In an effort to offer an alternative to "leering drivers," a new fleet of taxis driven by women, that cater exclusively to women, have been launched in the Mexican city of Puebla.
Oh, and they're pink and come with a beauty kit. Sigh.
Providing spaces for women on trains and other forms of transportation has become a bit of an international trend in terms of preventing sexual harassment. And while offering women a respite from what can be a hostile environment (anyone who has ever ridden the NYC trains to school as a female high school student can tell you all about that!) is a nice idea, does it really get to the root of the problem? As I've written before: Shouldn't we be targeting the gropers and harassers? The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them.
Vianeth Rojas, of the Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Puebla, seems to agree: "We are in the 21st century, and they are saying women have continued worrying about beauty and nothing more...They are absolutely not helping eradicate violence against women."
The good news about the taxis in Puebla, however, is that they're opening new job opportunities for women in what has traditionally been a male profession. Now if we could just get them to ditch the pink...
Related Posts: Japanese men angry over women-only train cars
Tehran introducing all-women transportation
Women-only train cars in Brazil
Pic via AP.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Mexican city launches pink, women-only taxis.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16698
Wasn't the first Mexican-American War fought over a similar issue, but involving stagecoaches?
If only we could eradicate the gropers and harassers. Sadly, I think the reality of the situation is that the naked apes are not too different than their hirsute cousins the chimpanzees, which are a aggressive and brutal species. Our prefrontal cortex isn't quite developed enough to effectively reign in our behavior. And so we will continue to have violence towards women as much as we will continue to have violence towards each other. It's depressing to think of, certainly, but only natural.
Violence varies between and within societies and over time. I doubt violence will ever be eradicated but it's absurd to claim a priori that there's nothing we can do about it. You may not change human nature but you can change the environment in which it operates.
If I had said there was nothing you can do about it then that would be absurd. Thankfully, I didn't say that.
But I do stand by my assertion that violence towards each other, women included, is part of our biological nature and will always be with us.
The depressing part of it is when a statement like "there were only 32 rapes this year, down from 58 last year" is seen as a victory. Sure, it's a tremendous improvement but to me 32 rapes is still 32 rapes too many and forgive me if I grieve for our species when contemplating it.
"Shouldn't we be targeting the gropers and harassers? The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them."
Why, oh why, do we always create a false dichotomy between punishing criminals & protecting victims on this site? This is ideologically driven thinking. Common sense tells us that we can--and should--do both. Just because Chicago should do more to protect people from mugging, doesn't mean I don't carry mace in case I am mugged. And, I certainly don't lament that stores sell mace...And as soon as I can legally carry a gun, I will.
How many homeowners complain about getting guns to protect our homes & families??? It doesn't mean criminals aren't responsible for the crime & that criminal sanctions shouldn't be increased, its just an additional avenue of protection. Next, you're going to tell me that we shouldn't have gun stores.
Actually I WILL say we shouldn't have gun stores. It should be illegal for anyone but the police to own a gun. I think that is a feminist issue.
Have you seen the stats for the number of gun crimes in the US compared to well, every other western nation in the world (pretty much all of whom have massively strict gun control laws).
The more guns on the street the more gun crimes. Not to mention all the stories I constantly hear about accidental shootings, etc.
And guess what. If someone breaks into my home I don't want to shoot them. I'd rather they steal my stuff then injure or kill another human being. That's my position at least.
You're right Honeybee that gun crime here far exceeds other Western nations, but that's true across the board for pretty much all types of crime. I commend your view on the sanctity of life over property...
Still I'm not sure I'd call gun control a feminist issue, and I think you can craft a good argument that the reverse--placing more guns in womens' hands--should be a feminist issue, but I won't go there. My view of gun control is that it misses the forest for the trees. The 'install base' of guns is huge. There are so many guns in people's homes & out on the streets that if you instantly made it illegal to own a gun, criminals would still have a ready supply of guns for another century. Guns are durable goods; they don't disappear. In the face of that, why restrict law abiding citizens' right to carry?
And then, of course, there's the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I know neighborhoods where the cops are notoriously unreliable, why should those residents be at risk??? The right to self defense is an inherent one.
That's absolutely false.
America, compared to other Western industrialized countries, only has a high homicide rate, driven in large part by the use of handguns.
Simple theft, burglary, rape, simple assault... these other crimes are not significantly higher in the US than in western Europe. It's about our guns.
I don't believe that the government should have a monopoly on gun ownership - because that's the first step towards dictatorship.
People should have the right to arm themselves - and not only to defend themselves from criminals, but also from the government.
In fact, we'd have a much safer world if everybody was armed.
Think about it - if every home had a loaded weapon in it, burglars would think twice before breaking into a home.
And if every woman had a pistol in her purse, rapists would think twice about trying to attack women on the street.
As for gun safety - look, there are always going to be a certain number of accidents with any mechanical device (do we call for "Car Control" because of car accidents? Or "frying pan control" because people sometimes burn themselves while cooking?)
As for gun crime - just look at the facts.
In suburban and rural areas of this country - where gun ownership is widespread - there are very few gun crimes, because most folks are armed which has a deterrent effect on criminals (that is, if a criminal pulls a gun on somebody, they are probably armed too, and the criminal is at high risk of dying).
On the other hand, in urban areas (particularly heavily Black and Latino urban areas) where Gun Control laws are very strict, there is a LOT of gun violence - because only the criminals and the cops are armed, and those two groups hold the rest of the population at their mercy, because we do not have the means to defend ourselves.
Bottom line, one of the best ways to prevent gun crime - and violence against women, for that matter - would be the repeal of all gun control laws and mandatory gun ownership for all adults and adolescents.
The urban/rural differences in crime are cross-cultural and have nothing to do with gun ownership. You find the same disparities comparing, say, German villages to cities.
And since you appear to believe that only police and criminals have weapons in "urban areas (particularly heavily Black and Latino urban areas)"... well, you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.
People should have the right to arm themselves - and not only to defend themselves from criminals, but also from the government.
Not to derail, but I've heard this line of reasoning before and I profoundly disagree. You can't defend yourself against the government with the type of weapons that are legal in the United States today. In order for you to fight the government, we would need to legalize weapons that, IMHO, common sense dictates civilians should not be allowed to own.
Actually I WILL say we shouldn't have gun stores. It should be illegal for anyone but the police to own a gun. I think that is a feminist issue.
Have you seen the stats for the number of gun crimes in the US compared to well, every other western nation in the world (pretty much all of whom have massively strict gun control laws).
The more guns on the street the more gun crimes. Not to mention all the stories I constantly hear about accidental shootings, etc.
And guess what. If someone breaks into my home I don't want to shoot them. I'd rather they steal my stuff then injure or kill another human being. That's my position at least.
If engaging in violence and harassment was "natural" why wouldn't we all do it? Eating and breathing are natural; violence is not.
Don't confuse "natural" with "universal." There are plenty of behaviors that are "natural" that are also not "universal." Altruism is an example of a natural behavior that is not universal.
Eating and breathing aren't "behaviors" so your analogy doesn't really hold. But if you want to persist with it, menses is natural but also not universal.
Apparently the bonobos are not like that. I remember reading in "Women" by Natalie Angier that when aggressive anti-social monkeys are put with peaceful monkeys that they acted nice and pro-social. When put back with their species monkeys, they taught the aggressive ones to act nicer and acted nicer regardless of the status quo in their world. I think it has to do with sociology not biology.
The bonobos are not as violent as chimps, orangs, and gorillas but they're still violent. They use group sex and communal feasts to foster in-group bonding which nearly eliminates violence committed towards other members of the group. However, at the same time they are still quite violent towards outsiders. They may not participate in as many raiding parties as chimps do, but if another group invades their territory there will be blood.
If you want to emulate the bonobos I'm all for it. It may mean dumping such unnatural conventions like monogamy and embracing group rearing of young, but that's such a small price to pay.
Well I hear they have foot long clits? I think I just found a new favored animal!
Apparently the bonobos are not like that. I remember reading in "Women" by Natalie Angier that when aggressive anti-social monkeys are put with peaceful monkeys that they acted nice and pro-social. When put back with their species monkeys, they taught the aggressive ones to act nicer and acted nicer regardless of the status quo in their world. I think it has to do with sociology not biology.
That's a very biological determinist view of the world - and a very hopeless view.
You seem to think that rape and abuse of women is innate and biological and can never be changed.
Do you have any actual evidence to back up that hopeless and cynical opinion?
That's a very biological determinist view of the world - and a very hopeless view.
You seem to think that rape and abuse of women is innate and biological and can never be changed.
Do you have any actual evidence to back up that hopeless and cynical opinion?
This is certainly not preventing harassment or the culture that supports it...nor is the pink helping. In addition, it seems to me that this has great potential to make women more vulnerable to harassment, crime, and assault. Now the cars with women are loudly declared in bright pink. If a group of men or even one man wanted to rob or harm women, he would know exactly how to find them.
yeah, seriously. The pink cars are screaming "please attack me, we have females inside the car." It would be better to make the cars blend in, instead of painfully standing out and being so obvious...
It also comes with GPS navigation. Maybe that says they think women cant navigate?
Yes.
It also comes with GPS navigation. Maybe that says they think women cant navigate?
I agree that it's the MEN who should change themselves and that women shouldn't have to escape. Unfortunately, that's never gonna happen. so females will always have to find a way to escape sexual harrasment and sexual assault.
I think women should be able to walk down the street naked without nary a catcall, let alone fear of being raped. But that's never going to happen. So what do we do?
I think we need a multi-pronged approach.
1) We legislate against violent acts like rape, enforcing penalties for perpetrators.
2) We educate young men and women about violence and respecting each other.
3) We acknowledge the reality that no matter how much effort we put into (1) and (2), there will still be some anti-social prick out there and we should either accept the risks attendant to walking naked down the street or modify our behavior to diminish the risk.
I want to make clear that I am NOT saying that a woman who walks down the street naked is inviting the rapist or in any way deserved to be raped. However, unfair as it is, our behavior does impact external risks and we should take reasonable steps to maintain our own security and safety, while continuing to focus on (1) and (2).
Why, oh why do we create false choices? We're pro-choice & yet we're lamenting the provision of a new choice for women, because some marketing manager at the company thought pink was a good way to brand & differentiate their taxi service. S/he may be right or wrong about that, but if they're wrong the free market has a way of correcting that...and we're elevating the color pink to a woman's safety.
And what of the pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness? I thought women were taking back the color as one of empowerment, not oppression?
While I'm pleased these women have a transportation alternative which will help protect them from harassment, it is clearly a temporary solution. The problem is that men are harassing women. That is what needs to be addressed - I realize this is difficult and there is a long history of violence against women that won't be fixed overnight, so I'm glad that women have some refuge for now. But we still need to attack the root of the problem.
Am I the only one that sees a trend to segregation as part of the problem?
Because, like, I'm sure we could stop 99% of racial violence if we just separated people on the basis of skin colour too. /sarcasm
Women only taxis, girls only science classes, ..., let's keep men and women as separate as possible thus substantiating the idea that they are different and should not be treated the same.
Also, by creating a women only taxis service, the implication seems to be that women are not safe in any other form of taxi. I can just see the questions aimed at female victims of assult now, "Why didn't you take the pink taxis? You know they are the safe ones!"
I feel like this trend is a reaction to our inability to prevent this type of harassment. When a society doesn't have the will to educate its citizens about the inappropriateness of this type of behavior, people will do the next best thing, which is to carve out safe spaces where they don't need to subject themselves to it.
The existence of the pink taxis is a sad commentary on our culture, but don't blame them for providing an alternative to abuse and harassment where law enforcement and education have failed to step up.
While I find the fact that they come with beauty kits extremely offensive, the pinkness doesn't bother me. I like pink (not as much as I like purple) and besides they have to have a way to clearly distinguish this taxi from others. I understand that when everything "made for girls" is pink it becomes really obnoxious, but that is just one bad aspect of an otherwise well-intentioned idea. Yes we should be blaming the harassers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to protect ourselves too. It's not a two-choice issue, it takes a combination.
Keep in mind this is NOT the US. It's Mexico.
Gun laws and all the stuff that people are talking about in comments (i.e. crime rates in US urban cities vs. Us rural cities) are talking about a whole different type of situation than these cabs operate in. Living on the border, I can say I seriously doubt the average Mexican man is going to be changing any time soon.
In the meantime, there is a PRIVATE company that has invested $440,000 in something that is providing a great employment for 35 women cab drivers. But those cabs need to be maintained, advertised, phone lines need to be staffed, a website probably made - so this is something that will be improving the lives of more than the original 35 employees.
Private businesses exist to make money for their owners and employees, not to radically change society. If this taxi line lifts 35+ women into a better life, and functions as a stepping stone to other solutions, AND happens to successfully stay in business for several years, then I say right on.
You know some Mexican men don't like women to even be driving?!? I know when I dated a Mexican man, that's how he acted.
I'm excited by the sheer fact that jobs for women will be created from this.
And not to be all gender essentialist, but I wonder if these female drivers will drive more safely?
I think it's a great idea. However, I can see the logic of first giving women a safe opportunity to get to work/wherever rather than dealing with the harassers head-on. Often times there could be retaliation for prosecuting the ones who cause the problems. Harassment and violence against women might increase because more than likely those that harass believe they can are entitled to control women and their bodies.
Sorry for the double post. Did something weird.
Wanted to add: Best example of what I was trying to say above is dealing with a bully that sits behind you in class. They poke and prod you. You ask them quietly to stop. That harassment increases. You get the teacher involved, asking for your seat to be moved across the room. The teacher says that isn't necessary and gives the bull a stern warning. The bully starts harassing even more, knowing you're "a cry baby". After several days, if not months, of this cycle, the teacher finally decides to move you to a safe spot away from the bully.
I think it's a great idea. However, I can see the logic of first giving women a safe opportunity to get to work/wherever rather than dealing with the harassers head-on. Often times there could be retaliation for prosecuting the ones who cause the problems. Harassment and violence against women might increase because more than likely those that harass believe they can are entitled to control women and their bodies.
The women who have created the taxi service and those you use it have empowered themselves. Instead of standing by, weakly, putting up with the harassment, waiting for someone else (men, society), to protect them, they have come up with a creative solution that they do not need anyone else to help them to do. They have come to the realization that they don't have to put up with the harassment.
Women, not just men, have to change for the society to change. I too think that men need to change their behavior but how do you get them to do that? Laws can help, but someone has to enforce those laws. The problem is that men don't see a problem with their behavior, they're having a grand-old time. Women have to stand up for themselves, and not accept men's bad behavior.
A next step could be for women to band together, use the public transportation, but maybe shame any harassers as a group, help defend each other, so that the experience would become so unpleasant for the men they would stop doing it. The women in Mexico have taken an important step towards liberating themselves because they have already realized that they do not have to put up with public harassment. Perhaps they will also develop a sense of solidarity through their experiences with the taxi. I hope they are successful!
Oy, Mexican Machismo. Tell Me about it. In my family, when my grandfather died (my mom was 5), my grandmother started letting her brother-in-law take the lead as man of the house, he was so strict and is still not sensitive. My mom was called out by him for being outspoken (don't worry she didn't lose it). On a brighter side, my late uncle Rafael took the lead as man of the house, but it is still fucked up to me that a woman can't even lead the household, even when she's a widow. Needless to say, I turned a cynical eye towards man-woman relations in society. Stop Violence Against Women!
Oy, Mexican Machismo. Tell Me about it. In my family, when my grandfather died (my mom was 5), my grandmother started letting her brother-in-law take the lead as man of the house, he was so strict and is still not sensitive. My mom was called out by him for being outspoken (don't worry she didn't lose it). On a brighter side, my late uncle Rafael took the lead as man of the house, but it is still fucked up to me that a woman can't even lead the household, even when she's a widow. Needless to say, I turned a cynical eye towards man-woman relations in society. Stop Violence Against Women!
Okay, I noticed I replied two times. Sorry about that. Continue