Not the best idea but I don't think he is trying to belittle women. We have progressive countries like Japan running women only train carriages. At the end of the day, if there is customer demand for women only carriages, why not? We have numerous places where they have women only sessions, like swimming baths, gyms etc. If the demand is there from women, I can't see a problem with it.
Japan may be technologically progressive, but socially, particularly in regards to women, they aren't. "The status of women in Japan is complex and cannot be characterized in simple terms. Slowly, there is a growing number of professional women and professional women’s associations. More women continue to work after getting married and having children. However many companies have separate programs for women, usually non-career track, and follow practices that would be considered discriminatory in other societies. For a typical couple, the female spouse is still generally expected to do all of the cleaning, cooking and other chores, whether she is working or not. Mass media often report that women in Japan are more “genki” (vigorous, active) than their male counterparts. Single women are said to be enjoying their lives, spending much money on travel abroad and shopping. Housewives are active in networking themselves for various objectives, e.g. volunteer activities, co-op, community services, recycle activities, study circles, and many others. The traditional Japanese value of “ryo-sai ken-bo” (“good wife, good mother”) is changing. Unlike other countries where a “couple” is the usual social unit, in Japan it is typical for only the husband to be invited to business gatherings or to weddings for company employees. Exceptions are frequently made for foreign visitors depending on the occasion, but female spouses should not take their exclusion as a personal slight. Japanese women, on the other hand, usually hold their own women-only functions, including overnight trips to hot springs. It is quite common for two colleagues who have been working together for a lifetime not to have ever met the other’s family. Western visitors, particularly women, are frequently appalled at some of the blatant sexist attitudes manifested in the popular media and entertainment industry." That's the first thing on women in japan when I google "attitudes towards women in japan". There's plenty more articles about the role of Japanese women and how it is starting to change. So I wouldn't use them as a benchmark for how to treat women
Totally agree with this, it's a big reason the Labour vote has been diminishing for so long - they essentially agree (or abstain) with Tory policy, but if that appeals to you, then you'd vote Tory. It leaves everyone else feeling disenfranchised, and so they go over to the Lib Dems 1st, then UKIP, Greens and the National parties, or even stop voting altogether. As such I can't see how anyone could say that Liz or Yvette in particular (but Andy as well to an extent) are electable, as they'd just continue to mirror the Tories with the same diminishing results...
IMO it is awkward, and is not a good idea (at least not without some well thought out and careful planning), surely better to change attitudes. But he isn't talking about segregation, he's talking about allowing people to have safety from sexual attack, though I think some of his other progressive and pro-feminist ideas are much more on the ball.
At the end of the day, every country has their own cultures and unique behaviour. Just because Japan doesn't subscribe to a western model doesn't mean they aren't progressive and content in their own ways. There is numerous examples of exploitation in western society that need to be tackled, before they can start critisiing other countries of their treatment of women.
It's not because japan doesn't subscribe to a western view on women, it's because women aren't on equal footing and it's only recently they have started to move towards a more fair position in society. That's not to say we've already got everything right, but we are further along the same path they now appear to be walking. Why would we then choose to go backwards?
As I've stated before, there are plenty of examples of women only places and events, so its not really going backwards. But hopefully with Corbyn bringing it up, more awareness can be brought about this problem. We've made social steps in the right direction, but we still need a lot more work to be made for a more equitable society.
I always think there's a serious issue with attitudes in this country and how to help educate and inspire people early enough, this would help with attacks on women and with attacks on minorities and Islamaphobia, as well as help a bit in young Britons being radicalised. I was disappointed that in the last husting, all the leadership candidates, but in particular Liz and Andy were talking more about radicalisation of Muslims, rather than racism and bigotry against them. I think if we brought people up to not buy into the fear of 'them' (whoever they maybe at any given time), and instead be open and accepting of other people, other genders, other cultures ect then it would help with quite a few social problems. Highlight how wrong it is to hate a particular group, or (for example) see women as weak and vulnerable, or possessions, then it may make people think twice.
Corbyn didn't suggest women-only train carriages. It was suggested to him and he said that he'd prefer to focus on safety as a whole, but he'd look intoit and consult people about it, basically. The media preferred to report it inaccurately, though. He should get very, very used to that happening.
I found what Corbyn actually said and it is a lot different from what is reported (strange that - usually the press are so honest and trustworthy). Here it is "Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop, on the mode of transport itself. However I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.”
Wow that is totally different to how it was portrayed in some newspapers. I should have known better!
Those are experts in their field, leading professors and economists, not some random nobodies off the street. I'd value their opinion over a cretinous nomark like you
No need for insults, BG. People basically won't change their minds about things over internet arguments, but others reading the comments might. Slagging people off just puts people's backs up, even if you think they're being totally unreasonable.
First of all, I find his views to be repulsive and I refuse to show courtesy to someone who has no consideration and shows no symapathy for anyone else. Second of all, he has insulted me countless times in the past, so if he's going to dish it out, he has to take it as well. You reap what you sow.
Nope, he has made it abundantly clear that what he types on this forum are his genuine values & beliefs. He is an aggressive poster, so if he's going to act in such a way, I will treat him like that too.
A Bible quote, PNP? Very unlike you! Besides, I'm fairly sure I can recall you engaging in a war of words with certain posters on this site too.
I can quote scripture. I'm versatile! I generally get involved in wars of words when I'm trying to get someone to say something stupid or tie themselves up. If they're already saying something stupid, then I don't need to help them along.
