NationStates

Scomagia wrote:

EastKekistan wrote:We can have ladies' cars in trains. That's what's done in Japan.

That's done because of all the molestation, I believe.

Yes but this can also be done if feminists are very concerned about "manspreading".

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Okay. You can sit on the roof of the train. Watch out for the low bridges.

Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Lanoraie II wrote:
Women are considered impure in Islam so touching them, specially if they're on their period, is looked down upon.

Touching women nothing to do with purity most of the time, women also have to do ablution if they touch a man.

Oh man, I'm pretty fucking impure, then. Oh no, what shall I ever do!

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Okay. You can sit on the roof of the train. Watch out for the low bridges.

Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

I'd rather take the higher chance of a seat in a mixed carriage than get stuck in a bitch carriage with all the requisite femspreading of shopping bags across multiple seats.

No, you'll go on the roof and you will thank us for it.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

I'd rather take the higher change of a seat than being stuck in a bitch carriage with all the femspreading of shopping bags.

No, you'll go on the roof and you will thank us for it.

It's not unheared in India.

Lanoraie II wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:
Touching women nothing to do with purity most of the time, women also have to do ablution if they touch a man.

Is it also a respect thing?

Yes, it is considered very disrespectful for a man to even look a woman in the eyes if she isn't spouse or family.

Geneviev wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

Right. So have a ladies section and a mixed section. If a lady does not want manspreading she can go to the ladies section. Problem solved.

Nakena wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
I'd rather take the higher change of a seat than being stuck in a bitch carriage with all the femspreading of shopping bags.

No, you'll go on the roof and you will thank us for it.

It's not unheared in India.

Riding the roof of a train? Yes.

Geneviev wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

That is true, mixed is obviously required for families

EastKekistan wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

Right. So have a ladies section and a mixed section.

Or... let's not.

There's no good reason for a women's only section on public transport.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Lanoraie II wrote:
Is it also a respect thing?

Yes, it is considered very disrespectful for a man to even look a woman in the eyes if she isn't spouse or family.

I consider it very disrespectful for you to not be on the roof. You wouldn't want to be disrespectful, would you?

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Nakena wrote:
It's not unheared in India.

Riding the roof of a train? Yes.

taking over an entire train car for yourself and mates and letting no one else in?

FUCKING GENIUS

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Or introduce gender segregated seating or better yet non mixed public transit.

I'd rather take the higher change of a seat in a mixed carriage than get stuck in a bitch carriage with all the requisite femspreading of shopping bags across multiple seats.

No, you'll go on the roof and you will thank us for it.

I can just drive

EastKekistan wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

Right. So have a ladies section and a mixed section. If a lady does not want manspreading she can go to the ladies section. Problem solved.

That would definitely solve the problem. It shouldn't be a problem at all, though.

EastKekistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:That's done because of all the molestation, I believe.

Yes but this can also be done if feminists are very concerned about "manspreading".

Or it could not be done.

I like that. Let us do nothing.

Walkerfort wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Riding the roof of a train? Yes.

taking over an entire train car for yourself and mates and letting no one else in?

FUCKING GENIUS

Well, not exactly. They just climb on the roofs of trains because the trains can get pretty crowded. And free rides.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Yes, it is considered very disrespectful for a man to even look a woman in the eyes if she isn't spouse or family.

I consider it very disrespectful for you to not be on the roof. You wouldn't want to be disrespectful, would you?

No, of course not, but that sounds more like an idiosyncracy than a cultural norms.

In Japan they have separate sections in some subways for females.

To protect the males from the woman, that is. (at least so I got told)

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
I'd rather take the higher change of a seat in a mixed carriage than get stuck in a bitch carriage with all the requisite femspreading of shopping bags across multiple seats.

No, you'll go on the roof and you will thank us for it.

I can just drive

by 2030 you'll be accused for crimes against the climate humanity if you keep up with this reckless behavior

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:Yes, it is considered very disrespectful for a man to even look a woman in the eyes if she isn't spouse or family.

I consider it very disrespectful for you to not be on the roof. You wouldn't want to be disrespectful, would you?

I consider it very disrespectful for you to exist and not be a cat. You wouldn't want to be disrespectful, would you?

To be serious "disrespectful" is arbitrary tabooing and if enough people collectively taboo something it will be at least partly banned.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Non mixed public transportation can be very inconvenient to people who want to travel together.

That is true, mixed is obviously required for families

That would be a compromise, but it would be better to just not change anything.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
I consider it very disrespectful for you to not be on the roof. You wouldn't want to be disrespectful, would you?

No, of course not, but that sounds more like an idiosyncracy than a cultural norms.

That's because there isn't a major tribe that has such norms.

Scomagia wrote:

EastKekistan wrote:Yes but this can also be done if feminists are very concerned about "manspreading".

Or it could not be done.

I like that. Let us do nothing.

Best idea I've heard: let's do nothing.

Or, let's ask men not to spread their legs and women not to spread their bags excessively.

How does that grab people as an option?

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Lanoraie II wrote:
Is it also a respect thing?

Yes, it is considered very disrespectful for a man to even look a woman in the eyes if she isn't spouse or family.

I look people in the eyes when having a conversation. It shows I'm listening and makes them pay attention to me. I'll just go ahead and keep doing that.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Or it could not be done.

I like that. Let us do nothing.

Best idea I've heard: let's do nothing.

Or, let's ask men not to spread their legs and women not to spread their bags excessively.

How does that grab people as an option?

Not a good idea. I say..let's have a ladies section and a mixed section..maybe a dude section too.