Men won't be able to do so?
But I don't think you were asking genuinely and just wanted to be snarky without contributing to the conversation :)
To answer the original question, wherever there is any power imbalance, there will be abuse. Priests, teachers, parents vs children; boss vs employee; "vulnerable" females vs "aggressive" males. A man complains about assault by a woman, everyone laughs. A woman complains about assault by a man, he gets thrown in jail.
It comes up from time to time if you watch Uber driver videos. There's a reason why many drivers have a camera that records the interior of the car: alcohol + entitlement can manifest in many ways.
Most commonly, passengers cancel the ride and expect to be driven to their destination anyways. But worse stuff happens from time to time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14385395/leidy-gonz...
Seconds of effort!
https://www.record.com.mx/contra/conductor-acusado-falsament...
hmm...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
> Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
If you have specific examples of stories on those topic that contain factual errors I'd like to see them.
I do know people that have been / are currently victim of that. Except it goes far beyond simple allegations (after marriage breakup).
I'm having a hard time imagining how this topic of conversation would even come up?
Is it that you are either free for all or you can limit to your own sex or a sex of your choice? So could men say they only want woman? What about trans people.
Do we start adding in religion, political affiliation, race, etc etc etc.
Woman not feeling safe with unknown (and largely unvetted) Male drivers (or passengers) is a valid concern. It feels more like a bandaid than an actual fix, but it is an "Easy" solution to a problem. The ideal should be that we don't need this, not that we add in more filters like this. But for many reasons we as a society are not there.
From a purely logical standpoint, if this type of discrimination is tolerated, others should likely also be tolerated.
If other types of discrimination are not tolerated, then this type of discrimination should not be tolerated either.
It's no different than white people not wanting black drivers, and Uber supporting that.
It is the same as asking if you have a preference when you get a massage or go to the doctor since those are more intimate and likely involving a lack of clothes. Something that in those situations you would feel regardless of your gender. As a male I prefer a male doctor, especially when talking about certain topics. I realize logically this is stupid and they are a professional at the end of the day, but that is my reality.
Unlike those however, there is not really a valid reason for a man to say they don't want a female driver/passenger from a comfort or safety standpoint.
We can argue all day long about in an ideal world we would not need this, but that is not our reality.
There is no more valid reason for a woman to say she doesn't want a male driver than a white person to say they don't want a black driver.
Men, as a group, are not dangerous, and there is no reason to discriminate against them. The vast majority of human beings, men included, are nonviolent.
This is a false analogy. Men tend to be 40% to 60% stronger than women and testosterone is well linked with aggressiveness.
A better comparison might be people not wanting civilized chimpanzees for drivers.
If my daughter or wife wants a female driver I am 100% ok with that.
I think you may not have seen many other statistics if you think this disproves the point.
Having a proposed explanation for statistical correlations doesn’t change the amount of danger a driver or passenger is in.
So why would one set of statistics be used to allow discrimination but another not?
I invite you to ask 5 female friends how safe they feel meeting a random male and asking for help where they will be forced to share a confined space.
biological male/female strength difference is factual reality.
Instead of building trust and ensuring that all Uber drivers are trustworthy drivers - they add option to avoid "potentially" less trustworthy drivers. Latter option is cheaper.
And how is this provocative? It seems to be a pretty simple question/observation about the core of the matter