Lyft is introducing a new feature that lets women and non-binary riders choose a preference to match with drivers of the same gender.

The ride-hailing company said it was a “highly requested feature” in a blog post Tuesday, saying the new feature allows women and non-binary people to “feel that much more confident” in using Lyft and also hopefully encourage more women to sign up to be drivers to access its “flexible earning opportunities.”

The service, called “Women+ Connect,” is rolling out in the coming months. Riders can turn on the option in the Lyft app, however the company warns that it’s not a guarantee that they’ll be matched with a women or non-binary person if one of those people aren’t nearby. Both the riders and drivers will need to opt-in to the feature for it work and riders must chose a gender for it to work.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lately we seem to be going backwards in equality. Men are getting shat on, especially those that haven’t even committed the atrocities they are being punished for.

    Why pick and choose who can use the feature to request gender. Make it fair and allow everyone or none.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a lot to unpack here…

      But mostly I suggest you learn about the difference in equity and equality.

      Equality (what you are arguing for) is treating people the same.

      Equity (what this feature promotes) is giving people what they need to be successful.

      Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help. Equity appears unfair, but it actively moves everyone closer to success by “leveling the playing field.”

      Equity involves trying to understand and give people what they need to enjoy full, successful lives. Equality, in contrast, aims to give everyone the same thing, which does not work to create a more equal society, only to preserve the status quo, in the presence of systemic inequalities.

      Given that violent crime in the ride share industry is committed almost universally by men and disproportionately against women, this feature aims to provide equity to support more women as both riders and drivers.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure.

          Are black drivers disproportionately affected by problems in the ride share industry? Yes. Let’s fix that!

      • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        this feature aims to provide equity to support more women as both riders and drivers.

        it aims to provide equity, but through a really shitty and half-assed method that results in systemic discrimination

        Lyft could be vetting their drivers, taking a hardline approach on drivers which are reported, a trusted driver program, etc, anything that would actually be protecting vulnerable people from abusers, but instead went with the easiest most simple minded approach (which also doesn’t protect any vulnerable men) because they have no problem treating their drivers like shit

      • transigence@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not just not allow men to be drivers? Problem solved, equity maximized.
        Neither “equality” nor “equity” involve any amount of equality, equity, fairness, nor justice of any kind. They’re all hot garbage.
        What people need is freedom and liberty maximized, and artificial barriers removed. And don’t expect equal outcomes.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Equity is antithetical to equality. They are oppositional ideals. Either you aim to provide equal opportunity for everyone, or you intentionally limit opportunity to ensure equal outcomes. Democracy and multiculturalism is premised on equality. It seeks to ensure the right of different groups to behave differently and arrive at different outcomes. For example, Asian high-school students spend significantly more time studying and doing homework than any other ethnic or racial group. You can verify these stats yourself by going to the cited source. Unsurprisingly, this group earns more, has higher employment, and lower crime.

        Equity, on the other hand, is authoritarian. To use the example above, it means either forcing Asian children to study less, or forcing children of other ethnicities to study more. There is no room for cultural differences or free expression. Equity is only achievable under an authoritarian system, because in order to achieve it, it requires ensuring every child has exactly the same experience in life. The same amount of homework. The same schools. The same friends and family. The same sports and extracurricular activities. The same hobbies. They must study the same subjects in school and universities. It requires complete homogeneity. No modern society wants this, and the use of the term “equity” is deeply alarming to anyone who considers themselves democratic or liberal in the classical sense.

        • transigence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right. And don’t forget to address the issue of them all being differently situated as a starting condition. You’ll have to kneecap some and put others on wheels.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            In this specific situation no one is kneecapping anyone though. For men nothing changes. Some here in the comments are just butthurt that others get a tiny feature to make it more safe for them. While men didn’t have any change to their safety by being able to just have male drivers.

            It’s literally just people being uncompassionate and angry over nothing.

            • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              For men nothing changes

              if male drivers are deprioritized, that results in them getting less riders and being a second class worker. I think we can all agree that the gig economy is shitty enough already and we dont need to add a caste system on top of it

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is something they do to get more drivers. It was a caste system before because the higher probability of women and non-binary people to get assaulted, harassed, even raped was a factor keeping them away from that job.

                • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is something they do to get more drivers

                  Yes, they introduced a lazy solution to try and make more money

                  It was a caste system before because the higher probability of women and non-binary people to get assaulted

                  That’s not a caste system, and introducing actual systemic discrimination is not a solution to a safety issue.

                  If Lyft actually wanted solutions, they could vet their drivers more, take reports of vulnerable people seriously and give consequences to drivers which act abusive, create a “trusted driver” program, etc, there are tons of solutions that don’t involve discriminating on 3/4 of their drivers because they’re trying to make more money

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol no.

          Equity in this case is providing additional opportunities for education to those who need it.

          • JasSmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Equity in this case is providing additional opportunities for education to those who need it.

            That would be equality. Everyone given the same opportunity to benefit from resources on the basis of need. Equity would be providing additional resources to people on the basis of race, for example, irrespective of their need. The purpose of which to ensure outcomes are equitable.

            • cbarrick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again, no.

              Equity is explicitly about need. Equality is irrespective of need. This is literally the definition I gave at the start of this discussion.

              Obviously to enact equitable policies, you can’t handle things on a case-by-case basis, because that doesn’t scale. You have to find metrics that correlate with need. The only policies that scale are those that target cohorts rather than individuals.

              In the example of school funding, reasonable cohorts can be derived from income level and relatedly (for historical reasons in the US) race.

              • An equitable policy would be to provide additional school funding to impoverished communities.
              • An equal policy would be to provide the same funding to all communities.
              • An unequal policy would be to provide funding in accordance with something inversely proportional to need, like property value.
              • An oblivious policy would be to provide funding in accordance with something orthogonal to need, like the day of the week.

              In the case of ride-share safety for both riders and drivers, gender is a decent axis for defining cohorts.

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe I am missing this in the article but which education is being provided by Lyft?

              You gave an example of a school. It’s really obvious that the above poster was addressing the example that you gave.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you are providing additional X to a subset of people it is by definition not equality. The two are jot compatible.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If the two people didnt start in the exact same place then they were already unequal though. So the equity option just makes them closer to equal, equality is not measured in simply ‘how much you get for free’. I work with people with disabilities getting more ‘free’ support than you or I will ever see, are they more equal than the rest of us for it?

              • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is literally the distinction between equality and equity. There are different words that mean close to similar things.

                • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Because the goal is equality of outcome. Like I said equality between people is not measured in “how much stuff you are given”

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not equal if it gives special treatment to one but not both. Why can’t I request a specific driver as a man. What if I don’t feel safe with a woman driver based on stereotypes like the woman and trans passengers are. If they assume the male driver is going to make comments or passes at them then I as a male passenger should be able to assume the woman driver might be bad and get me in an accident.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Women and non-binary people gain more safety from this. What are men going to gain from a feature letting them have only male drivers?

          It’s such an incredible dumb thing to be mad about.

          • schmidtster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Arguably where is the harm in making it allowable to all for it to be equal?

            Arguably, men can gain more safety too, or are you claiming the same can’t happen to men?

            What an incredibly narrow sighted view point.

                  • schmidtster@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Do you not think traumatized men might not? Me personally no, there’s also women who don’t fear for their life around men.

                    So… what’s your point? It applies to both sexes as I hopefully just helped you with.

                    Or of you the group that think the same can’t apply to men?

                  • transigence@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fearing for your safety from relational aggression from women is completely rational. Women are just as aggressive as men — it just takes a different form.

              • Soulg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The exact same way women and nb people get more safety. You’re not that special. It goes both ways, the rate may be much higher one way, but it exists the other way too.

      • transigence@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What “playing field” are you talking about, what is unequal, and what does this do to supposedly equalize this… playing field?

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Violent attacks like sexual assault are disproportionately done my male drivers upon non-male passengers. Why do you not see how this is unequal?

          • transigence@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess I just have a problem with your phrasing. You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.

            A “playing field” is an analogy for a field of opportunities, like the job market or access to services like education.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.

              What?