no application should) But when they look at your name and driver license picture, they will know that you are a evil man .

So what do you guys think.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Sue them! When and if they come to Charlotte ill jump on the class action bandwagon. 
What? You wont hire me cause i have the wrong junk?


----------



## Kalee

I'm a woman and I'm sick and tired of sexual discrimination. Dividing people is destroying this country.

Shut 'em down.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sue them! When and if they come to Charlotte ill jump on the class action bandwagon.
> What? You wont hire me cause i have the wrong junk?





Kalee said:


> I'm a woman and I'm sick and tired of sexual discrimination. Dividing people is destroying this country.
> 
> Shut 'em down.


I know, I don't think its right.

I am thinking of applying, just wanted to know if anyone (Male) has tried too.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

It has yet to show up here, but if it does, I will apply just to get some lawyer who is trying to make a name for himself interested. In this town, every third person is a lawyer, so there is always someone who is looking for a chance to stand out from the crowd.

When the Revolution comes, the Washington Metropolitan Area will suffer a severe de-population.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

What do you call 200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Here is an interview with the two founders 

www.founderswire.com/the-founders/exclusive-chariot-for-women-driven-by-women-speeds-to-market/

It gets me a little mad on a couple of points like:

"The service will fully tailor the experience to women, including* free ride incentives, *and beauty services en route, offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat" WTF really.

and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.

Double standards...


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

I forgot to add this picture


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.
> 
> Double standards...


Welcome to my world.

For years, people have profiled cab drivers as cheating, lying, no-bath-taking, non-teeth-brushing, lecherous, racist, sexist, non-English-speaking, 
un-edge-uh-mah-kaytidd, poorly raised, non-tax-paying, geographically challenged criminals who drive broken-down smelly and dirty cars. Yet these same people who profile cab drivers can not stop boo-hoo-hoo-ing about how cab drivers allegedly profile.

Yup, double standards, allright. Cab drivers have been getting the short end of them for years.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Another Uber Driver said:


> Yup, double standards, allright. Cab drivers have been getting the short end of them for years.


I guess I am in your boat now... and I feel your pain (now).  I don't like it


----------



## Hustlehard

I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it. A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety. I know I don't after a certain time. Nothing that a male predator loves more than being isolated with a vulnerable woman in the back of their car. How many news stories have you heard where a female uber or Lyft driver was doing something nefarious? Don't worry, I'll wait. There is nothing wrong with this. Get over yourselves.


----------



## NachonCheeze

If it pays better than fUber I'm going transgender...(currently male)


----------



## NachonCheeze

Hustlehard said:


> I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it. A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety. I know I don't after a certain time. Nothing that a male predator loves more than being isolated with a vulnerable woman in the back of their car. How many news stories have you heard where a female uber or Lyft driver was doing something nefarious? Don't worry, I'll wait. There is nothing wrong with this. Get over yourselves.


Dont forget Twin Peaks...thats were I met Shelby....What a looker..... sigh, good times, good times


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Hustlehard said:


> Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it


Big difference, because if my wife wants to go to Hooters she can. This apps says no to someone for employment and for use of service because of one's sex.


----------



## The Mollusk

NachonCheeze said:


> If it pays better than fUber I'm going transgender...(currently male)


Been chuckling about the "currently male" thing a while. Lel.


----------



## Hustlehard

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Big difference, because if my wife wants to go to Hooters she can. This apps says no to someone for employment and for use of service because of one's sex.


Ummm, have you ever seen a male waiter at hooters? Or are the male staff confined to the kitchen and management?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Hustlehard said:


> I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it. A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety. I know I don't after a certain time. Nothing that a male predator loves more than being isolated with a vulnerable woman in the back of their car. How many news stories have you heard where a female uber or Lyft driver was doing something nefarious? Don't worry, I'll wait. There is nothing wrong with this. Get over yourselves.


It breaks Federal law. All genders have equal opportunity employment rights.
Get over YOUR self.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it.
> 
> A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety.
> 
> Don't worry, I'll wait.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this.
> 
> Get over yourselves.


Your wait is over. There is everything wrong with this.

The woman who refuses to ride with the male driver is the "consumer". Consumers have wider discretion than do providers. The consumer can refuse to accept the service requested at discretion. "Discretion", in this context, means that the consumer _*ain't gotta' give no reason fer it*_. Conversely, the provider can be required to render a reason for failure to provide service.

I am not familiar with the other two, or the third one cited by NachonCheeze, nor have I ever eaten or drunk at Hooters, but, as I understand it, Hooters is selling mainly _*bustin' loose*_ to heterosexual males. As this is an essential part of their business model, it gets a pass. It falls under the category "sound business reason". A transvestite (apply this word in its obsolete sense) with silicone falsies will not achieve the same ends. I am guessing that Hooters does not employ waitresses with A cups. It gets a pass on this one, as well. Finally, males and less "gifted" females can secure alternate employment at Hooters as host/hostess, cook, manager, accountant, bouncer, table busser, cashier, ....you get the idea.

You might counter that Chariot is selling a safe ride to females and is using the female only driver model to achieve that, thus it has "sound business reasons". That *might* hold water, but _*it don't make no steam*_. An interlocutor could argue that the management of Chariot is profiling males as rapists. One could submit the argument that a male driver who passes a background check is just as safe. In fact, if the jurisdiction requires an FBI fingerprint/background check of TNC drivers, the argument would go double. While a female driver might be hard put to violate a female passenger, what would stop her from discharging a firearm in the wrong direction or committing armed robbery of a passenger? What Chariot is selling is a safe ride. A female driver is not a requirement for the rendering of a safe ride.

You do not need the female driver to sell safety to other females. You do need the "gifted" female to sell your brand to heterosexual males. The latter is Hooter's target audience. As Dan The Lyft Man correctly points out, despite Hooter's target audience's being heterosexual males, that is not a requirement to purchase a beer or a burger, there. If you are gay (of either gender), a female (of any orientation) or whatever, if you are willing to pay for a beer, a burger or both, Hooters will sell any or all of it to you.

As far as "getting over yourself" goes, I will warrant that more than a few cab drivers would love to have had that defence when they were hauled before the appropriate tribunal for refusing to carry someone to a certain neighbourhood.

In the case of _*Mitchell, et al. vs. DCX*_, I suspect that the management of DCX would have been ecstatic to have had that as a defence against those
do-gooders who sued them because their drivers did not hang out in certain neighbourhoods to wait for calls. Considering that it is still not specifically against any law for any limousine, cab or TNC driver to avoid hanging out in certain neighbourhoods to look for passengers, the management of DCX should have been able to tell those busybodies to "get over themselves". Funny, it did not work out that way.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

NachonCheeze said:


> Dont forget Twin Peaks...thats were I met Shelby....What a looker..... sigh, good times, good times


When I go to the nuddie bar with Al Bundy, I don't want to see some dudes junk in a man thong swinging on a brass pole. But I must bring up one question. What if the person is transgender? Would that make a good topic for Jerry Springer.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Hooters girls and strippers are classified as entertainers.
Entertainers are not protected under equal opportunity laws.
"Wanted- black midget lesbians for entertainment roles..."
Perfectly acceptable. 
Driver positions come under equal opportunity law.
Get OVAH yoself.


----------



## Hustlehard

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Hooters girls and strippers are classified as entertainers.
> Entertainers are not protected under equal opportunity laws.
> "Wanted- black midget lesbians for entertainment roles..."
> Perfectly acceptable.
> Driver positions come under equal opportunity law.
> Get OVAH yoself.


Sue them them and see what happens. Having EXCLUSIVELY female drivers are ESSENTIAL to their business model. Are you woman? Are you a trans-woman? No? Then YOU don't get the job. End of story. You'll be able to file the lawsuit but, you'll never win in a court. Do you guys also go around wanting to go to women's colleges and universities as well? Women only gyms?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Hustlehard said:


> Sue them them and see what happens. Having EXCLUSIVELY female drivers are ESSENTIAL to their business model. Are you woman? Are you a trans-woman? No? Then YOU don't get the job. End of story. You'll be able to file the lawsuit but, you'll never win in a court. Do you guys also go around wanting to go to women's colleges and universities as well? Women only gyms?


You are hopelessly ignorant of the world in 2016.
5 years ago a young man graduated from Wellesley College, i believe he implied lawsuit if he wasnt accepted. 
What are you, neanderthal, insisting gender roles stay in the 19th century?


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber, but for women? Probably illegal, experts say*
*http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...tml?s_campaign=bostonglobe:socialflow:twitter*


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Another Uber Driver said:


> Your wait is over. There is everything wrong with this


Well said...

and

Charter 151B (in Massachusetts)

Section 4. It shall be an unlawful practice:

1. For an employer, by himself or his agent, because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, genetic information, or ancestry of any individual to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.


----------



## Hustlehard

TwoFiddyMile said:


> You are hopelessly ignorant of the world in 2016.
> 5 years ago a young man graduated from Wellesley College, i believe he implied lawsuit if he wasnt accepted.
> What are you, neanderthal, insisting gender roles stay in the 19th century?


YOU'RE A HOPLESSLY IGNORANT MISOGYNIST. You'd also be a drain on our already strained legal system if you filed this frivolous lawsuit.

But DID he sue them? I remember a student who transitioned (female-to male) and there being controversy over that. Show me a link.

You can threaten suit against this company all you want. A part of me hopes you do though. It'll make for a great headline. "Bitter male Uber drivers seek money from a women's only rideshare services." Good luck


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber, but for women? Probably illegal, experts say
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...tml?s_campaign=bostonglobe:socialflow:twitter*


at the end of the article ... but men could still apply to work there. When a business bars a sex from working and using such services. That's the problem.

"Some businesses have won special consideration under state law. In 1996, a Boston lawyer sued women-only health club Healthworks because he couldn't apply to become a member. A judge agreed, but opponents eventually lobbied the state Legislature to carve out an exemption in state gender discrimination law for fitness facilities."


----------



## nutzareus

Didn't NYC have SheTaxis in late 2014? What happened to that.....?


----------



## nutzareus

They stopped updating Twitter and Facebook in March 2015. Well, guess that answers that.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> YOU'RE A HOPLESSLY IGNORANT MISOGYNIST.


...............because he does not agree with you? Where have I seen and heard that one, before? Hmmmmmmm...........


----------



## Hustlehard

Another Uber Driver said:


> ...............because he does not agree with you? Where have I seen and heard that one, before? Hmmmmmmm...........


Anddddd I'm a, "Neanderthal" because I don't agree with him? Wait for ittttt....


----------



## tohunt4me

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Here is an interview with the two founders
> 
> www.founderswire.com/the-founders/exclusive-chariot-for-women-driven-by-women-speeds-to-market/
> 
> It gets me a little mad on a couple of points like:
> 
> "The service will fully tailor the experience to women, including* free ride incentives, *and beauty services en route, offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat" WTF really.
> 
> and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.
> 
> Double standards...


Makeup all over the car !


----------



## Eric K

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Hooters girls and strippers are classified as entertainers.
> Entertainers are not protected under equal opportunity laws.
> "Wanted- black midget lesbians for entertainment roles..."
> Perfectly acceptable.
> Driver positions come under equal opportunity law.
> Get OVAH yoself.


LOL, Black Midget Lesbians did make me laugh. But maybe that's because according to this company I have a penis so even though I've completed well over 1000 safe rides I must be a perverted rapist.


----------



## elelegido

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> www.chariotforwomen.com
> 
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> Is anyone working for this company or has tried to apply for them. Chariot is in New York city and is moving to Boston starting April 19th. As the App says it's for women only, I know that might fly running under the same as women only gyms. But as for terms of employment that would be discriminatory of a persons sex. I have looked at there driver employment application and it doesn't ask the question. (Which no application should) But when they look at your name and driver license picture, they will know that you are a evil man .
> 
> So what do you guys think.


No need for surgery - just change your name to Barbara and buy a wig / fake ****.


----------



## wk1102

TwoFiddyMile said:


> What do you call 200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?


Pollution?


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

You guys have to understand. it's the reverse discrimination. I'm not trying to apply to use a woman's only gym, because if I took that to court and ever on won. I would have to go to the gym. Didn't work out before not going to now. It's to work for / use a service that I currently use both as a PAX and driver. They are telling me I can't use there service because I'm a man and I endanger there woman drivers which is there agreement.

It's not right because it's women doing the sex discrimination. That's not OK, they can't have there cake and eat it too.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> Anddddd I'm a, "Neanderthal" because I don't agree with him? Wait for ittttt....


If I hold my breath while I "wait for it", I fear that I will turn blue. So far, all that you have directed at him is namecalling: misogynist, frivolous. While he has directed namecalling at you, he has stated the reason for it: assigning people nineteenth century gender roles.

So how does it work? Is everyone the same or are there certain privileges? Which is it? Pick one. You can not make one "equal" and one "privileged".

........now, if you are trying to get your group into the "privileged" class and expel the other group, that is a _*hoss uvva diff'rint cullah*_. If that is your aim, say so.

What is happening here is that people are using their opponents' reasoning against those opponents. If there is anything that sends someone ballistic, it is the reception of a taste of his (or, in this case, her) own concoction.


----------



## elelegido

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> You guys have to understand. it's the reverse discrimination. I'm not trying to apply to use a woman's only gym, because if I took that to court and ever on won. I would have to go to the gym. Didn't work out before not going to now. It's to work for / use a service that I currently use both as a PAX and driver. They are telling me I can't use there service because I'm a man and I endanger there woman drivers which is there agreement.
> 
> It's not right because it's women doing the sex discrimination, that's is ok. The can't have there cake and eat it too.


Think of the positives tbough. If this flies then when you roll up to a pickup and see four drunk screeching princesses you'll be able to say with impunity, "sorry ladies, this is a male-only car".

And when you roll up to a quartet of dooshes, you can say, "sorry fellas, female-only car".

Always try to turn any negatives into a positive.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> it's the reverse discrimination.


While I do agree with your post, in general, I do disagree with the quoted item. It is simple 'discrimination".........*ain't no reverse about it, it's-a skrimmminayshinn pure en' gen-yoo-wine unadulteraytidd.*


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Many women would feel safer with female drivers and I've witnessed riders cancel on me because they are a woman wanting a female driver. Never the less, it's obviously discrimination and I hope they get sued out of existence.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

elelegido said:


> Always try to turn any negatives into a positive.


I also hear what you have to say. Trust me, my biggest fear with driving women is having a complaint brought against me. Then it's automatically her words against mine (in the eyes of the public). But it's also the general claim that "all" men endanger women PAX/Drivers . It's the attack is on me, because I'm a man, both a driver / PAX. I'm sure women would act in the same way if the rolls were reverse.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Hustlehard said:


> Sue them them and see what happens. Having EXCLUSIVELY female drivers are ESSENTIAL to their business model. Are you woman? Are you a trans-woman? No? Then YOU don't get the job. End of story. You'll be able to file the lawsuit but, you'll never win in a court. Do you guys also go around wanting to go to women's colleges and universities as well? Women only gyms?


Men's only clubs are constantly sued and not many even exist anymore. I doubt there are any women's college and universities left. Every one I know of, is now integrated. It's a violation of federal law just like TwoFiddyMile keeps telling you.
I wonder if the trannies I gave a ride to last Saturday can get hired.


----------



## wk1102

I like it the idea, I hope I can get a job. My odds of getting some on any giving night would go up dramatically! ;-)


----------



## HiFareLoRate

So in order to apply, I would need to tuck in?

Sweeeeeeet!


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Many women would feel safer with female drivers and I've witnessed riders cancel on me because they are a woman wanting a female driver.


But do keep in mind that under the law, the consumer has much more discretion than does the provider. The consumer can refuse the service that provider attempts to render without giving a reason for doing so, and there are no _*legal*_ consequences thereto (note emphasis). This does not mean that the consumer's rejection is without consequences. The provider can advertise that there is a charge for a rejected attempt to render the service requested and charge when such occurs. If the consumer does exercise discretion on the rejection of the first attempt to render service, the provider can use said rejection as a reason to refuse service. An illustration from the cab world, back in the days or radio dispatch, if you will:

It is busy. A customer calls for a cab. I send him one. The driver reports that the customer told him that he did not want the cab. The customer calls back and requests another cab. I ask him why he did not take the cab that I sent for him. He tells me that he just did not want it. I tell him that he needs to call another service, because I am too busy to waste my drivers' time on a customer who expects me to keep sending him cabs and he will not tell me why he rejects what I send him. Now, if the customer tells me that the last cab that I sent him was filthy, the driver was drunk, the driver was nasty, the driver would not help with the suitcases, that is different. Here, the customer is waiving his discretion nad is giving me a reason. Those reasons all are valid for rejecting the attempt to render service, thus, I must send him another cab.

If the above customer tells me that he does not want a __________________(fill in ethnic group) or ___________________(fill in gender) driver, I tell him that I can not honour that request. I ask him if he is willing to take whatever I send him, assuming that everything else is acceptable. If he answers in the affirmative, I must sned him a cab. If he insists on his request that I can not honour, I have a reason to deny him service.

I suspect that this is part of the thinking behind Uber's sending drivers to stand in the virtual corner if they either reject three requests in a row. The driver subscribes to Uber's service. Uber attempts to render the service. The driver rejects three atttempts, thus Uber does not want to keep trying to render the service to the driver. Note that I stated "part". This does break down when the driver does give a reason for cancelling. Uber will put you on cyber time out even if you cancel for a no-show or incorrect address.



Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I also hear what you have to say. Trust me, my biggest fear with driving women is having a complaint brought against me. Then it's automatically her words against mine (in the eyes of the public). But it's also the general claim that "all" men endanger women PAX/Drivers . It's the attack is on me, because I'm a man, both a driver / PAX. I'm sure women would act in the same way if the rolls were reverse.


Does the UVA Fraternity scandal or the Duke Lacrosse scandal ring any bells? There is more than one reason why we had a Revolution in this country. One of them was that under the Oppressor's regime not only were you presumed guilty until you could prove your innocence, but there was more than one occasion on which the accused was deemed guilty even when he did prove his innocence. Further, all that the Oppressor had to do was accuse you and it was your responsibility to prove your innocence. If you could not prove it, the baseless accusation stood. Sometimes, even when you did prove it, the baseless accusation was allowed to stand.


----------



## Hustlehard

Haha.



Dan The Lyft Man said:


> You guys have to understand. it's the reverse discrimination. I'm not trying to apply to use a woman's only gym, because if I took that to court and ever on won. I would have to go to the gym. Didn't work out before not going to now. It's to work for / use a service that I currently use both as a PAX and driver. They are telling me I can't use there service because I'm a man and I endanger there woman drivers which is there agreement.
> 
> It's not right because it's women doing the sex discrimination. That's not OK, they can't have there cake and eat it too.


Reverse discrimination implies that there was discrimination to begin with. I love that term. You sure you wanna go with that?

The bottom line is that if women don't feel comfortable riding with men, they won't. Whether that be through an exclusive "all female driver" service. Or by canceling on you (men) multiple times until they find a female driver. It's gonna happen one way or the other. I'm here for it.

Does anyone know how their business has been in NYC?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> Or by canceling on you (men) multiple times until they find a female driver. It's gonna happen one way or the other. I'm here for it.


Just as Uber puts the driver on virtual time out for repeated rejection/cancellation of trips, it could do similar for users. Miss three cars, for whatever reason, and the application does not accept you order for __________________(fill in time). The "corner time" can increase with each set of missed cars. At some point, the Law of Diminishing Returns will apply.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Hustlehard said:


> Reverse discrimination implies that there was discrimination to begin with. I love that term. You sure you wanna go with that?


Yup all day everyday. I don't like it when people do.










Just because women do it doesn't make it right.


----------



## wk1102

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Just because women do it doesn't make it right.


Try telling that to my wife!


----------



## Hustlehard

Another Uber Driver said:


> But do keep in mind that under the law, the consumer has much more discretion than does the provider. The consumer can refuse the service that provider attempts to render without giving a reason for doing so, and there are no _*legal*_ consequences thereto (note emphasis). This does not mean that the consumer's rejection is without consequences. The provider can advertise that there is a charge for a rejected attempt to render the service requested and charge when such occurs. If the consumer does exercise discretion on the rejection of the first attempt to render service, the provider can use said rejection as a reason to refuse service. An illustration from the cab world, back in the days or radio dispatch, if you will:
> 
> It is busy. A customer calls for a cab. I send him one. The driver reports that the customer told him that he did not want the cab. The customer calls back and requests another cab. I ask him why he did not take the cab that I sent for him. He tells me that he just did not want it. I tell him that he needs to call another service, because I am too busy to waste my drivers' time on a customer who expects me to keep sending him cabs and he will not tell me why he rejects what I send him. Now, if the customer tells me that the last cab that I sent him was filthy, the driver was drunk, the driver was nasty, the driver would not help with the suitcases, that is different. Here, the customer is waiving his discretion nad is giving me a reason. Those reasons all are valid for rejecting the attempt to render service, thus, I must send him another cab.
> 
> If the above customer tells me that he does not want a __________________(fill in ethnic group) or ___________________(fill in gender) driver, I tell him that I can not honour that request. I ask him if he is willing to take whatever I send him, assuming that everything else is acceptable. If he answers in the affirmative, I must sned him a cab. If he insists on his request that I can not honour, I have a reason to deny him service.
> 
> I suspect that this is part of the thinking behind Uber's sending drivers to stand in the virtual corner if they either reject three requests in a row. The driver subscribes to Uber's service. Uber attempts to render the service. The driver rejects three atttempts, thus Uber does not want to keep trying to render the service to the driver. Note that I stated "part". This does break down when the driver does give a reason for cancelling. Uber will put you on cyber time out even if you cancel for a no-show or incorrect address.
> 
> Does the UVA Fraternity scandal or the Duke Lacrosse scandal ring any bells? There is more than one reason why we had a Revolution in this country. One of them was that under the Oppressor's regime not only were you presumed guilty until you could prove your innocence, but there was more than one occasion on which the accused was deemed guilty even when he did prove his innocence. Further, all that the Oppressor had to do was accuse you and it was your responsibility to prove your innocence. If you could not prove it, the baseless accusation stood. Sometimes, even when you did prove it, the baseless accusation was allowed to stand.


The main perpetrators were the DA and the detective in that case. The DA was up for re-election and used the case as a way to gain popularity in the black community. The detective was, for lack of a better word, a POS. He pressured the woman into picking the boys out that had done nothing wrong. The Woman had a long history of mental illness and the detective knew that. He preyed on her. She's currently in jail for murder. The DA was disbarred and sent to jail, for a day. The detective I beleive was also fired (not 100% sure). The majority of the blame in that case was put on the DA and the detective. Not the mentally ill woman. The boys involved in that case sued the state and duke university. They settled out of court.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

wk1102 said:


> Try telling that to my wife!


.......or my GF, two of my three sisters or my mother. Mother is eighty-eight, though, so she gets a pass. She has earned it.


----------



## SECOTIME

What if you're one of those dudes that dress up as a chick can you still get a ride?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> The boys involved in that case sued the state and duke university.


You edited your post, but I saw the original. Yes, I am sure that I want to raise the Duke case. Your whole post is a rather poor use of the rhetorical tactic known as _*praeteritio*_. My point in raising it was that the Lacrosse players were presumed guilty of what the woman, the police and the DA accused them. They were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University. They were made to suffer simply based on a baseless accusation. This is the point that Dan The Lyft Man was trying to make. All that it takes is that a woman accuse a man of miscreance, especially in certain situations, and the woman's accusation is presumed substantiated and the man's life is, at best, made difficult; at worst, ruined.

Yes, I understand the trauma of having to recall and thus, re-live, on a witness stand such a horrid experience. (I understand it better than you might suspect. I have a personal story from, of all places, the Happy Valley of Western Massachusetts---you know: Amherst, Northampton and a couple of other places.) This is what is partly responsible for the presumption and assignment of guilt to the male when the female makes the accusation, these days. Still, if it is that important to an accuser that the accused suffer the consequences of alleged misdeeds, there is an investment required in that.


----------



## Hustlehard

Oh, gee, I edited my post and ya "caught me." Want a cookie?

The woman probably would've been discredited early on if the DA and DETECTIVE didn't manipulate the evidence. AKA did their jobs. THEY hung those boys out to dry not the woman. Also, if you're trying to make a point that women go around lying about rape. That's simply untrue. It has been disproven time and time again.

I could also could care less about your personal experiences because they have nothing to do with what we are talking about. 

*I added the last sentence at the end. I, edited it.


----------



## Eric K

This could made simple. I get it some women feel safer with women drivers. Some white people feel safer with white drivers. Try starting that up and see how that idea would fly over. So what's the difference between that and a women only service if that's what a passenger feels 'safer' with.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Eric K said:


> I get it some women feel safer with women drivers. Some white people feel safer with white drivers. Try starting that up and see how that idea would fly over. So what's the difference between that and a women only service if that's what a passenger feels 'safer' with.


............or reverse it to state that white drivers feel safer with white passengers or women drivers feel safer with women passengers. Let a cab driver try one of those and see how long that he has a hack licence. As one of the few regulations imposed on TNCs in many places is that they not discriminate with regard to_____________________(fill in protected classes), I would suspect that any TNC driver who "[felt] safer" under those conditions would be de-activated, re-instated just so that he(she) could be de-activated a second time.



Hustlehard said:


> Oh, gee, I edited my post and ya "caught me." Want a cookie?
> 
> The woman probably would've been discredited early on if the DA and DETECTIVE didn't manipulate the evidence. AKA did their jobs. THEY hung those boys out to dry not the woman.
> 
> Also, if you're trying to make a point that women go around lying about rape. That's simply untrue. It has been disproven time and time again.
> 
> I could also could care less about your personal experiences because they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
> 
> *I added the last sentence at the end. I, edited it.


I will pass over the first quoted sentence and save addressing it for last, as the sentiment that underlies it is similar to the last quoted.

You contradict yourself in the third quoted set of three with your second quoted set of three. In the second quoted item, you admit that the woman in Durham lied about being raped. In the third quoted item, you state that women do not lie about rape. That is a direct contradiction. I will pass over the Charlottesville matter, for now, at least. I will add that those lacrosse players were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University before there was any opportunity to discredit what the DA and detective were doing.

Your obnoxious comments detract from the quality of your arguments, which have little substance or quality as it is.


----------



## Hustlehard

Another Uber Driver said:


> ............or reverse it to state that white drivers feel safer with white passengers or women drivers feel safer with women passengers. Let a cab driver try one of those and see how long that he has a hack licence. As one of the few regulations imposed on TNCs in many places is that they not discriminate with regard to_____________________(fill in protected classes), I would suspect that any TNC driver who "[felt] safer" under those conditions would be de-activated, re-instated just so that he(she) could be de-activated a second time.
> 
> I will pass over the first quoted sentence and save addressing it for last, as the sentiment that underlies it is similar to the last quoted.
> 
> You contradict yourself in the third quoted set of three with your second quoted set of three. In the second quoted item, you admit that the woman in Durham lied about being raped. In the third quoted item, you state that women do not lie about rape. That is a direct contradiction. I will pass over the Charlottesville matter, for now, at least. I will add that those lacrosse players were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University before there was any opportunity to discredit what the DA and detective were doing.
> 
> Your obnoxious comments detract from the quality of your arguments, which have little substance or quality as it is.


Lol obnoxious? Because I don't care about your personal experiences? Poor you *sad face* Pass over the Charlottesville matter? Please, don't. Go ahead. Again, women don't go around crying rape. The woman in the unc case was manipulated by the DA and detective. That fault and blame should and was placed on the DA and the detective.

As a female driver I hear other female passengers tell me all the time how happy they are that I'm a woman and how much safer they feel. I'm here for women feeling safer and having a safer ridesharing experience. I believe I read an article on here saying that the amount of sexual assaults/ assaults reported by uber were MUCH less than the real number. That's frightening and could be the reason why this compny is needed.

I also tell women to use Lyft over Uber. At least Lyft involves some type of screening process.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Hustlehard said:


> Lol obnoxious? Because I don't care about your personal experiences? Poor you *sad face* Pass over the Charlottesville matter? Please, don't. Go ahead. Again, women don't go around crying rape. The woman in the unc case was manipulated by the DA and detective. That fault and blame should and was placed on the DA and the detective.
> 
> As a female driver I hear other female passengers tell me all the time how happy they are that I'm a woman and how much safer they feel. I'm here for women feeling safer and having a safer ridesharing experience. I believe I read an article on here saying that the amount of sexual assaults/ assaults reported by uber were MUCH less than the real number.


But you have to understand the reason that you can say what you say is there is no more discrimination against women in the eyes of the law. I am not saying it doesn't happen in the workplace. If Uber were to say that it would limit female drivers to only driving at day time 8am-8pm. Because it puts them (women) at risk, I am sure you would like it. Your mind set is that it's not happening to you, so no big deal and laugh about it.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Conditional Feminists- those whom wish to ignore the law when said law is not to their situational convenience.


----------



## Hustlehard

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> But you have to understand the reason that you can say what you say is there is no more discrimination against women in the eyes of the law. I am not saying it doesn't happen in the workplace. If Uber were to say that it would limit female drivers to only driving at day time 8am-8pm. Because it puts them (women) at risk, I am sure you would like it. Your mind set is that it's not happening to you, so no big deal and laugh about it.


Wow, you really feel discriminated against? Jesus. You do realize there is still a huge wage gap that IS affecting me, a woman. Are you fighting to close that wage gap? Or, because it doesn't affect you (you actually benefit from it) are you apathetic about it?


----------



## Hustlehard

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Conditional Feminists- those whom wish to ignore the law when said law is not to their situational convenience.


The court can rule it unlawful, but if the people want it it will happen. Good to know that being a feminist is frowned upon in this group lol. Thanks


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Hustlehard said:


> Wow, you really feel discriminated against? Jesus. You do realize there is still a huge wage gap that IS affecting me, a woman. Are you fighting to close that wage gap? Or, because it doesn't affect (you actually benefit from it) are you apathetic about it?


I do...

I work for the federal government were we have the GS pay system. Everyone here has equal pay, the only time you have any difference in pay, is in the time you have been here for.

I just don't like people letting me I can't do a job that I already do. (within the law) You know you would feel the same was if the role was reverse.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> Lol obnoxious? Because I don't care about your personal experiences? Poor you *sad face*


.......so we can add implying words from my keyboard to your "debate" tactics which thus far amount only to name calling, obnoxious comments and beside-the-point statements. Thank you for providing even more proof to my assertion that your "arguments" are sorely lacking in quality.

In the interest of simplicity, do kindly answer this question: Do you admit or deny that the woman in Durham, North Carolina both "cried rape" and pressed the matter?

I am going to help you out, a little, here. Admit it, and you contradict directly your twice stated assertion that women "do not lie about rape". Admit it and crash goes your chariot. Deny it, and you deny a verified occurrence. Deny it and crash goes your chariot.

In chess, they call it _*zugzwang*_. Your move.


----------



## Bart McCoy

I'm on team TwoFiddyMile , get um


----------



## UberLaLa

TwoFiddyMile said:


> What do you call 200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
> 
> A good start.


What do you call 200 Uber drivers at the bottom of the sea?

A bad finish!


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

I reported/flagged the app on the google play store.


----------



## Hustlehard

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I do...
> 
> I work for the federal government were we have the GS pay system. Everyone here has equal pay, the only time you have any difference in pay, is in the time you have been here for.
> 
> I just don't like people letting me I can't do a job that I already do. (within the law) You know you would feel the same was if the role was reverse.


There's a lot of jobs that I'm legally allowed to do, but couldn't BECAUSE I'm a woman.

I don't see why you don't see why women would want/ need this. Some people would phrase it like, "wouldn't you want your mom, daughter, wife, girlfriend etc to feel safe." I think that's a bs example. I think that as a man you should be able to see why women would Feel safer being driven by other women without me quantifying it for you.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Hustlehard would Susan B. Anthony support equal gender opportunity employment?
I think she would.
Women fought for millenia for the rights you have today.
Would you have these rights repealed for a "Good Ol Girl" company?
I consider myself a feminist. Im not anti women, im anti discrimination.


----------



## Tequila Jake

It sounds like the start of a gigantic failure. 

How do they make sure only females are passengers? Do they refuse to pick up groups of mixed passengers (it sounds like they only accept women and children)? 

Do they only operate in cities where there are no female criminals?

Financially, the comp plan sounds like the company only makes a maximum of $23/day/driver. Until they get to a significant size, I don't see any way this pays the overhead.


----------



## Hustlehard

Another Uber Driver said:


> .......so we can add implying words from my keyboard to your "debate" tactics which thus far amount only to name calling, obnoxious comments and beside-the-point statements. Thank you for providing even more proof to my assertion that your "arguments" are sorely lacking in quality.
> 
> In the interest of simplicity, do kindly answer this question: Do you admit or deny that the woman in Durham, North Carolina both "cried rape" and pressed the matter?
> 
> I am going to help you out, a little, here. Admit it, and you contradict directly your twice stated assertion that women "do not lie about rape". Admit it and crash goes your chariot. Deny it, and you deny a verified occurrence. Deny it and crash goes your chariot.
> 
> In chess, they call it _*zugzwang*_. Your move.


Lol. Wow, you're so b***hurt from your past experiences. "Deny it?" Who do you think you are? You saw what I wrote. Take what you want from that. You should really seek counseling. You obviously have some residual trauma that you need to sort out.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Redsox not looking so good ehh?


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Well, this has certainly been entertaining...........


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

BurgerTiime said:


> Wait for the Muslems only TNC app lol


Donald Trump would be for it, man I don't like him


----------



## UberE

There's some sick people out there. I say if it makes them feel safe, then what ever. I understand...


----------



## promdog

Lots of people have a kneejerk reaction to blacks. I don't see a white only TNC or a "no blacks allowed" TNC. Why? Because it is illegal, regardless if one would actually make people feel safe....

Seriously, think about it. No, seriously, take a good, hard 2 minutes and really think about it.


----------



## UberMeansSuper

Not a feminist or nothing, but...

Goddamn, all these "woe is me. It's illegal. Shut them down. Sue them!" posts...

Y'all already know this sh!t's not gonna take off the ground. Look at Sidecar.

Let them have their own service. I promise it won't decrease our requests. The same college girls we take to the bar and back home with her one-night fling will still request us and not tip us. The same jock itch $30,000 millionaires who reek of cheap vodka and want a 3 AM stop at Jack In the Box and also don't tip but will be sure to 1-star you in the morning because you weren't driving a 2017 Audi with leather seats will still request you.

Chill out and have a seat.


----------



## Coachman

For those who think this is a good idea, how about a company that only hires men, because women are scaredy cats? You know that one would get sued in a heartbeat!


----------



## Jace

I heard about this service about a year ago when it was starting out. It's major hurdle is obtaining city/state licensing which, of course, requires non-discriminatory practices (gender) as a matter of law. Curious to see how this pans out.


----------



## ubershiza

Just another TNC rallying for a piece of the ever shrinking pie.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Hustlehard said:


> *1. *Lol. Wow, you're so b***hurt from your past experiences.
> 
> *2. *"Deny it?" Who do you think you are?
> 
> *3. *You saw what I wrote. Take what you want from that.
> 
> *4. *You should really seek counseling. You obviously have some residual trauma that you need to sort out.


1. On what do you base this? You continue to put words onto my keyboard.

2. That earns you the "HUH?" button.

3. I saw that you admitted that the woman accused the lacrosse players of rape. I saw that you admitted that the accusation was false. I saw that you stated that women do not lie about being raped. Statement Number Two is in direct contradiction of Statement Number Three. Crash goes your chariot, Mademoiselle. You just put your cyberfoot into your virtual mouth. Would someone please pass her the mustard?

4. More namecalling and trying to paint your opponent as insane simply because:

a. He disagrees with you.
b. He showed you up.
c. He shot down your "arguments"
d. He refused to take lying down your belittling of him.
e. He caught you painted into a virtual corner and pointed out to you that you did it to yourself.

Yup, you tried hard to hustle me, allright, but it did not happen, now did it? If you hustled anyone, it was yourself.

*DIPSO FACTO*, QED: Women have, can and do lie about rape.



UberMeansSuper said:


> The same jock itch $30,000 millionaires who will be sure to 1-star you in the morning because you weren't driving a 2017 Audi with leather seats will still request you


.........good thing that I do not drive in Dallas, I would be one starred into de-activation. If I want a Volkswagen, I will buy one. If I want a
Mercedes-Benz, I will buy one. What I will not do is pay for a Mercedes-Benz and accept a Volkswagen.

If that did not get me one-starred into de-activation, I am a proud cowboy hater. That would get me one-starred into de-activation, there.


----------



## Clifford Chong

Stupid idea. It won't work.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

So, the other night I picked up at a bar. Two attractive ladies come out and I see there is this apprehension that I'm a male. One hugs the other good night, and I mean...damn, it was kinda hot. Then proceeds to say things like "call me the second you get home" (code for I'm going to report you if she doesn't get home safe). I'm used to this, but really, was a seductive hug smart before sending your friend into a car alone with a man? If I'm a perv, you just fanned the flame. Another problem is drunk women can shift from "fun drunk" to "miserable paranoid" quickly. I feel so bad for woman who need to talk on the phone the whole way home because they are afraid. I wish I could soothe their fears, but once they get like that anything you say only perpetuates the fear. 
I do see clear demand for this service, but that DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGAL.



Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I reported/flagged the app on the google play store.


Me too. You can do it from your computer at the Google Play store.


----------



## Ziggy

Hustlehard said:


> Ummm, have you ever seen a male waiter at hooters? Or are the male staff confined to the kitchen and management?


There's a male waiter at Hooters in Mission Valley (San Diego) ... at least he was there when I went there with a co-worker.


----------



## negeorgia

Hustlehard said:


> Wow, you really feel discriminated against? Jesus. You do realize there is still a huge wage gap that IS affecting me, a woman. Are you fighting to close that wage gap? Or, because it doesn't affect you (you actually benefit from it) are you apathetic about it?


I am 47, I have had government and private sector jobs. Never seen this mystery called a wage gap in any career I have ever worked. The wage gap is extinct for the middle and lower classes. It is as old fashioned as not considering a wife's income when applying for a mortgage. I have not heard of that since 1970. What's next, you gonna say the war on women is real?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> So strange women picking up another women is safer.
> 
> Double standards...


Not going to argue the legality etc. BUT

IT IS SAFER. That's an indisputable fact. Women are less likely to commit violent crimes, and if they do, are going to be easier to fight off.

How many women have been sexually assaulted by other women? By men? Knocked out by a woman's fist? A man's? 
Try to quickly name 5 male and 5 female serial killers.

Before men complain about how this is discriminatory to men, maybe they should ask why women fear men in the first place.

And if your daughter were getting a ride from a stranger at 3am to a cabin in a deserted area would you REALLY feel she was just as safe with a male driver as,a female?

And please don't give me the "Not all men" argument.


----------



## tohellwithu

Anothet third party app like simple mobile on the race to become verizon. Dont worry u wont even limp forward after some wacking from big shark


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Another Uber Driver said:


> You edited your post, but I saw the original. Yes, I am sure that I want to raise the Duke case. Your whole post is a rather poor use of the rhetorical tactic known as _*praeteritio*_. My point in raising it was that the Lacrosse players were presumed guilty of what the woman, the police and the DA accused them. They were tried and convicted in the press and sentenced by the University. They were made to suffer simply based on a baseless accusation. This is the point that Dan The Lyft Man was trying to make. All that it takes is that a woman accuse a man of miscreance, especially in certain situations, and the woman's accusation is presumed substantiated and the man's life is, at best, made difficult; at worst, ruined.
> 
> Yes, I understand the trauma of having to recall and thus, re-live, on a witness stand such a horrid experience. (I understand it better than you might suspect. I have a personal story from, of all places, the Happy Valley of Western Massachusetts---you know: Amherst, Northampton and a couple of other places.) This is what is partly responsible for the presumption and assignment of guilt to the male when the female makes the accusation, these days. Still, if it is that important to an accuser that the accused suffer the consequences of alleged misdeeds, there is an investment required in that.


If men never committed sexual assaults in the first place, false accusations would be a non issue.

For a long time women were usually not believed. It still happens. In much of the world they are blamed, sometimes with dire consequences, when they are the victims.

I doubt men immediately start worrying about being falsely accused just because they happen to be walking to their car at night in a parking lot and a woman is walking to hers at the same time. But most women will be aware of the man and the possibility of sexual assault. If you imagine one of the two changing direction and walking toward the other, who is more worried (and has more reason to be)?

I don't see men start carrying their keys and mace in their hands at night just to walk to their cars.

As I said above. No sexual assaults and you'll have no false accusations. So fix that.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I do...
> 
> I work for the federal government were we have the GS pay system. Everyone here has equal pay, the only time you have any difference in pay, is in the time you have been here for.
> 
> I just don't like people letting me I can't do a job that I already do. (within the law) You know you would feel the same was if the role was reverse.


Working for the government is different. It's the reason many minorities started working for it. Doesn't mean racial discrimination wasn't and isn't alive and thriving elsewhere.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Not going to argue the legality etc. BUT
> 
> IT IS SAFER. That's an indisputable fact. Women are less likely to commit violent crimes, and if they do, are going to be easier to fight off.
> 
> How many women have been sexually assaulted by other women? By men? Knocked out by a woman's fist? A man's?
> Try to quickly name 5 male and 5 female serial killers.
> 
> Before men complain about how this is discriminatory to men, maybe they should ask why women fear men in the first place.
> 
> And if your daughter were getting a ride from a stranger at 3am to a cabin in a deserted area would you REALLY feel she was just as safe with a male driver as,a female?
> 
> And please don't give me the "Not all men" argument.


Sure its going to be safer.
But you cant have it both ways.
Equality is a double edged sword- feminism fought for voting, pay, and equal opportunity employment rights because it covers over 90% of disparity between the genders.
You cant bend the law simply because it blocks a niche business which would make a few people feel safer.

We are a nation of laws.

The only way this thing will fly is as some sort of charity. They may not employ one gender or the other outside of an Entertainment clause.

Hey, there it is! "Dial-A-Lesbian Stripper Limo company".
Offensive, but legal.

You're welcome!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Another Uber Driver said:


> .......so we can add implying words from my keyboard to your "debate" tactics which thus far amount only to name calling, obnoxious comments and beside-the-point statements. Thank you for providing even more proof to my assertion that your "arguments" are sorely lacking in quality.
> 
> In the interest of simplicity, do kindly answer this question: Do you admit or deny that the woman in Durham, North Carolina both "cried rape" and pressed the matter?
> 
> I am going to help you out, a little, here. Admit it, and you contradict directly your twice stated assertion that women "do not lie about rape". Admit it and crash goes your chariot. Deny it, and you deny a verified occurrence. Deny it and crash goes your chariot.
> 
> In chess, they call it _*zugzwang*_. Your move.


I would say men lie about it more.

If you're worried about false accusations then you should be happy another company can handle the pesky, lying women. They can feel safer and so can you. Problem solved.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberLaLa said:


> What do you call 200 Uber drivers at the bottom of the sea?
> 
> A bad finish!


Bad pin placement.

200 no show fees.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sure its going to be safer.
> But you cant have it both ways.
> Equality is a double edged sword- feminism fought for voting, pay, and equal opportunity employment rights because it covers over 90% of disparity between the genders.
> You cant bend the law simply because it blocks a niche business which would make a few people feel safer.
> 
> We are a nation of laws.
> 
> The only way this thing will fly is as some sort of charity. They may not employ one gender or the other outside of an Entertainment clause.
> 
> Hey, there it is! "Dial-A-Lesbian Stripper Limo company".
> Offensive, but legal.
> 
> You're welcome!


Did you get the part where I said I wasn't arguing LEGALITY? I was ONLY pointing out the fallacy of arguing against it on the safety aspect.

And when there is true equality (we're not even close) and men stop assaulting, abusing, and killing women at FAR greater rates than women do to them, then I'll care about the POSSIBILITY of discrimination with a business model like this one. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the other side.


----------



## Logolar

Alright,

This is a very slanted argument. You state that men are evil, and abuse so much more. I realize that the reported rate of men getting rapped, sexually assaulted and such is lower, but it does happen. School boys get taken advantage of, grown men and the like, and nothing is said on it. Violent crimes do happen, and looking at the prison system there does seem a disparity in who does them....You CANNOT punish the masses for something that less then a quarter of a percent do. I am not a criminal, and should not be treated as such.

The safety issue cuts both ways. Do you think that I am welcome of the advances of drunken females? Hint, I am not. I do not like the fact that I have been groped I have been caressed and touched. It made me uncomfortable, but I moved on. Now here is the thing, the groping can be listed as assault, but I did not report it, and I know many other male uber drivers have experienced this. Have I stopped picking up people because of this? No. Would you cry foul if I looked at a too drunk female and went....I've had some bad past experiences with females, so I cannot pick you up. (Even though I know nothing about her.) Also the rate of crimes cimmuted against UBer drivers is higher then on passengers.

Anyway, that's enough for now...If you want to gloss over the legality of something because it's convenient it's not really worth debating things with you.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> Did you get the part where I said I wasn't arguing LEGALITY? I was ONLY pointing out the fallacy of arguing against it on the safety aspect.
> 
> And when there is true equality (we're not even close) and men stop assaulting, abusing, and killing women at FAR greater rates than women do to them, then I'll care about the POSSIBILITY of discrimination with a business model like this one. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the other side.


----------



## darkshy77

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sue them! When and if they come to Charlotte ill jump on the class action bandwagon.
> What? You wont hire me cause i have the wrong junk?


What if I identify myself as a transgender woman...


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

darkshy77 said:


> What if I identify myself as a transgender woman...


Even if you were in transition, if your drivers license says male. In the eyes of the law you are a male, until that is change to female. But that opens another discussion.

This is the world we live in. If men were bullies to women and then people come out in arms against it. But when a women does the bullying to men and say to make us feel empowered, then it's ok.


----------



## Black Excellence

So how many men in here are gonna line up to drive for Chariot once it hits your city and has to include men as drivers?

Serious question.

Gotta admit I haven't looked much into Chariot, but if women want their own rideshare service driven by women, go for it.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Black Excellence said:


> Gotta admit I haven't looked much into Chariot, but if women want their own rideshare service driven by women, go for it.


You have to understand , it's not just driving for them. It's because I am a man, I can't even use there service. I am a paying customer that uses rideshare services. How is this different from a restaurant, not hiring or serving someone because of there race. *It's not right,* how you candy coat it. That's why the law groups everyone "*because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation*". Just because you are a women, doesn't give you the right to do so.


----------



## ubershiza

darkshy77 said:


> What if I identify myself as a transgender woman...


Lol


----------



## Black Excellence

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> You have to understand , it's not just driving for them. It's because I am a man, I can't even use there service. I am a paying customer that uses rideshare services. How is this different from a restaurant, not hiring or serving someone because of there race. *It's not right,* how you candy coat it. That's why the law groups everyone "*because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation*". Just because you are a women, doesn't give you the right to do so.


It sounds like the service is intended for women, but isn't going out of its way to exclude men.

And if it included every guy, wouldn't that pretty much just be like every rideshare service?

Doesn't that take away from the entire point of their business?

I just don't see what the big deal is if they're marketing towards women drivers and passengers. That's their niche. Who's hurt by that?

And it's not like it's incredibly difficult to get an Uber or Lyft, which dominates the rideshare market anyway. Chariot is a start-up that hasn't even launched yet.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

darkshy77 said:


> What if I identify myself as a transgender woman...


LGBT legislation says you can identify as any gender you want.
Go to a judge, say youre a woman, and BLAM! Youre a woman.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Black Excellence said:


> just don't see what the big deal is if they're marketing towards women drivers and passengers. That's their niche. Who's hurt by that?


You need to read why they are doing this, from there website and google play. They are implying that all men in the rideshare business make it unsafe for women and children. This is why we (Chariot) need a only for women rideshare. So they are telling me that I can't use or be employed by there service because I make it unsafe for there drivers. That's the part I don't like about this. Just because there are other business choices out there for me to make, other people don't have the right to choice for me, because of my sex. I should have a choice to make on that business base of the quality and service they provide. (Sorry for the bad grammar)


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If men never committed sexual assaults in the first place, false accusations would be a non issue.
> 
> For a long time women were usually not believed. It still happens. In much of the world they are blamed, sometimes with dire consequences, when they are the victims.
> 
> No sexual assaults and you'll have no false accusations. So fix that.


.....and if people did not commit armed robbery, false accusations would be a "non-issue". If people did not commit embezzlement, false accusations would be "non-issue". Except in Pangloss' "best of all possible worlds", people do commit crimes and people do make false accusations. People have made false accusations for years. Check out the Eighth Commandment (Catholic tradition). There is documentation that such was a problem twelve hundred years, or so, before the birth of Christ. There might even be something about it in the Code of Hammurabi, which is older. I just looked up the Code of Hammurabi, and there are, in fact, provisions dealing with "false witness". Now I have found documentation that it was a problem some seventeen-hundred years before the birth of Christ.

The point here, is, that you can not discriminate against someone because you *think* that he might commit a crime and the only thing on which you base that is that he fits the broad demographic Yes, more men rape women than the other way around, but my being a man does not make me a rapist. It works both ways. Just as a woman resents being considered a sex object, I, as man, resent just as much being considered a rapist.

In this country, our justice system (with a few exceptions, that never should have been or should be allowed) demands that the accuser make his case, or, in this situation, hers. There is a reason for that. One is that it protects people against false accusations, which, as I have demonstrated, have been a problem for quite some time.

Our justice system is re-active as opposed to pre-emptive. You can not arrest someone for rape simply because you think that he will commit rape. He must at least make the attempt. There is the possibility of deterrence, but, as sentences have become less severe across the board, the deterrence factor has diminshed. I do not know how old you are, but, I, at least, can remember when rape carried the possibility of the death penalty in most states. I do not know if any states that still have the death penalty allow it for rape, or not. While I am no supporter of capital punishment, I would not complain if rape carried the possibility of life without parole. "Fix it?" I am not a legislator. The only thing that I can control is myself. I do not commit rape. That is the best that I can do.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I would say men lie about it more.
> 
> If you're worried about false accusations then you should be happy another company can handle the pesky, lying women.


Do understand that I never stated that women lie about rape more than men do. All that I stated is that women do lie about it. In fact, I would not be surprised if men denied a rape that they committed more than women lie about one committed on them. The natural reaction of the accused is a plea of innocence. People do not want to suffer adverse consequences, deserved or otherwise.

If I were worried about every possible adverse occurrence, I would never leave my house voluntarily. If that happened, I would have to leave it involuntarily, as I would not be able to pay my mortgage, so there would be a foreclosure and the U.S. Marshals would cart me out of my house.



Dan The Lyft Man said:


> If men were bullies to women and then people come out in arms against it. But when a women does the bullying to men and say to make us feel empowered, then it's ok.


This is the typical double standard of the Left........................and mind you, this is coming from someone who has more than a little contempt for the Right.



Dan The Lyft Man said:


> How is this different from a restaurant, not hiring or serving someone because of there race. *It's not right,* how you candy coat it. That's why the law groups everyone "*because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation*".


\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ See above. It is not going "out of its way" to exclude males, it is flat out, up front excluding them either from using or providing the service. In the case of interstate or local transport, that is illegal.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Black Excellence said:


> It sounds like the service is intended for women, but isn't going out of its way to exclude men.
> 
> I just don't see what the big deal is if they're marketing towards women drivers and passengers. That's their niche. Who's hurt by that?


As stated in the discussions about Hooters, it markets to heterosexual males, but does not exclude females (of any orientation) or gay or asexual males from purchasing a beer, a burger or an order of chicken wings as long as any of the above are willing to pay for it (the heterosexual males are obliged to pay, as well) .


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

I do intend to apply because no where dose it say on the application that this is only for women. I am just waiting for my re-new car registration to come in. I also signed up for to use the service on the app. 

I'm not looking for money. I'm not a lawyer looking to make a name for himself. I'm not the type of person to sue a women only gym, just to never go to that gym. I am looking for equality for everyone, because when you accept one type of discrimination. You are saying it's OK for all types of discrimination.


----------



## Eric K

Hustlehard said:


> There's a lot of jobs that I'm legally allowed to do, but couldn't BECAUSE I'm a woman.
> 
> I don't see why you don't see why women would want/ need this. Some people would phrase it like, "wouldn't you want your mom, daughter, wife, girlfriend etc to feel safe." I think that's a bs example. I think that as a man you should be able to see why women would Feel safer being driven by other women without me quantifying it for you.


Like I stated. There are some white people that would feel safer with white drivers. So you are saying it would be OK to start a rideshare service ONLY for white people because it would make them feel safer?

You offend some of us with your logic that women are safer. If that's the case then there should be no women teachers since it seems like you see more stories of female teachers raping young boys.

You logic has to be all or nothing.

As an Uber driver I'm offended that just because I have a penis, according to your logic, that makes me unsafe. There are some men that are actually SAFER for female passengers. I personally when dropping off a female passenger will not pull away until I see they are safely inside their destination. Some men are like that and will probably watch out more for women than other women will.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Eric K said:


> I personally when dropping off a female passenger will not pull away until I see they are safely inside their destination. Some men are like that and will probably watch out more for women than other women will.


When I was a cab company Official, I made a point of emphasising this policy. The general rule was that at night, you waited until the customer (regardless of gender) was safely inside. Appended to this policy was the statement "............this applies especially to female passengers especially at later hours of the night.........". The _*Drivers' Handbook*_ for this company that was published in 1934 contained a similar policy statement. This was before there were radios in the cabs (that happened here in 1949, although the first was 1947).

To this day, I do that. I have had more than one female ask me specifically to do that as she disembarked. In fact, more than one female has asked me to wait when we get to the destination when she embarked and announced her address. There was one who did not make the request, but, as I do it out of force-of-habit, she noticed, looked over her shoulder and asked why I was still there. When I explained that I wanted to make sure that she was safely inside, she gave me a dirty look. I reminded her that this was the Big City, things do happen, and, I had both cab radio and wireless telephone at the ready to summon help should someone with a nefarious purpose appear out of nowhere. That changed the look on her face to one of embarrassment. I suppose that I should have gotten out and offered to assist her in the removal of her foot from her mouth.


----------



## itsablackmarket

I say go for it. This will expose that women can be just as exploitative of women as men. Lmao. Think just because it's the same gender, treatment will be better? Alright, good luck.


----------



## itsablackmarket

Another Uber Driver said:


> When I was a cab company Official, I made a point of emphasising this policy. The general rule was that at night, you waited until the customer (regardless of gender) was safely inside. Appended to this policy was the statement "............this applies especially to female passengers especially at later hours of the night.........". The _*Drivers' Handbook*_ for this company that was published in 1934 contained a similar policy statement. This was before there were radios in the cabs (that happened here in 1949, although the first was 1947).
> 
> To this day, I do that. I have had more than one female ask me specifically to do that as she disembarked. In fact, more than one female has asked me to wait when we get to the destination when she embarked and announced her address. There was one who did not make the request, but, as I do it out of force-of-habit, she noticed, looked over her shoulder and asked why I was still there. When I explained that I wanted to make sure that she was safely inside, she gave me a dirty look. I reminded her that this was the Big City, things do happen, and, I had both cab radio and wireless telephone at the ready to summon help should someone with a nefarious purpose appear out of nowhere. That changed the look on her face to one of embarrassment. I suppose that I should have gotten out and offered to assist her in the removal of her foot from her mouth.


You should've said: "most people think it's nice." Lol


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Logolar said:


> Alright,
> 
> This is a very slanted argument. You state that men are evil, and abuse so much more. I realize that the reported rate of men getting rapped, sexually assaulted and such is lower, but it does happen. School boys get taken advantage of, grown men and the like, and nothing is said on it. Violent crimes do happen, and looking at the prison system there does seem a disparity in who does them....You CANNOT punish the masses for something that less then a quarter of a percent do. I am not a criminal, and should not be treated as such.
> 
> The safety issue cuts both ways. Do you think that I am welcome of the advances of drunken females? Hint, I am not. I do not like the fact that I have been groped I have been caressed and touched. It made me uncomfortable, but I moved on. Now here is the thing, the groping can be listed as assault, but I did not report it, and I know many other male uber drivers have experienced this. Have I stopped picking up people because of this? No. Would you cry foul if I looked at a too drunk female and went....I've had some bad past experiences with females, so I cannot pick you up. (Even though I know nothing about her.) Also the rate of crimes cimmuted against UBer drivers is higher then on passengers.
> 
> Anyway, that's enough for now...If you want to gloss over the legality of something because it's convenient it's not really worth debating things with you.


I simply pointed out that ONE STATEMENT that was said was simply inaccurate.

The simple fact is, men are more dangerous to women (and other men) than women are. You may get groped, but you are much less likely to be a victim of a SERIOUS assault by that woman than a woman is by a man who gropes her. It is a lot more scary for a woman to get groped by a man, than a man by a woman, and if you're going to argue they are the same, then you are deluding yourself. Note, I am not saying it is ok, but it is a much less dangerous situation for the gropee if he is a man and the groper is a woman.

Most sexual assaults BEYOND groping are committed by men, regardless of the sex of the victim. I think the one area where it might be more even is in the teacher/teenage student scenario, where it seems women are catching up with men. But I honestly don't know the stats on that.

Where did I say men are evil???

FYI I think your 1/4 of a percent is a TAD low.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Another Uber Driver said:


> When I was a cab company Official, I made a point of emphasising this policy. The general rule was that at night, you waited until the customer (regardless of gender) was safely inside. Appended to this policy was the statement "............this applies especially to female passengers especially at later hours of the night.........". The _*Drivers' Handbook*_ for this company that was published in 1934 contained a similar policy statement. This was before there were radios in the cabs (that happened here in 1949, although the first was 1947).
> 
> To this day, I do that. I have had more than one female ask me specifically to do that as she disembarked. In fact, more than one female has asked me to wait when we get to the destination when she embarked and announced her address. There was one who did not make the request, but, as I do it out of force-of-habit, she noticed, looked over her shoulder and asked why I was still there. When I explained that I wanted to make sure that she was safely inside, she gave me a dirty look. I reminded her that this was the Big City, things do happen, and, I had both cab radio and wireless telephone at the ready to summon help should someone with a nefarious purpose appear out of nowhere. That changed the look on her face to one of embarrassment. I suppose that I should have gotten out and offered to assist her in the removal of her foot from her mouth.


I'm female and I wait for female pax to get inside. I figure I am in a locked car and able to call for help much faster than her. I also have mace, which she may not have. Not going to talk about guns...

FYI I tell them as they're getting out that I'll wait to see them safely inside. Even with me being female, most get that there is always more safety with someone watching, and seem to appreciate it.

Unless it's a crap neighborhood, I don't worry about the men, unless they are clearly incapactitated. I guess I'm just sexist.


----------



## Eric K

Logolar said:


> Alright,
> 
> This is a very slanted argument. You state that men are evil, and abuse so much more. I realize that the reported rate of men getting rapped, sexually assaulted and such is lower, but it does happen. School boys get taken advantage of, grown men and the like, and nothing is said on it. Violent crimes do happen, and looking at the prison system there does seem a disparity in who does them....You CANNOT punish the masses for something that less then a quarter of a percent do. I am not a criminal, and should not be treated as such.
> 
> The safety issue cuts both ways. Do you think that I am welcome of the advances of drunken females? Hint, I am not. I do not like the fact that I have been groped I have been caressed and touched. It made me uncomfortable, but I moved on. Now here is the thing, the groping can be listed as assault, but I did not report it, and I know many other male uber drivers have experienced this. Have I stopped picking up people because of this? No. Would you cry foul if I looked at a too drunk female and went....I've had some bad past experiences with females, so I cannot pick you up. (Even though I know nothing about her.) Also the rate of crimes cimmuted against UBer drivers is higher then on passengers.
> 
> Anyway, that's enough for now...If you want to gloss over the legality of something because it's convenient it's not really worth debating things with you.


Very valid point. I wonder how many of us men have 'technically' been assaulted. I know I've had at least two women that I can think of that reached over and kissed me on the cheek. I've had at least one woman grab her breast and talk about how big they were. (That would be the equivalent of a guy grabbing his penis and telling a woman driver how big it is)
So technically how many of us guys have been technically (a woman kissing you on the cheek or hugging you unexpectedly, etc) sexually assaulted?


----------



## Eric K

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm female and I wait for female pax to get inside. I figure I am in a locked car and able to call for help much faster than her. I also have mace, which she may not have. Not going to talk about guns...
> 
> FYI I tell them as they're getting out that I'll wait to see them safely inside. Even with me being female, most get that there is always more safety with someone watching, and seem to appreciate it.
> 
> Unless it's a crap neighborhood, I don't worry about the men, unless they are clearly incapactitated. I guess I'm just sexist.


Yes...you are sexist.


----------



## Coachman

Women just can't have it both ways. They can't claim equality on the one hand and at the same time claim to be afraid of men. If women are truly intimidated by men, then it's no wonder they earn 70 cents on the dollar in the workplace.


----------



## Logolar

Fuzzyelvis said:


> FYI I think your 1/4 of a percent is a TAD low.


 It's not. Its actually lower then that (.1%) according to the department of justice, but i inflated to account for unreported cases. That number also does tell who, just that it happens.

Also you may not of said it, but it was infered or implied by the tone of the conversation. You are painting men in a light that can only be called evil. I understand you are sexist and about women rights, but it should be about equality.

Equal means we are treated the same, and that neither of of us are descriminated against. I am male, but that shouldn't be a consideration when doing business with me. That has nothing to do with the service and is as superficial as looks.

Also, i expected you to make light of assaults against men. That is a very common reaction, and something that any male who has been assaulted fights against.

On the cell phone so there will be errors.


----------



## Hustlehard

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Hustlehard would Susan B. Anthony support equal gender opportunity employment?
> I think she would.
> Women fought for millenia for the rights you have today.
> Would you have these rights repealed for a "Good Ol Girl" company?
> I consider myself a feminist. Im not anti women, im anti discrimination.


Really, Susan B. Anthony? She fought for white women's rights to be equal to white men. A real freedom fighter that one was. I wouldn't have been able to vote until 1965. A feminist? Please, stop.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hustlehard said:


> Really, Susan B. Anthony? She fought for white women's rights to be equal to white men. A real freedom fighter that one was. I wouldn't have been able to vote until 1965. A feminist? Please, stop.


I'm confused now. Women got the vote AFTER all men, including non white men, did. What am I missing here?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Logolar said:


> It's not. Its actually lower then that (.1%) according to the department of justice, but i inflated to account for unreported cases. That number also does tell who, just that it happens.
> 
> Also you may not of said it, but it was infered or implied by the tone of the conversation. You are painting men in a light that can only be called evil. I understand you are sexist and about women rights, but it should be about equality.
> 
> Equal means we are treated the same, and that neither of of us are descriminated against. I am male, but that shouldn't be a consideration when doing business with me. That has nothing to do with the service and is as superficial as looks.
> 
> Also, i expected you to make light of assaults against men. That is a very common reaction, and something that any male who has been assaulted fights against.
> 
> On the cell phone so there will be errors.


I'm not making light of assaults. I'm just saying men are more dangerous to women AND OTHER MEN, than women are to men. Period. And that is a fact, backed up by statistics.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Coachman said:


> Women just can't have it both ways. They can't claim equality on the one hand and at the same time claim to be afraid of men. If women are truly intimidated by men, then it's no wonder they earn 70 cents on the dollar in the workplace.


That's like saying a black man in the 50s shouldn't expect equality because he was afraid (rightfully so in many cases) of being lynched. The two are not related.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Eric K said:


> Very valid point. I wonder how many of us men have 'technically' been assaulted. I know I've had at least two women that I can think of that reached over and kissed me on the cheek. I've had at least one woman grab her breast and talk about how big they were. (That would be the equivalent of a guy grabbing his penis and telling a woman driver how big it is)
> So technically how many of us guys have been technically (a woman kissing you on the cheek or hugging you unexpectedly, etc) sexually assaulted?


As a man, you can likely overpower most women, and are in little physical danger from one "technically assaulting" you. You are COMPLETELY missing the point and when you start talking about "technical assaults" you are insulting people who are real victims. Male AND female.


----------



## Coachman

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That's like saying a black man in the 50s shouldn't expect equality because he was afraid (rightfully so in many cases) of being lynched. The two are not related.


If black men in 2016 had to start their own rideshare service out of fear of white men, then I'd say they aren't equal.


----------



## Hustlehard

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm confused now. Women got the vote AFTER all men, including non white men, did. What am I missing here?


WHITE women got the right to vote after WHITE MEN via the women's suffrage movement. Black people in the south weren't allowed to vote until The Voting Right Act of 1965. As a black woman living in the south I wouldn't have been able to legally vote until 1965. Does that make sense?

The point I was making was that Susan B. Anthony would have done f*** all for me, a black woman.


----------



## DriverX

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> www.chariotforwomen.com
> 
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> Is anyone working for this company or has tried to apply for them. Chariot is in New York city and is moving to Boston starting April 19th. As the App says it's for women only, I know that might fly running under the same as women only gyms. But as for terms of employment that would be discriminatory of a persons sex. I have looked at there driver employment application and it doesn't ask the question. (Which no application should) But when they look at your name and driver license picture, they will know that you are a evil man .
> 
> So what do you guys think.


I don't think this business could operate in California based on the law. Are all female gyms legal in California, I don't see how they could be in light of this:

http://ktla.com/2016/03/29/transgen...ing-denied-haircut-at-long-beach-barber-shop/


----------



## DriverX

Hustlehard said:


> WHITE women got the right to vote after WHITE MEN via the women's suffrage movement. Black people in the south weren't allowed to vote until The Voting Right Act of 1965. As a black woman living in the south I wouldn't have been able to legally vote until 1965. Does that make sense?
> 
> The point I was making was that Susan B. Anthony would have done f*** all for me, a black woman.


The 15th amendment in 1870 gave black men the right to vote first. Women got the right to vote in 1919, a half century later


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Hustlehard said:


> Really, Susan B. Anthony? She fought for white women's rights to be equal to white men. A real freedom fighter that one was. I wouldn't have been able to vote until 1965. A feminist? Please, stop.


This is a bold racial agenda you have added to the mix.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Hustlehard said:


> I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it. A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety. I know I don't after a certain time. Nothing that a male predator loves more than being isolated with a vulnerable woman in the back of their car. How many news stories have you heard where a female uber or Lyft driver was doing something nefarious? Don't worry, I'll wait. There is nothing wrong with this. Get over yourselves.


I can't comment about ride share drivers, I really haven't seen many in the flesh to determine their professionalism.

But, as I was a cab driver, I can assure you that no dame has any more reason to be concerned than she would with a male doctor or other professional


----------



## UberLaLa

I say let those women that prefer to have other women drive them, do so. It's a fact that some men are more aggressive and violent then women. All violence should not be tolerated in this day and age. If a faction of a certain group can not _behave_ that entire group becomes suspect. Men need to clean up _their group_. Easier said than done, but until then women need to feel safe in a _pay for service. _That's part of what they are paying for. As a male driver I go out of my way to help my female passengers feel safe. E.g. park in a well lit area for pick up on residential streets. Say their name as they approach. Keep any conversations on a professional level. This isn't purely about whether or not the female passenger will be accosted, rather can she relax and not have to have her guard totally up with a stranger that *could *overpower her. 99.99% of women do not use physical force to force themselves on another person. Pretty certain that is not the percentage with men. Maybe 98%, but nobody wants to risk if they do not have to. That 2% is enough to make the ride less relaxed.


----------



## Choochie

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I do intend to apply because no where dose it say on the application that this is only for women. I am just waiting for my re-new car registration to come in. I also signed up for to use the service on the app.
> 
> I'm not looking for money. I'm not a lawyer looking to make a name for himself. I'm not the type of person to sue a women only gym, just to never go to that gym. I am looking for equality for everyone, because when you accept one type of discrimination. You are saying it's OK for all types of discrimination.


5 stars for idealism! You deserve a medal! 
I hope you don't get one of those 2 male riders that robbed 2 male drivers last night in Boston.


----------



## UberMeansSuper

Another Uber Driver said:


> good thing that I do not drive in Dallas, I would be one starred into de-activation. If I want a Volkswagen, I will buy one. If I want a
> Mercedes-Benz, I will buy one. What I will not do is pay for a Mercedes-Benz and accept a Volkswagen.
> 
> If that did not get me one-starred into de-activation, I am a proud cowboy hater. That would get me one-starred into de-activation, there.


Unfortunately, the good fares are with this scum and God help you if you don't have candy, water, and other Travis-suggested freebies for $0.85/mile. That's why I stopped. There's no winning with these idiots.


----------



## Choochie

Coachman said:


> Women just can't have it both ways. They can't claim equality on the one hand and at the same time claim to be afraid of men. If women are truly intimidated by men, then it's no wonder they earn 70 cents on the dollar in the workplace.


Who says? I can feel fear and still be equal - there is no way women will ever have equal strength. I would just use the equalizer on you, to level the playing field.


----------



## Black Excellence

Jesus.

I see this convo hasn't gotten ANY better since the last time I checked in.

Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that the founder of this company is a man? And that his wife serves as the president? Kind of goes against for women, BY women, no?

Also, why is everyone so angry at Hustlehard? Especially TwoFiddyMile.

As far as Chariot, buddy's gonna have a hard time making this work. Perhaps, he should market the service to women, and allow riders to CHOOSE a female or male driver. That way your company isn't getting lawyered up something crazy before you even launch.

I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot.

And it shows.


----------



## UberLaLa

Black Excellence said:


> Jesus.
> 
> I see this convo hasn't gotten ANY better since the last time I checked in.
> 
> Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that the founder of this company is a man? And that his wife serves as the president? Kind of goes against for women, BY women, no?
> 
> Also, why is everyone so angry at Hustlehard? Especially TwoFiddyMile.
> 
> As far as Chariot, buddy's gonna have a hard time making this work. Perhaps, he should market the service to women, and allow riders to CHOOSE a female or male driver. That way your company isn't getting lawyered up something crazy before you even launch.
> 
> I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot.
> 
> And it shows.


You are actually very correct...would have been far smarter to allow pax to 'choose' Female or Male driver...way less complications with PC peeps and legal.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Black Excellence said:


> Jesus.
> 
> I see this convo hasn't gotten ANY better since the last time I checked in.
> 
> Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that the founder of this company is a man? And that his wife serves as the president? Kind of goes against for women, BY women, no?
> 
> Also, why is everyone so angry at Hustlehard? Especially TwoFiddyMile.
> 
> As far as Chariot, buddy's gonna have a hard time making this work. Perhaps, he should market the service to women, and allow riders to CHOOSE a female or male driver. That way your company isn't getting lawyered up something crazy before you even launch.
> 
> I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot.
> 
> And it shows.


I was alright with ms Hustlehard til she decided to throw Susan B Anthony under the bus for being white.

I dont suffer racists gladly. Im the only white man in my housing development.
Hell, im the only white person living in my house, which also contains my non white wife and mother in law and my mixed race kids.

Dont play the race card around me.


----------



## ChristianPerea

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> www.chariotforwomen.com
> 
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> Is anyone working for this company or has tried to apply for them. Chariot is in New York city and is moving to Boston starting April 19th. As the App says it's for women only, I know that might fly running under the same as women only gyms. But as for terms of employment that would be discriminatory of a persons sex. I have looked at there driver employment application and it doesn't ask the question. (Which no application should) But when they look at your name and driver license picture, they will know that you are a evil man .
> 
> So what do you guys think.


It might garner some buzz when it launches because of its controversial angle, but likely to remain a local small player until it eventually dies out.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hustlehard said:


> WHITE women got the right to vote after WHITE MEN via the women's suffrage movement. Black people in the south weren't allowed to vote until The Voting Right Act of 1965. As a black woman living in the south I wouldn't have been able to legally vote until 1965. Does that make sense?
> 
> The point I was making was that Susan B. Anthony would have done f*** all for me, a black woman.


The 1965 voting rights act simply made the right to vote enforceable. It made it easier for blacks to do something they technically already had a right to do.

I get your point, but not everyone lives or lived in the south. Black men had the right to vote, and many DID long before ANY women. It is true there was a large portion of the country where exercising that right was difficult, if not impossible, but women didn't even have the right anywhere.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberLaLa said:


> I say let those women that prefer to have other women drive them, do so. It's a fact that some men are more aggressive and violent then women. All violence should not be tolerated in this day and age. If a faction of a certain group can not _behave_ that entire group becomes suspect. Men need to clean up _their group_. Easier said than done, but until then women need to feel safe in a _pay for service. _That's part of what they are paying for. As a male driver I go out of my way to help my female passengers feel safe. E.g. park in a well lit area for pick up on residential streets. Say their name as they approach. Keep any conversations on a professional level. This isn't purely about whether or not the female passenger will be accosted, rather can she relax and not have to have her guard totally up with a stranger that *could *overpower her. 99.99% of women do not use physical force to force themselves on another person. Pretty certain that is not the percentage with men. Maybe 98%, but nobody wants to risk if they do not have to. That 2% is enough to make the ride less relaxed.


Thank you for getting it.


----------



## Lnsky

TwoFiddyMile said:


> It breaks Federal law. All genders have equal opportunity employment rights.
> Get over YOUR self.


It's not in violation of federal law. It's the same thing as women only colleges. If your mad at Uber go to Lyft.


----------



## UberPissed

TwoFiddyMile said:


> What do you call 200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
> 
> A good start.


Until, that is, you need one.


----------



## Logolar

Lnsky said:


> It's not in violation of federal law. It's the same thing as women only colleges. If your mad at Uber go to Lyft.


It is a violation. Women's only college's still employ men.

https://www.cottey.edu/future-students/academic-programs/areas-of-study/meet-our-faculty

Cottey is a women's collage and look at the faculty. They are required to accept men or face discrimination charges.


----------



## Eric K

Fuzzyelvis said:


> As a man, you can likely overpower most women, and are in little physical danger from one "technically assaulting" you. You are COMPLETELY missing the point and when you start talking about "technical assaults" you are insulting people who are real victims. Male AND female.


No one is being insulting but you. Assault is assualt period and YOU are insulting any man that has been assaulted. You just assume that a man is OK with that.
YOU have ZERO clue on how uncomfortable it is for a man in car with a woman that has assaulted him. All it takes is for that womans advances to be declined and for her to say WE assaulted her. Do you think anyone would believe the man?!?!
NO you do not.


----------



## Lnsky

Logolar said:


> It is a violation. Women's only college's still employ men.
> 
> https://www.cottey.edu/future-students/academic-programs/areas-of-study/meet-our-faculty
> 
> Cottey is a women's collage and look at the faculty. They are required to accept men or face discrimination charges.


They don't admit males and college admission is subject to the same set of regulations as employment.

Calm your nuts down. You aren't a constitutional lawyer and seem to have very little understanding in this issue. The Supreme Court will hear a case on a female UPS driver who was forced to take unpaid leave as opposed to a desk job whilst pregnant. So not just the standard unpaid maternity leave but leave for 6 months. Women are a protected class but even cases like the UPS thing aren't black and white.

Good luck getting the court to rule female only drivers as a violation of EEOC.  That would be the day...


----------



## Logolar

Lnsky said:


> They don't admit males and college admission is subject to the same set of regulations as employment.
> 
> Calm your nuts down. You aren't a constitutional lawyer and seem to have very little understanding in this issue. The Supreme Court will hear a case on a female UPS driver who was forced to take unpaid leave as opposed to a desk job whilst pregnant. So not just the standard unpaid maternity leave but leave for 6 months. Women are a protected class but even cases like the UPS thing aren't black and white.
> 
> Good luck getting the court to rule female only drivers as a violation of EEOC.  That would be the day...


Actually they do, or at least after being taken to court they have been made to comply. I can cite sources if you wish, but again since all logic has been dismissed i am removing myself from this conversation. There is no point in being a part of a conversation where one side is completely dismissed because of an arbitrary factor, and sterotypes rhat we are stronger so discrimination and assaults against us do not matter because we are equipped to deal.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lnsky said:


> They don't admit males and college admission is subject to the same set of regulations as employment.
> 
> Calm your nuts down. You aren't a constitutional lawyer and seem to have very little understanding in this issue. The Supreme Court will hear a case on a female UPS driver who was forced to take unpaid leave as opposed to a desk job whilst pregnant. So not just the standard unpaid maternity leave but leave for 6 months. Women are a protected class but even cases like the UPS thing aren't black and white.
> 
> Good luck getting the court to rule female only drivers as a violation of EEOC.  That would be the day...


They do admit males when pressed by federal law. 
Im discusted by the untruths bandied about by a class of human i have defended time and time again.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Lnsky said:


> Good luck getting the court to rule female only drivers as a violation of EEOC.  That would be the day...


You know that's just part of what we are talking about. You forget that is not just hiring only men drivers. It's also the fact they are claiming. That I (being a male) can't use the service because I endanger women. That's the part that gets to me the most. They don't know me. By the claim "we are making it safe for women"

Listen, this company is not going to blow up everywhere. The company in New York that did something like in 2014. They thought it would be in other city's by now and they are still in NYC. I'm not trying to stop competition. It's going to be there own downfall by excluding men from the service as drivers and passengers. They're not enough women drivers to handle the demand. Then do you think that woman Chariot driver is just going to run only one app. Nope she'll have Uber/Lyft app open too. So now women who went out that night in hopes of a Chariot ride home are going to be force to use that "unsafe" male Uber /Lyft driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Black Excellence said:


> I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot. And it shows.


This earned you my "like". I am still chuckling.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> I dont suffer racists gladly. Im the only white man in my housing development.
> Hell, im the only white person living in my house, which also contains my non white wife and mother in law and my mixed race kids.
> 
> Dont play the race card around me.


.........not to mention that we are from Massachusetts which : a) abolished slavery by judicial review before the end of the War of Independence (in fact, the only State to abolish slavery by judicial review) and b) always allowed black people to vote....................



Fuzzyelvis said:


> The 1965 voting rights act simply made the right to vote enforceable. It made it easier for blacks to do something they technically already had a right to do.
> 
> I get your point, but not everyone lives or lived in the south. Black men had the right to vote, and many DID long before ANY women. It is true there was a large portion of the country where exercising that right was difficult, if not impossible, but women didn't even have the right anywhere.


That is true. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 allowed black men to vote but not white women.



UberPissed said:


> Until, that is, you need one.


...........only because some jerk sicked one on me first. Had there not been one for the aforementioned jerk, I would not need one, either.......... I will pass over some of the Studies in Ridicule that Legislatures have put into effect and Courts have upheld or interpreted; bodies with a high composition of lawyers...................................



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Im discusted by the untruths bandied about by a class of human i have defended time and time again.


.....as have been I for some time, now. If I consider that some of my relatives from Colonial Times did similarly, it makes me even more unhappy.........


----------



## negeorgia

Coachman said:


> Women just can't have it both ways. They can't claim equality on the one hand and at the same time claim to be afraid of men. If women are truly intimidated by men, then it's no wonder they earn 70 cents on the dollar in the workplace.


2014 numbers say 79 cents on the dollar. Under 35, being 90 cents on the dollar. Apples to apples, industry type and seniority.... Wage gap is almost non-existent. Wage gap by gender, in professional sports? It is significant. There is a political agenda to this, facts are irrelevant.


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

Hi.....resident sexist pig here. This product wont fly....Why? Well some of the legal reasons cited above by people who seem to understand that far better than I but I predict it's demise based on something far more intuitive. Most women don't like being driven by other women. Don't ask me why this is but I can offer countless anecdotal examples. It is an opinion I form based on 61 years of life on this earth.


----------



## Choochie

Eric K said:


> No one is being insulting but you. Assault is assualt period and YOU are insulting any man that has been assaulted. You just assume that a man is OK with that.
> YOU have ZERO clue on how uncomfortable it is for a man in car with a woman that has assaulted him. All it takes is for that womans advances to be declined and for her to say WE assaulted her. Do you think anyone would believe the man?!?!
> NO you do not.


Now multiply that times a thousand. I have been groped, pinched, flashed, etc., and much more, which I won't mention, but I still think men are wonderful predators!
Actually I never pressed charges on any of my predators and I hate to hear the words "date rape", cause I don't generally believe that, unless they were drugged or passed out. Nonetheless, all men are not predators but,it is easy to understand some women's anxieties.
Signed:
Man-hater


----------



## Choochie

Another Uber Driver said:


> .........not to mention that we are from Massachusetts which : a) abolished slavery by judicial review before the end of the War of Independence (in fact, the only State to abolish slavery by judicial review) and b) always allowed black people to vote....................
> 
> That is true. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 allowed black men to vote but not white women.
> 
> ..


Yeah, Lilly white Massachusetts, that bused minorities. Actually I was born here but didn't grow up here. Ask any black person and they will tell you Massachusetts is very racist, quiet as it is kept. So please don't extoll the virtues of this uber liberal bastion of educated fools. 
P.S. I do like my home state and any reference to anyone from here is not intended to label them or slander them.


----------



## secretadmirer

Do not mess with the Choocher. ROWR!!!!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Choochie said:


> Yeah, Lilly white Massachusetts, that bused minorities. Actually I was born here but didn't grow up here. Ask any black person and they will tell you Massachusetts is very racist, quiet as it is kept. So please don't extoll the virtues of this uber liberal bastion of educated fools.
> P.S. I do like my home state and any reference to anyone from here is not intended to label them or slander them.


Bussing was federally mandated. 
South Boston and Charlestown shamed themselves and proved 100 years of inbreeding were a bad thing.
Im a native of mass, I had almost never heard people use the N word until i moved back to my home state in 1980.

But there are worse places- NC is almost unfixable.
Of the 4 regions in the United States I lived, NY was the most colorblind.


----------



## UberLaLa

Choochie said:


> Yeah, Lilly white Massachusetts, that bused minorities. Actually I was born here but didn't grow up here. Ask any black person and they will tell you Massachusetts is very racist, quiet as it is kept. So please don't extoll the virtues of this uber liberal bastion of educated fools.
> P.S. I do like my home state and any reference to anyone from here is not intended to label them or slander them.


COMIC RELIEF MOMENT: "So please don't extoll the virtues of this *uber* liberal bastion of educated fools." 

*Underline/*Bold *mine...


----------



## Choochie

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Bussing was federally mandated.
> South Boston and Charlestown shamed themselves and proved 100 years of inbreeding were a bad thing.
> Im a native of mass, I had almost never heard people use the N word until i moved back to my home state in 1980.
> 
> But there are worse places- NC is almost unfixable.
> Of the 4 regions in the United States I lived, NY was the most colorblind.


Hell, they are still fighting the civil war. Don't let your accent slip out.


----------



## Choochie

UberLaLa said:


> COMIC RELIEF MOMENT: "So please don't extoll the virtues of this *uber* liberal bastion of educated fools."
> 
> *Underline/*Bold *mine...


You like the way I incorporated that huh?


----------



## SEAL Team 5

elelegido said:


> No need for surgery - just change your name to Barbara and buy a wig / fake ****.


Well Sports Illustrated is going to have to recall a couple million magazines. Wasn't Bruce Jenner Sports Illustrated's Male Athlete of The Year?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Another Uber Driver said:


> When I was a cab company Official, I made a point of emphasising this policy. The general rule was that at night, you waited until the customer (regardless of gender) was safely inside. Appended to this policy was the statement "............this applies especially to female passengers especially at later hours of the night.........". The _*Drivers' Handbook*_ for this company that was published in 1934 contained a similar policy statement. This was before there were radios in the cabs (that happened here in 1949, although the first was 1947).
> 
> To this day, I do that. I have had more than one female ask me specifically to do that as she disembarked. In fact, more than one female has asked me to wait when we get to the destination when she embarked and announced her address. There was one who did not make the request, but, as I do it out of force-of-habit, she noticed, looked over her shoulder and asked why I was still there. When I explained that I wanted to make sure that she was safely inside, she gave me a dirty look. I reminded her that this was the Big City, things do happen, and, I had both cab radio and wireless telephone at the ready to summon help should someone with a nefarious purpose appear out of nowhere. That changed the look on her face to one of embarrassment. I suppose that I should have gotten out and offered to assist her in the removal of her foot from her mouth.


POST # 105/Another Uber Driver : Hearti-
est of CHORTLES !


----------



## negeorgia

What industries have the highest gender gap in income when men and women are doing the same job? My guesses would be movies and news media.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> www.chariotforwomen.com
> 
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> Is anyone working for this company or has tried to apply for them. Chariot is in New York city and is moving to Boston starting April 19th. As the App says it's for women only, I know that might fly running under the same as women only gyms. But as for terms of employment that would be discriminatory of a persons sex. I have looked at there driver employment application and it doesn't ask the question. (Which no application should) But when they look at your name and driver license picture, they will know that you are a evil man .
> 
> So what do you guys think.


POST # 1/Dan The Lyft Man : "Ahoy!" &
Welcome [Officially] to
the UP.Net/Forums from 80°F, an hour
after Sunset, clear skies overnight, Marco
Island, on Florida's Wild SSW COAST.

Congratulations on this, your First Fea-
tured Thread ! May I utilize this intro-
duction to Inquire as to the Headset 
[you're wearing] and the Snoozy/Grum-
py Feline in your Chosen Avatar ?

Bison: Politely curious. Curiously polite!


----------



## Another Uber Driver

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Bussing was federally mandated.


Thank you, I saw the post earlier, but had to leave, so I could not reply, immediately. You took care of it for me.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> Congratulations on this, your First Fea-
> tured Thread ! May I utilize this intro-
> duction to Inquire as to the Headset
> [you're wearing] and the Snoozy/Grum-
> py Feline in your Chosen Avatar ?


Thanks...

It's my Avatar commission I had done for my gaming channel, which I did as a hobby. But my new hobby Lyft'ing/Uber, took all the time away from that. My grumpy grey feline, is my late kitty Ninja. He always used to sleep on my computer when I played games. I included him in remembrance.


----------



## MulletMan

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I forgot to add this picture
> View attachment 33695


i THINK bLACK cHARIOT WOULD BE OK, BUT DON'T EVEN TRY wHITE cHARIOT YOU RACIST PIG!!!!  oops caps


----------



## Black Excellence

MulletMan said:


> i THINK bLACK cHARIOT WOULD BE OK, BUT DON'T EVEN TRY wHITE cHARIOT YOU RACIST PIG!!!!  oops caps


... Now see, why'd you even have to go there?


----------



## MulletMan

Black Excellence said:


> ... Now see, why'd you even have to go there?


Everyone's so politically correct..man vs woman, white vs black, straight vs gay, guntoter to help me helpme, muslim vs the world, handicap vs. able body, home school vs charter, democrat vs republican, shall i go on?... I dont mean anything by it, or u can call me racist if u think so, woman vs man ; everyone in here is sexist, so im so over the namecalling . no offense meant and I hope no offense taken. There's my apology to u my brother who happens to have black skin.


----------



## Black Excellence

MulletMan said:


> ... I dont mean anything by it ...




Oh, really? So why take the time to type it, chief?

And if you're so against "us vs. them" in the scenarios you listed, why make a post about "black Chariot" or "white Chariot," when literally no one was talking about that and isn't really relative to this conversation?

It seems as though you're eager to partake in the very thing you just said you take issue with.


----------



## MulletMan

sarcasm, again my apologies.......touchy subject. The whole thing of a womans drive app and men are gonna sue. seems ridiculous to me. same thought came to mind when i saw a black lady driving. who gives dang if its a woman, man, black white. I sure dont care. sarcasm...sarcasm..if u read a lot of my posts i use a lot of sarcasm. I use sarcasm here with a black white issue and now i have to defend myself of you insinuating i am a racist. i dont now what else i can say, i guess its just a really touchy subject with you, a black man. i havent had the black experience, i suppose if i did i would be super sensitive to possible racists. touchy touchy subject so..ill let you have your last comment and i wont say another word.


----------



## Thatendedbadly

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Here is an interview with the two founders
> 
> www.founderswire.com/the-founders/exclusive-chariot-for-women-driven-by-women-speeds-to-market/
> 
> It gets me a little mad on a couple of points like:
> 
> "The service will fully tailor the experience to women, including* free ride incentives, *and beauty services en route, offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat" WTF really.
> 
> and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.
> 
> Double standards...


"and beauty services en route, *offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat*"

I think someone's troll fu is at the master level.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Thatendedbadly said:


> "and beauty services en route, *offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat*"
> 
> I think someone's troll fu is at the master level.


Ya and the thing that is more funny about that is.... so are you looking for drivers or Makeup artist? That's saying that all women know how to put on make up or give a proper makeover. My wife even thought that was kinda wired to ask a women driver to do.


----------



## Black Excellence

Thatendedbadly said:


> I think someone's troll fu is at the master level.


You know, I think you're actually on to something. Here's another quote that's just ... Just read this:

"The couple talks candidly about feminism, and about the role of men in a company that solves a woman's problem.

'I'm very in touch with my feelings, so I can put my feelings aside, to really listen to other people. I was made to love, respect, honor and keep (women) safe. If that's feminism, then that's who I am,' Michael says."

What the f ck does that even mean? None of that has anything to do with feminism.

Honestly, between the way the mission statement read on the web site and these quotes, should we expect this Chariot thing to even be real after April Fools Day?

This feels like one big Onion "news" article ...


----------



## Black Excellence

MulletMan said:


> sarcasm, again my apologies.......touchy subject. The whole thing of a womans drive app and men are gonna sue. seems ridiculous to me. same thought came to mind when i saw a black lady driving. who gives dang if its a woman, man, black white. I sure dont care. sarcasm...sarcasm..if u read a lot of my posts i use a lot of sarcasm. I use sarcasm here with a black white issue and now i have to defend myself of you insinuating i am a racist. i dont now what else i can say, i guess its just a really touchy subject with you, a black man. i havent had the black experience, i suppose if i did i would be super sensitive to possible racists. touchy touchy subject so..ill let you have your last comment and i wont say another word.


Your posts probably more satire than anything else after re-reading your initial post.

Satire and sarcasm are some of the most difficult to translate in written word, so my apologies if that was your initial intent.

I may have taken things the wrong way, as I'm unfamiliar with your postings here.


----------



## MulletMan

Black Excellence said:


> Your posts probably more satire than anything else after re-reading your initial post.
> 
> Satire and sarcasm are some of the most difficult to translate in written word, so my apologies if that was your initial intent.
> 
> I may have taken things the wrong way, as I'm unfamiliar with your postings here.


I said I'd keep my mouth shut but have to say thank you sir!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Here is an interview with the two founders
> 
> www.founderswire.com/the-founders/exclusive-chariot-for-women-driven-by-women-speeds-to-market/
> 
> It gets me a little mad on a couple of points like:
> 
> "The service will fully tailor the experience to women, including* free ride incentives, *and beauty services en route, offering passengers 15 minutes makeovers in the back seat" WTF really.
> 
> and that a person like myself is a danger to all women (mothers, children) around the world that use any rideshare service. So strange women picking up another women is safer.
> 
> Double standards...


I just read the article and nowhere does it actually state there will be no male drivers or pax. It just goes on about technology making it safer. I get the impression that it is marketed to women, as drivers and pax, but being careful not to actually exclude men.

They're partnering with Mary Kay. Well most Mary Kay salespeople are women, as are their customers, but they don't exclude men. Men just aren't that interested.

I think maybe they're doing the same thing? If I'm missing something let me know.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> Ya and the thing that is more funny about that is.... so are you looking for drivers or Makeup artist? That's saying that all women know how to put on make up or give a proper makeover. My wife even thought that was kinda wired to ask a women driver to do.


It doesn't say they expect the driver to do that. But they are partnering with and recruiting from Mary Kay. So that's likely part of the parnership.


----------



## Schweisshund

I know plenty of guys who sell Mary Kay ... just saying.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I think maybe they're doing the same thing? If I'm missing something let me know.


This is from there app on the Google play store. Driver App is the same... Its the past that says "only".

*****Calling All Women****** Have you ever wanted to drive for a rideshare service but the thought left you feeling insecure? Chariot For Women will help resolve those feelings. Chariot For Women is a rideshare club driven by women for women and children only.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Black Excellence said:


> Jesus.
> 
> I see this convo hasn't gotten ANY better since the last time I checked in.
> 
> Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that the founder of this company is a man? And that his wife serves as the president? Kind of goes against for women, BY women, no?
> 
> Also, why is everyone so angry at Hustlehard? Especially TwoFiddyMile.
> 
> As far as Chariot, buddy's gonna have a hard time making this work. Perhaps, he should market the service to women, and allow riders to CHOOSE a female or male driver. That way your company isn't getting lawyered up something crazy before you even launch.
> 
> I mean, the guy admitted it took him all of 10 minutes to come up with Chariot.
> 
> And it shows.


 He can also let them choose the race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and every other illegal choice. Why not allow the riders to choose what drugs they would like the driver to be selling so they can kill 2 birds with one stone? Let them choose hot drivers so they can make solicitation offers.


----------



## Black Excellence

Tim In Cleveland is it illegal when you choose between a male or female doctor?

How about male or female barber when you enter a shop?

I think you'd have a harder time proving l this was illegal in the Chariot thing, which still hasn't even debuted, versus outright excluding male drivers or riders.

By the way, I'm still not so sure this Chariot thing is real ...


----------



## Slavic Riga

Kalee said:


> I'm a woman and I'm sick and tired of sexual discrimination. Dividing people is destroying this country.
> 
> Shut 'em down.


Don't have to sue or shut it down. It will shut down by itself. 
Promoters forgot that Female species are the worst kind when it comes to trusting their own/same species. & no offense imagine the amount of *****ing & whinging.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

The Mollusk said:


> Been chuckling about the "currently male" thing a while. Lel.


POST # 15/The Mollusk : Fo' shizzle mah
hizzle. Ain't NO
DOCTUH inna whirl gonna T R A N S-
FORM the Artist Previously Known as 
Calvin Broadus into something that
ANYONE wants to see OtherGendered !

Mentoring Bison: Word.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber, but for women? Probably illegal, experts say*
> *http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/03/28/uber-but-for-women-probably-illegal-experts-say/QP5fYbQfvXUnKcEs0BqhEP/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe:socialflow:twitter*


POST # 23/chi1cabby : Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked Boston Globe Article of
Interest to Scads of HyperOpinionated
UPNF Regulars looking to "butt heads"
and gnash their teeth over an A-B TNC
that IS NOT #EVIL #[F]UBER .

Mentoring Bison: Can I get a "Whatwhat"?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

wk1102 said:


> I like it the idea, I hope I can get a job. My odds of getting some on any giving night would go up dramatically! ;-)


POST # 42/wk1102 : Keep IT in your
PANTS there
Quagmire ! [Hopefully wearing Boxers
WITH Kevlar Briefs.]

Mentoring Bison: STIFLING...with difficulty !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Older Chauffeur said:


> Well, this has certainly been entertaining...........


POST # 71/Older Chauffeur: Yeah.......
W H E R E is
ManeshPatel when you R E A L L Y
need him ? [Probably pining for his
Lost Love/Livelihood "Bubbles".]


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> You need to read why they are doing this, from there website and google play. They are implying that all men in the rideshare business make it unsafe for women and children. This is why we (Chariot) need a only for women rideshare. So they are telling me that I can't use or be employed by there service because I make it unsafe for there drivers. That's the part I don't like about this. Just because there are other business choices out there for me to make, other people don't have the right to choice for me, because of my sex. I should have a choice to make on that business base of the quality and service they provide. (Sorry for the bad grammar)


POST # 101/Dan The Lyft Man: It is
your I N C O R R E C T
U S A G E of "there" [a Place] instead of
"THEIR" [pertaining to "Them"] about
a DOZEN times-in-a-row that has me
Aggravated.....
Also "dose" = Increment of Medicine
........."does" = 3rd Person Present of "do"

Bison S.W.A.T.: Spells Words & Things.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Black Excellence said:


> You know, I think you're actually on to something. Here's another quote that's just ... Just read this:
> 
> "The couple talks candidly about feminism, and about the role of men in a company that solves a woman's problem.
> 
> 'I'm very in touch with my feelings, so I can put my feelings aside, to really listen to other people. I was made to love, respect, honor and keep (women) safe. If that's feminism, then that's who I am,' Michael says."
> 
> What the f ck does that even mean? None of that has anything to do with feminism.
> 
> Honestly, between the way the mission statement read on the web site and these quotes, should we expect this Chariot thing to even be real after April Fools Day?
> 
> This feels like one big Onion "news" article ...


POST # 166/Black Excellence: Dingding
dingdingding !
W I N N A H - W I N N A H !
C H I C K E N - D I N N A H !

Mentoring Bison: Props to Guy Fieri.
Bison misses the "Onion Radio News".


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Slavic Riga said:


> Don't have to sue or shut it down. It will shut down by itself.
> Promoters forgot that Female species are the worst kind when it comes to trusting their own/same species. & no offense imagine the amount of *****ing & whinging.


So you're complaining about sexism by being...sexist?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> This is from there app on the Google play store. Driver App is the same... Its the past that says "only".
> 
> *****Calling All Women****** Have you ever wanted to drive for a rideshare service but the thought left you feeling insecure? Chariot For Women will help resolve those feelings. Chariot For Women is a rideshare club driven by women for women and children only.


Had not seen the app. Was just reading the interview that was posted here. I didn't realize it was actually up and running.


----------



## promdog

:: sigh :: Women actually have *more* legal rights than men do. Truth be told and now they want the right to start businesses that discriminate against men; citing fear. :: sigh :: So, women are allowed to be in fear of men. But, men can't be allowed to be in fear of women? How is this equal?

Keep pushing that feminist envelope ladies and the men will eventually start pushing back.

*Legal rights that women have and men don't (as told by a woman)*


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 101/Dan The Lyft Man: It is
> your I N C O R R E C T
> U S A G E of "there" [a Place] instead of
> "THEIR" [pertaining to "Them"] about
> a DOZEN times-in-a-row that has me
> Aggravated.....
> Also "dose" = Increment of Medicine
> ........."does" = 3rd Person Present of "do"
> 
> Bison S.W.A.T.: Spells Words & Things.


I'm not not good at the grammar thing...


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> I'm not not good at the grammar thing...


POST # 184/Dan The Lyft Man : Dan-o !
We're talking
H O M O N Y M S and Spelling ! It's really
a matter of Awareness. Bare or bear ?
Wait or weight ? When in doubt, look
it up in a $1 "Pocket" Dictionary..."Spell-
check" won't save you. Write that letter
on "Stationery", while you're sitting 
"Stationary". I "want" to enlighten you,
as is my "wont" [pronounced "want"].

Bison: That helped me. How'bout you ?


----------



## grayspinner

I am highly insulted by the idea that as a woman passenger, I am automatically interested in services like 'beauty makeovers along my route'. 

I'm also insulted by the idea that I, as a woman driver, am 'not safe' driving men around. I am perfectly capable of driving both men and woman around - I do not need some company to protect me from male passengers. 

It's obvious to me that some guy thought this would be a great idea but manages to insult women in the process. 

This is a classic example of benevolent sexism - it is sexism all dressed up in 'protecting women' bullsh*t'. 

Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Uberdancer

"I find that those men who are personally most polite to women, who call them angels and all that, cherish in secret the greatest contempt for them."
―Germaine Greer,The Female Eunuch


----------



## Uberdancer

"No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility." 
― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Stop the man bashing, Alice B Toklas et al.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

promdog said:


> So, women are allowed to be in fear of men. But, men can't be allowed to be in fear of women? How is this equal?
> QUOTE]
> Actually, when it comes to Ubering men and women should be more afraid of men. Men commit most of the violent crimes, including murder. But when it comes to sexual assaults women are more likely to be victims. When men ARE victims of sexual assault, it's usually also by men.
> 
> This is not bashing, it's simple fact. Regardless of your sex, you are statistically much safer with a female pax OR driver than a male.


----------



## naplestom75

TwoFiddyMile said:


> What do you call 200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
> 
> A good start.


What's the difference between a jellyfish and a lawyer?
A: One's a spineless, poisonous blob. The other is a form of sea life.


----------



## kbrown

All of you are forgetting one important fact (and how do you think we have rights as drivers when Uber has completely proved that we are indiscriminate bugs to be scraped off the bottom of their shoes????): we are not EMPLOYEES of this company. We are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. I am sure that this company already looked into the legal ramifications of all of this and just based themselves off the Uber experience- don't hire people- bring on independent contractors, who are NOT considered employees, and therefore NOT subject to this whole discrimination stuff. All of you negative nancys can go whine all day long and waste your money on lawsuits and beat your heads against your car doors all day long, but at the end of the day, fuber gave them all they needed to operate without fear that their business plan will be disrupted by anyone. Now, they also elect for drivers to have taxes taken out, but they are still considered independent contractors. This company will survive, and it will do well. I've spoken to many of my female passengers lately, and they have said they preferred female drivers. Not to say that male drivers are all evil penis driven rapists, but the stories they relayed to me: being hit on by male drivers (in their opinion), being driven in circles or taken the long way to work and feeling too intimidated to say anything, middle school and high school girls being hit on by drivers and not knowing who they can talk to to report it, stories from male drivers talking about how they got the women's phone numbers, or had sex with them, etc. Can you really blame someone for coming up with a company like this?

Now, the whole thing about having your mani/pedi or makeup consultation in the car? That's just straight up stupid. It's beyond stupid. It's "stoopid".


----------



## yoyodyne

Hustlehard said:


> I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it. A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety. I know I don't after a certain time. Nothing that a male predator loves more than being isolated with a vulnerable woman in the back of their car. How many news stories have you heard where a female uber or Lyft driver was doing something nefarious? Don't worry, I'll wait. There is nothing wrong with this. Get over yourselves.


Your point is built on the fallacy that male rideshare drivers are somehow more nefarious due to the fact that they are a rideshare driver. That's nonsense propagated by the media. A BAD Uber driver story is extremely entertaining, but buying into the wide brush stroke is ludicrous. There are criminally minded men and women in all walks of life, in all professions.

Jody Arias worked for LegalShield. How many news stories have you heard where a male LegalShield work-from-home salesperson was doing something nefarious?


----------



## Tnasty

Ok cool, but if this service is anything like fuber drivers are gonna get ****ed in the vagina instead of the ass like the rest of us are.


----------



## promdog

Confessions of a cab driver getting sexually assaulted (raped) by women while on duty. Please jump to timeline 1:18


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Well it looks like the Chariot for Women App is not on the Google Play store anymore. Don't know if Google pulled it from complaints or Chariot did. But it was there yesterday.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Uberdancer said:


> "I find that those men who are personally most polite to women, who call them angels and all that, cherish in secret the greatest contempt for them."
> ―Germaine Greer,The Female Eunuch





Uberdancer said:


> "No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility."
> ― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex


When asked about what was then called "Women's Liberation", Joan Baez once replied "If I'm going on stage and have my baby in one arm and my guitar in the other, I'm not about to yell at some guy who holds the door open for me."


----------



## promdog

Another Uber Driver said:


> When asked about what was then called "Women's Liberation", Joan Baez once replied "If I'm going on stage and have my baby in one arm and my guitar in the other, I'm not about to yell at some guy who holds the door open for me."


Amen. It's called being a decent human being.


----------



## Don't Turn Around

I actually think it's a good idea. Unfortunately. I'd prefer the women I know to get rides from women. And for the women drivers I know to give rides to women rather than all the scary pax I get.


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Don't Turn Around said:


> I actually think it's a good idea. Unfortunately. I'd prefer the women I know to get rides from women. And for the women drivers I know to give rides to women rather than all the scary pax I get.


I hear ya...

I had some free ride money from Lyft and I took a Lyft yesterday for some coffee. (To and from Dunkin about 2 miles round trip +12 minutes) The driver did a nice job even waited outside the car to make sure I saw him. But the only thing was his ride. The car was ok I guess/a bit odd, the rear speaker was missing a cover, no cup holders in the back for my coffee (Stop rolling your eyes at me ) Even though it was clean inside the car made me feel like it was dirty. I don't know the car wasn't too old 2010. Just wasn't well kept in the inside. The driver was nice, but how he was dress and he look like he just woke up, he did seem creepy. That was the first reaction, but after talking to him that went away. If he just sat there and said nothing I can see how that would be creepy for anyone. People have to understand 99% of drivers are safe people to take rides with. Just like in the world, it's the 1% that make the world unsafe for anyone. It's when companies safe that make the claim that men make rideshares unsafe for women both riders and drivers. I am one of those drivers, I take offense to that. This is why I have a problem with Chariot for Women. 

(Total cost of the trip was $8 and I tipped $2.... so $5.00 + $2 tip for the driver. But Lyft had a guarantee yesterday during that time of $36 an hr.) So he got paid...


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

promdog said:


> Confessions of a cab driver getting sexually assaulted (raped) by women while on duty. Please jump to timeline 1:18


This is my life.
Cause cabs and cabbies are an aphrodisiac.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I think this thread needs a theme song.


----------



## GrandTheftUber

Undercover footage revealed the following...

"I have water, charging cables, or tampons if anyone needs them. Or if you just need a shoulder to cry on, I'm right here."

Uber is doooooomed.


----------



## metal_orion

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sue them! When and if they come to Charlotte ill jump on the class action bandwagon.
> What? You wont hire me cause i have the wrong junk?


How old are you? Twelve?


----------



## metal_orion

It's going to be tough for this company to get afloat on the market and go through whatever hurdles uber and lyft had already gone through. But I feel it's going to be tough to have female drivers to drive at night since fares will be scarce if they follow the same system Uber and lyft use. They'll have to put a major incentive to motivate them to drive at any hour of the day or they better make them employees rather than independent contractors so they have a secure salary.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

metal_orion said:


> How old are you? Twelve?


Why thank you, my profile pic must be extremely flattering.


----------



## metal_orion

Eric K said:


> LOL, Black Midget Lesbians did make me laugh. But maybe that's because according to this company I have a penis so even though I've completed well over 1000 safe rides I must be a perverted rapist.


And maybe a small one for bi**ing at something that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## metal_orion

Do people forget why might this company has come up with the idea of only female drivers?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarz...se-at-uber-sex-assault-complaints#.irw2w4o9oR


----------



## metal_orion

If I had a daughter I would actually feel better knowing she isn't taking an Uber at night while coming out of work or some other similar scenario when it is hard to find public transportation.


----------



## metal_orion

The solution to the little men complaining would be chariot for men only. No need to get salty why women get treated slightly better or differently. Stop whining. On the positive side you'll be able to drive for Uber, Lyft and Chariot. End of story.


----------



## Maderacopy

I read the terms and it states driver are all women and they will only pick up women and children. It was founded by a man.


----------



## Maderacopy

It also said first 100.00 in a 24 hour period they will take 25.00 after that you keep 98%


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

metal_orion said:


> The solution to the little men complaining would be chariot for men only. No need to get salty why women get treated slightly better or differently. Stop whining. On the positive side you'll be able to drive for Uber, Lyft and Chariot. End of story.


I could market the hell out of "for discerning gentlemen " but it would be driven by female chauffeurs. They would be separated from the pax by partition.
Id recruit tough hood chicks as drivers.
Would make a fortune.

But not rideshare- luxury sedan service called "Champagne Room Car Service".


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Coachman said:


> If black men in 2016 had to start their own rideshare service out of fear of white men, then I'd say they aren't equal.


Which goes to prove women aren't equal IN 2016, doesn't it? Going by YOUR statement.

And btw black men still aren't equal when it comes to many things. Neither are black women, women in general of ANY race, in fact when it comes to ANY race, the best thing to be is STILL a white man.

Money, of course, helps. Better to be black and rich than white and poor, but all else being equal, it's better to be white and male in terms of opportunity.

Hang on while I get my popcorn...


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Must've missed my trust fund notification...


----------



## RedDragonQueen

If they did start this I'm sure that the women drivers would get paid less. Women are usually paid less in most work forces.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

You know where women have more power than men?
Family court.
I had a chat with a lawyer a number of years ago when things werent going so swimmingly. 
He had a prepared speech.
"Dont plan on getting custody of your kids. You could spend millions and wouldnt be likely to get custody of your kids..."

Thankfully, everything worked out and my family stayed together.
Wouldnt want to end up in family court, im a man and hold no power in those waters.


----------



## Caroline O'Donovan

Hey! Does anyone know if Chariot for Women ever took off? Did anyone ever hear back from them at all ?


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

They are reaming Chariot for Women to SafeHer and even changing the Logo. Don't know why they would do that other than taking attention of the old name and logo. They made s statement say they are holding off taking in new drivers to take the time in doing the proper background checks. The start date was Boston on April 19th and that was delayed. From the Facebook site, just stay toon for updates.


----------



## Caroline O'Donovan

Dan The Lyft Man said:


> They are reaming Chariot for Women to SafeHer and even changing the Logo. Don't know why they would do that other than taking attention of the old name and logo. They made s statement say they are holding off taking in new drivers to take the time in doing the proper background checks. The start date was Boston on April 19th and that was delayed. From the Facebook site, just stay toon for updates.


Thanks for the update! Did you ever talk to anyone that works there? Do you know why they're changing the brand?


----------



## Dan The Lyft Man

Just that they are taking their time with the background check. The brand part, I don't know why.


----------



## Uberchampion

Maderacopy said:


> I read the terms and it states driver are all women and they will only pick up women and children. It was founded by a man.


Any company that's willing to pick up children has my vote. Let them deal with the hood rats who ask me to drive them and their 6 month old around without a car seat. Sheeeet.....I'm gonna print some cards out for Chariot/SafeHer or whatever if becomes and give them out to mean female uber pax as an alternative to Uber. Hopefugly I'll never see them again ☺


----------

