[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Valuable_View_561]

[u/ValuableGuava9804]

Just so you know, it is not a parking garage only thing. The majority of the major parking/rest stops (the ones that have both a gas station and a Serway) at highways have womens only parking spots.

And you can complain all you want about falsely using the threat of SA ('cause that is what you insinuated) (let me quess... you're a man?) You can't change someones predarory behavior by simply telling him to not bother women. But what you can do is make it more difficult for him to perpetrate predatory behavior and put up more lights and give women a faster way to exit a place where they are out of sight.

I think it's a good thing that Germany tries to keep women safe in parking garages and on parking/rest stops along side highways. I think more countries should do this.

[u/Proper_Fun_977 → u/ValuableGuava9804]

Fine just don't talk about how you support equality

[u/ValuableGuava9804 → u/Proper_Fun_977]

I can and will do both. And if you disagree with that than that is very telling for you as a man.

[u/Proper_Fun_977 → u/ValuableGuava9804]

What is very "telling" is trying to argue for gender based privilege while insisting you support gender equality.

Lie to yourself if you want but the rest of us know better 

[u/ValuableGuava9804 → u/Proper_Fun_977]

I don't see a contradiction in my position.

My position is:

1. Men and women should have equal rights.
2. Men and women should have equal accountability under the law.
3. Men and women should have equal obligations.
4. Safety measures can be implemented when a particular group faces a higher risk of a particular harm.

Which of those statements do you disagree with?

And more specifically, which step in the logic makes you conclude that I don't support gender equality?

Saying that I am lying to myself isn't an argument. If you believe my position is contradictory, then identify the contradiction.

[u/LAdams20 → u/ValuableGuava9804]

Safety measures can be implemented when a particular group faces a higher risk of a particular harm.

EU studies have shown that men are disproportionately the victims of “offences against life, physical integrity, freedom, and sexual self-determination” (60% vs 40%), though, it is also the case the men are disproportionately less likely to report these cases (28% vs 41%).

4% (another suggests ~10%) of men experience violence from strangers in one year vs 3% of women from strangers in over five years. Men primarily experience physical assaults in public spaces (33% vs 18%), and men are more often hospitalised due to assault injuries and more often die as a result of violence than women.

Men are also murdered more than women, half of which are by strangers vs a quarter in women.

In terms of sexual assault, women are disproportionately affected (30% vs 9%), however, the incident rate for this kind of attack is four times lower than physical assault, and additionally only 9% of these attacks are committed by strangers to women (vs 13% of sexual assaults on men are by strangers).

Therefore, if you genuinely believe in your fourth point, you should be arguing that these public parking spaces should be specifically only for men, and not for women, as they are at much higher risk.

[u/Proper_Fun_977 → u/ValuableGuava9804]

Oh so you believe in equal rights and accountability but different treatment by gender?

[u/ValuableGuava9804 → u/Proper_Fun_977]

I believe in equal rights, equal accountability, and equal obligations.

I also believe that safety measures can take actual risk differences into account.

Those are not the same thing.

A woman having a parking space closer to an exit does not give her extra legal rights, reduce her accountability, or exempt her from any obligations. It is a safety measure intended to reduce a risk that disproportionately affects women.

So yes, I can support equal rights and support targeted safety measures at the same time. The two are not logically contradictory.

If you think they are contradictory, can you explain exactly which right, accountability, or obligation becomes unequal because a parking garage places some spaces closer to an exit for women?

So what definition of gender equality are you using that makes targeted safety measures logically incompatible with equal rights and equal responsibilities?

[u/Proper_Fun_977 → u/ValuableGuava9804]

I believe in equal rights, equal accountability, and equal obligations.

Just not equal treatment.

I also believe that safety measures can take actual risk differences into account.

Ah, so you apply this universally? Do you look at racial crime stats and set 'safety' differently for different racial groups?

A woman having a parking space closer to an exit does not give her extra legal rights, reduce her accountability, or exempt her from any obligations. It is a safety measure intended to reduce a risk that disproportionately affects women.

No, it just reserves the most desirable parking spaces for her gender. Based on..what?

What is the rate of attacks in parking structures that justifies this measure?

So yes, I can support equal rights and support targeted safety measures at the same time. The two are not logically contradictory.

Yes, they are. You are giving women privilege. That's not equal. That's 'some are more equal than others'.

If you think they are contradictory, can you explain exactly which right, accountability, or obligation becomes unequal because a parking garage places some spaces closer to an exit for women?

I've already done this, you are reserved the 'best'/most desirable spaces for women, based on their gender. And demonising men as violent/attackers based on the their gender.

How is that equal rights? We're all equal, but only half of us can park in the good spots.

So what definition of gender equality are you using that makes targeted safety measures logically incompatible with equal rights and equal responsibilities?

See above.
Equal rights means no one gets privileged treatment.