I completely agree that it is wrong to segregate people unwillingly on buses. People should be allowed to sit where they want on the bus. But what if the riders on the bus want to be segregated? If, for example, and entire city boycotts the bus service because it is not seperated men and women? Is it fair, to now bring in another bus company that is segregated? Is segregation okay, if the ALL the riders WANT the segregation?

Regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, people come in both genders, so I don't think there's anything wrong with segregating people by gender. If I attend a service in a synagogue, with my wife, we have to sit in different sections, don't we? It may be inconvenient and against my preferences, but what harm is there in it? I may prefer to sit with the women or my wife may prefer to sit with the men, but do we have a right to do so on public transportation? I thik that's one case where the majority should prevail, because how is the minority harmed by it?

If all the riders want segregation, can't they just all be careful where they sit? Why the need for rules?

There are some "women only" buses or subway cars in Mexico and Japan, to prevent sexual harrassment. I guess that isn't really 'segregation', though; segregation is about making one group sit at the back.

Jerusalem has sex-segregated buses, but it apparently isn't the case that all riders want them to be - Woman beaten on J'lem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

More on those buses in Israel - Court urges panel to examine 'mehadrin' buses.

The problem there seems to be that not everyone likes the "women to the back in case they provoke the men to lustful thoughts" idea.

NNN, first of all, just because one small group of people behaved inappropriatly doesn't mean that everyone behaves inappropriatly. I have ridden the 'mehadrin' buses many many times, and I always sit in the middle section (there is mixed seating there) and I have never once had a problem.

What I was refering to, was a friend of mine and I were recently talking about a city, which is all charedi, named Beitar Illit. Now Beitar, all the citizens refused to ride the Egged buses because they weren't segregated, and instead hired thier own private bus company. In a situation such as this, where the regular bus company (egged) stopes opperating in the city because no will ride the non-segregated buses, is it still unfair to have the busses segregated?

Also, peole often say mistakenly, that ""omen to the back in case they provoke the men to lustful thoughts." If that were the case then why is it that often the women are the ones inforcing the mehadrin lines? The reason is because religiously they feel that men and women should not mingle without a valid reason. And this is not a valid reason. I asked a friend of mine, why is it that women are in the back and not the men. I was told, that among the charedi communities, it is common for women to get on the busses with strollers, and the strollers are only through the back door. So, since the women are getting on most of the time through the back door anyways, they are the ones sitting in the back.

When I read this post, I had just finished reading a New York Times article (On Single-Sex Buses, Relief From Unwanted Contact) regarding voluntary segregation by the sexes on public buses in Mexico City. I don’t think there is any reason there should have to be segregated buses to protect women from unwanted advances, because men should simply be able to behave themselves. However, if men cannot treat women with the respect they deserve, and women feel safer and more comfortable being segregated, willingly, then I think that is appropriate. It shouldn’t have to be done, but if there isn’t another good solution, then I applaud it. Now if the women were being forced to ride different buses or sit in the back of the bus, that would be different.

If people are separated, whether on sides of a synagogue, different parts of a bus, or different buses altogether, they are being segregated. The word “segregate” has an ominous connotation, but it is not always a bad thing. It is only wrong when it is done against the will of those being segregated. If the women, or both women and men, are calling for the segregation, it should not be objectionable.

I didn't realise there was a mixed middle section, for the uncommitted. Where does the middle start? How do you know you're not pushing the envelope? It all seems unnecessarily complicated.

Travelling on public transport is a valid reason for people to be all jumbled up together, regardless of arbitrary categories.

(Why would strollers have to be loaded at the back doors? What will happen when modern buses, which seem to all generally have ramps or kneel to allow easy access through the front doors, are introduced? Will men go to the back? I doubt it.)

Suppose an overwhelming majority of people in a city insisted that it be boy-girl-boy-girl seating, strictly enforced, on the buses. Wouldn't outsiders just say it was silly? So it is with enforced segregation of the sexes. The world would be an infinitely better place if religious fundamentalists of all varieties gave up ideas that clash with ordinary common sense and consideration.

You say all the citizens of Beitar refused to ride the buses because they weren't segregated. That doesn't make sense. If all the citizens of Beitar wanted women to sit at the back and men at the front, the buses would be - de facto - segregated. Either not all the citizens felt that way, or they were boycotting the bus line because they wanted signs, inspectors and regulations forciing them to do what they were doing anyway - which is really silly.

Finally, acceptance of it by the oppressed doesn't necessarily make oppression acceptable. Up until the latter half of last century, you'd have found plenty of women in Europe and North America saying themselves that their place was in the kitchen, that women couldn't direct companies, govern nations, drive cars, or whatever. They were wrong - conditioned to think that way.

Were there ever 'ladies only' compartments on American trains? They existed in Britain up until the 1960s.In those days the railway carriages (cars) were divided into compartments , each with its own door off a corridor and each with six or eight seats. A few compartments were for women only.The only relic of that practice in Europe is that female passengers in 'couchette' carriages are sometimes given the option of 'female only' carriages and those in sleeping cars have a similar option if taking a double- berthed compartment.

Not true segregation but it's interesting that there was a time when such an arrangement on an ordinary daytime train was thought either desirable or necessary in Britain.

On the topic here, why not have a 'ladies only' area on a bus but leave it to each woman to decide whether she wants to use it or not? That's a similar idea to that of our old 'ladies only' compartments. In time here there was no longer any demand for these compartments.Is there any chance of that in Israel?

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Were there ever 'ladies only' compartments on American trains?

Not that I ever heard of, but I did hear about “ladies only” subway cars in Japan.

They were put into service because the Japanese male passengers were too “touchy feely” and coping feels and rubbing against women on the trains.

Problem nowadays (so I hear ) is that if a woman in Japan does not go into the “ladies only” cars, she is considered fair game and it has actually made the groping problem worse.

Women-only passenger cars. Apparently, they also exist in Egypt, India, Taiwan, Russia, Mexico, the Philippines and (coming this year) Korea. But Koz has a point - the kind of man who'd grope women is surely also the kind likely to conclude that women not using the special cars are "asking for it".

Beitar Illit sounds like an interesting place, apparently "ultra-orthodox".

The city recently brought in a new bus company, which most agree is more reliable than its precursor, particularly for traveling within town. One issue that made it hard to resolve the bus tender was the requirement that buses be bulletproof... www.beitarnews.org

And they're worrying about where everyone sits!

Just an interesting piece of trivia that might reflect on this whole issue. It concerns the first (and superior) Planet of the Apes movie made back in 1968 and something Charlton Heston relayed later.

In the documentary, Mr. Heston recalls lunch breaks during the filming of ''Planet of the Apes.'' Unable to remove their masks and get them back on in time for the afternoon shoot, actors ate with their appliances on, watching intently in mirrors so they wouldn't spear themselves with forks and smoking cigarettes with long holders to prevent setting their heads on fire.

Even off duty there was no break from segregation and the class struggle. ''There'd be a kind of self-segregation,'' Mr. Heston says. ''The gorillas would all eat at one table, the chimpanzees at another, the orangutans at another.''

Men don't change! The very problems raised in Japan were considered in England and commented upon in the C19. Were'ladies only' carriages a good idea?

The following link gives contemporary thoughts. (All the pieces are worthwhile,sometimes because of the reference to women's rights and other insights into the ways of the time as well as for the main topic )

Women on trains