Williamsburg Bus Makes Women Sit in the Back

[Boogalou]

Jewess, for that last part I think you were quoting me but responding to everyone as a whole. Now that I have some more info, here is my take on it: if the people riding the buses want to be segregated by gender, fine. I don't really care what they CHOOSE to do. However, every single person on that bus should be able to make their own choice about where to sit without feeling any coercion whatsoever because it is a public bus. Also, segregation should not be enforced in any way because it is against the law, but again if people choose to sit like that I am not going to get on the bus and move them around. Clearly, I disagree about sitting like this, but everyone should be able to choose what they want to do. I think people are more upset about the signs requesting it and any sort of enforcement (and I use this word broadly, even if someone gives a woman a dirty look for sitting in the "wrong" place is still wrong) than individual people making a choice where to sit based on a variety of factors.

tl;dr people are not upset about individuals choices of where to sit they are upset about the dictation of where to sit.

[Bella99]

Jewess, for that last part I think you were quoting me but responding to everyone as a whole. Now that I have some more info, here is my take on it: if the people riding the buses want to be segregated by gender, fine. I don't really care what they CHOOSE to do. However, every single person on that bus should be able to make their own choice about where to sit without feeling any coercion whatsoever because it is a public bus. Also, segregation should not be enforced in any way because it is against the law, but again if people choose to sit like that I am not going to get on the bus and move them around. Clearly, I disagree about sitting like this, but everyone should be able to choose what they want to do. I think people are more upset about the signs requesting it and any sort of enforcement (and I use this word broadly, even if someone gives a woman a dirty look for sitting in the "wrong" place is still wrong) than individual people making a choice where to sit based on a variety of factors.

tl;dr people are not upset about individuals choices of where to sit they are upset about the dictation of where to sit.

Standing and clapping for Boogalou.

[Jewess]

Jewess, for that last part I think you were quoting me but responding to everyone as a whole.

Yea, I was responding to everyone as a whole, but one of the points in your comment inspired that.

Now that I have some more info, here is my take on it: if the people riding the buses want to be segregated by gender, fine. I don't really care what they CHOOSE to do. However, every single person on that bus should be able to make their own choice about where to sit without feeling any coercion whatsoever because it is a public bus. Also, segregation should not be enforced in any way because it is against the law, but again if people choose to sit like that I am not going to get on the bus and move them around. Clearly, I disagree about sitting like this, but everyone should be able to choose what they want to do. I think people are more upset about the signs requesting it and any sort of enforcement (and I use this word broadly, even if someone gives a woman a dirty look for sitting in the "wrong" place is still wrong) than individual people making a choice where to sit based on a variety of factors.

Dirty looks fall under the category of free speech, no? Is freedom to express yourself wrong?

No, you're not going to move other people around, but if you decide to go and sit next to a man, you're forcing him to do what he doesn't want to do, aka sitting next to a woman. Isn't that already forcing your desires/morals on him? How is that any different than him forcing his desires on you?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Thats more in Israel. AFAIK, this particular line in Brooklyn appears to be strictly Hasidic.

Absolutely the "officially segregated vs. not, on public lines" is Israel, yeah. And over there, there are issues (namely, the public bus monopoly situation) that prevented people from "just run your own line already."

With the bus in Brooklyn, people are asking why, if it is truly a Hasidic-only line, it needs to have the public franchise and run as a city bus. Those running it could solve this problem very easily by simply giving up the franchise and going truly private. Otherwise, they have to let people sit where they want to, as per the terms.

At which point, it only managed to hit the news because someone complained. If truly no one complained, no one would ever know. But someone obviously did.

At which point, it makes the news, maybe someone has a protest or sits in on that bus. Too bad so sad, they're allowed to do that by law. But if the normal ridership truly IS all on board (so to speak) with the segregation idea, then such protests will annoy for a short time, then die down, and the status quo would resume, with people all satisfied again - IF they are truly satisfied. Heck, if everyone on the bus really does agree that women should "be sensitive" and happily sit at the back, there would never be a need for the signs to start with because everyone would be voluntarily segregating already.

But if local riders are actually complaining about it, still, then there's a real issue and the bus either needs to give up the franchise and go private, or keep any segregation entirely voluntary.

Same with those sidewalk signs, really - if people were truly all on board with the program and stepping aside when a man walks by, there would be no need for the signs. But someone obviously felt a need to put them up, and absolutely you can find complaints about the whole idea, particularly coming from women with strollers.

[JesusFightClub]

Okay, if anyone knows of a neighborhood like this, please let me know, because it would be epic. Just sayin'.

Yeah, this is how it's starting to sound to me, as well, and I actually do understand some of the reasoning behind the black hats and modest dresses and stuff. I guess it would be disrespectful of me to go through Compton wearing a blue hoodie. And by "disrespectful," I mean "a great way to get shot in the face."

Hahaha! I was going to say I want to live in assless chaps world, but considering some of my neighbours, noooooo ;)

If one wears the wrong football colours, like your LA gang example, into the wrong area...well you just had better not. But this is not a good thing and it is not cultural diversity. It's just wrong.

It reminds me of Northern Ireland, does it feel the same way to you?

[Jewess]

Absolutely the "officially segregated vs. not, on public lines" is Israel, yeah. And over there, there are issues (namely, the public bus monopoly situation) that prevented people from "just run your own line already."

Uhuh. That.

With the bus in Brooklyn, people are asking why, if it is truly a Hasidic-only line, it needs to have the public franchise and run as a city bus. Those running it could solve this problem very easily by simply giving up the franchise and going truly private. Otherwise, they have to let people sit where they want to, as per the terms.

I agree with you. I do think they should just go truly private.

At which point, it only managed to hit the news because someone complained. If truly no one complained, no one would ever know. But someone obviously did.

At which point, it makes the news, maybe someone has a protest or sits in on that bus. Too bad so sad, they're allowed to do that by law. But if the normal ridership truly IS all on board (so to speak) with the segregation idea, then such protests will annoy for a short time, then die down, and the status quo would resume, with people all satisfied again - IF they are truly satisfied. Heck, if everyone on the bus really does agree that women should "be sensitive" and happily sit at the back, there would never be a need for the signs to start with because everyone would be voluntarily segregating already.

I think the point of the signs was for the rabble rousers who were coming on just to stir up trouble, and not because the Hasidim who ride the bus don't want to sit segregated.

But if local riders are actually complaining about it, still, then there's a real issue and the bus either needs to give up the franchise and go private, or keep any segregation entirely voluntary.

AFAIK, the only riders who were complaining about it were people who heard about the signs, and wanted to go ride it just to prove how "terrible those evil hassidim are", and those people aren't the regular riders and wouldn't have ridden the bus ever if they hadn't heard about the segregation.

[pomology]

OMG, I want to go to a lesbian neighborhood where it is demanded that everyone wear flannel button down shirts. I'm straight, but I love me some flannel shirts and I would be so happy to go somewhere where it is seen as the norm and attractive.

[Boogalou]

Yea, I was responding to everyone as a whole, but one of the points in your comment inspired that. Dirty looks fall under the category of free speech, no? Is freedom to express yourself wrong?

No, you're not going to move other people around, but if you decide to go and sit next to a man, you're forcing him to do what he doesn't want to do, aka sitting next to a woman. Isn't that already forcing your desires/morals on him? How is that any different than him forcing his desires on you?

OK, I mis-typed. People are allowed to shoot dirty looks to their heart's content. If I sit next to a man and he is offended he can get up and move or stand. Obviously, if I followed him around that would be incredibly rude and disrespectful, but just sitting down is not. This is all really moot anyway. Here is my main point

People are not upset about individuals choices of where to sit they are upset about the dictation of where to sit because this is a publicly funded bus and gendered segregation is against the law. That's it.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

But that's just it - if ALL the regular riders are 100% okay with the idea that women should sit behind the men on the bus, why would they need the sign? Heck, why do they need half the posters that get put up all the time? Why did they need those sidewalk signs about women stepping aside, if women were already stepping aside?

As far as the bus line goes, it can't be about "rabble rousers who were offended by the sign" - in that situation where all the locals were perfectly happy to voluntarily segregate, there never would have BEEN a sign to start with. It's chicken and egg. Someone clearly felt riders needed to be reminded.

But yes, I do think we agree that the bus line should just give up its franchise and go truly private. If people then want to complain that it will be too expensive, I have no sympathy, because you don't get to use public money to run what amounts to an OFFICIALLY private club - you have to settle for de-facto, in which case they'd need to remove the sign and just deal with the occasional (occasional, as in, after any protest dies off) person bucking the system.

[defrauding]

AFAIK, the only riders who were complaining about it were people who heard about the signs, and wanted to go ride it just to prove how "terrible those evil

hassidim are", and those people aren't the regular riders and wouldn't have ridden the bus ever if they hadn't heard about the segregation.

So? Segregation on public transit is illegal, regardless of ridership demographics. People are right to point it out even if it doesn't directly affect them.

If a company providing public transit service in an all-white neighborhood had a policy of racially segregated seating, would you fault a group of African Americans coming from another community just to ride the bus line in protest?

Also, I think I'm developing a slight crush on FaustianSlip.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

In an update, it looks like the city is going to pull the charter if they don't officially get rid of the segregation policy (of course people can still self-segregate if they truly all just want to do that, down to the individual level). Apparently no city money was going to the line (dunno about other money) so it shouldn't even be a hardship.

[Jewess]

So? Segregation on public transit is illegal, regardless of ridership demographics. People are right to point it out even if it doesn't directly affect them.

If a company providing public transit service in an all-white neighborhood had a policy of racially segregated seating, would you fault a group of African Americans coming from another community just to ride the bus line in protest?

Thats not a good comparison. Because then there would be no African Americans at the back of the bus, because its an all white neighborhood, and if there were, I'm sure the African Americans would have an issue with this. Which the people riding the bus don't,

[Jewess]

In an update, it looks like the city is going to pull the charter if they don't officially get rid of the segregation policy (of course people can still self-segregate if they truly all just want to do that, down to the individual level). Apparently no city money was going to the line (dunno about other money) so it shouldn't even be a hardship.

What does it mean "pull the charter"? Now they just officially won't be the B110 or whatever, but just a private bus with no number?

And yea, as far as I had understood it, no city money was going to the line, so its not tax money paying for this, which is what confused me even more.

And as for why the signs, well for example, someone like myself. I wouldn't chose to make a bus segregated, but have no problem with segregated buses. But lets say I'm not from the area/community, but I'm taking the bus to get to where I needed to go. (I used to live in flatbush, when I would go to williamsburg for Shabbat I'd take the bus to boro park, and then take this bus to williamsburg.) If there were no signs, and the bus were pretty empty, maybe I wouldn't realize that this is a segregated bus, so the signs just would be letting me know about something I have no problem complying with.

I remember once getting on a bus in Jerusalem, taking a seat at the front, and then only realize afterward that it was a mehadrin style bus, that I was the only woman in the front among 30 men, and that the women were in the back section of the bus. It was Friday, and the bus was pretty packed, and there wasn't really room for me to make my way to the back (women got on via the back door so they were able to get to the back(, so I stayed where I sat, (and for the record, not one person made a single comment to me) and it was just sooooo awkward the whole entire bus ride. I'd never felt more embarassed, honestly. If there had been a sign "Women enter and sit in the back", it would have saved me that really strong feeling of awkwardness....

[Buzzard]

I will respect their desire to seperate the sexes on their own property and in a closed community on private property - where ALL people that come in contact have accepted the rules and agree the abide by them. They must have a private charter and ONLY their members can purchase tickets. Being private doesnt make it "kosher" - being exclusive does. It would be most certainly absurd and illegal if Delta began making the women sitting in the back of the plane.

What strikes me as a dick move isnt so much that they did it, but that they put the women in the back. They know they have the babies/strollers etc. How fucking hard is it for the men to sit in the back?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

As far as I know, yeah. It would just be a private bus then - and people don't usually refer to it by the number anyway.

For what it's worth, you can find community members complaining about this bus in 2009 on sites like Vos Iz Neias. Apparently the women's section would fill up while there were still seats in front, and yet men not being willing to move a few seats forward, that sort of thing. Buses just not stopping for waiting passengers because they're women and the women's section is full. It's mentioned too that not all of the passengers are community members. Those areas are hardly homogeneous. Plus plenty of people take the subway, and that's not only not segregated but also filled with scantily clad people in the summer.

And as for the signs - sure. Someone (but NOT a purposeful protester, as you seemed to imply earlier) would get on this bus and not know about the segregation policy. And the sign tells them, hey, this bus is segregated. It's attempting to coerce behavior, even if just as a "friendly reminder."

But if you enforce that, or let the passengers enforce that by group action, it's ILLEGAL. That is the entirety of the problem. You can't do that on an NYC public bus. If someone decides they want to sit at the front and be stared at, they've a right to.

Private bus seems like a good compromise. In order to make it work though they'd probably have to switch to fare cards and then only sell those to members, or something.

As for men at the back, the issue is they don't want to look at women. But, someone suggested they could flip all the seats backwards... though then it's expensive to get those special buses I guess. Others have suggested to just run two (again, private) lines, one for men and one for women, since apparently that bus is overcrowded anyway and hasn't had any expansion in years.

[Guest Anonymous]

What strikes me as a dick move isnt so much that they did it, but that they put the women in the back. They know they have the babies/strollers etc. How fucking hard is it for the men to sit in the back?

If the men sat at the back they would have to look at the ZOMFG dirty women.

[Buzzard]

If the men sat at the back they would have to look at the ZOMFG dirty women.

Of course! And they'd have to walk past them to get to their seats... the images burned in their brains... they wont be able to concentrate on when they have to get off the bus because they'll be distracted by their uncontrolled desire!

I propose mandatory shock cockrings to ride the bus. Get a little chub and ZAP! That'll keep em concentrating on prayer!

[defrauding]

Thats not a good comparison. Because then there would be no African Americans at the back of the bus, because its an all white neighborhood, and if there were, I'm sure the African Americans would have an issue with this. Which the people riding the bus don't,

Rereading your posts, I get the sense that you view "having a policy of segregation that affects nobody in practice" and "having a policy of segregation and actively enforcing it" as separate things. Both, however, are illegal when you provide public transit in the United States.

And as others have pointed out, this bus line's policy of segregation does affect people in practice.

Edited for clarity.

[Jewess]

As for men at the back, the issue is they don't want to look at women. But, someone suggested they could flip all the seats backwards... though then it's expensive to get those special buses I guess. Others have suggested to just run two (again, private) lines, one for men and one for women, since apparently that bus is overcrowded anyway and hasn't had any expansion in years.

I think the best solution regarding men and women is what they have on the Monsey Trails bus- theres a curtain going along the aisle of the bus, men sit on one side, women on the other. No one is "in the back", and no one can see each other.

[Jewess]

Rereading your posts, I get the sense that you view "having a policy of segregation that affects nobody in practice" and "actively enforcing a policy of segregation" as separate things. In the eyes of the law, however, both are illegal when you provide public transit.

Yea, I guess.

But my thing that I don't get is- what effectively makes this be "public transit" if its run by a private company and doesn't get any city money... and as far as I remember, you didn't even pay for it with a Metro card, you paid with a different type of card...

[defrauding]

But my thing that I don't get is- what effectively makes this be "public transit" if its run by a private company and doesn't get any city money... and as far as I remember, you didn't even pay for it with a Metro card, you paid with a different type of card...

The company has a contract with the city to provide a public service in place of the city providing the service itself. It's like a city hiring a private company to sweep the streets rather than having the Department of Public Works do it.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

It is listed on MTA schedules, has an MTA number, and makes it so the city doesn't provide a line for that area as it's "covered."

Now other articles say there IS a subsidy from the MTA - which honestly makes more sense to me, because if there were no subsidy at all from the MTA, what would be the incentive to run as an MTA line? As it is now, people pay with cash, the bus doesn't take normal fare cards.

But anyway, reading around it seems that actually it's not always a homogeneous population riding that bus (it varies by time of day too) and I will say that from a whole variety of other background reading not related to this bus incident, I do not buy the idea that the community itself (however one might define that) is actually of one mind on the gender separation issue either, particularly in "how far should we go." But some voices carry more weight than others.

[defrauding]

Now other articles say there IS a subsidy from the MTA - which honestly makes more sense to me, because if there were no subsidy at all from the MTA, what would be the incentive to run as an MTA line?

You don't have to worry about the city setting up a competing route and cutting into your profits.

I looked up the company using the FHWA's National Transit Database, and I don't see any subsidies listed. That said, I believe private transportation companies in that region get other sorts of incentives.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Good point. I suppose there's also just the "public confidence" issue, plus advertising - the bus is listed on all the usual schedules, and people will recognize it's a legitimate service. Of course, that's means segregation can't be allowed to happen, since it makes the city complicit in it.

[Bella99]

As far as I know, yeah. It would just be a private bus then - and people don't usually refer to it by the number anyway.

For what it's worth, you can find community members complaining about this bus in 2009 on sites like Vos Iz Neias. Apparently the women's section would fill up while there were still seats in front, and yet men not being willing to move a few seats forward, that sort of thing. Buses just not stopping for waiting passengers because they're women and the women's section is full. It's mentioned too that not all of the passengers are community members. Those areas are hardly homogeneous. Plus plenty of people take the subway, and that's not only not segregated but also filled with scantily clad people in the summer.

And as for the signs - sure. Someone (but NOT a purposeful protester, as you seemed to imply earlier) would get on this bus and not know about the segregation policy. And the sign tells them, hey, this bus is segregated. It's attempting to coerce behavior, even if just as a "friendly reminder."

But if you enforce that, or let the passengers enforce that by group action, it's ILLEGAL. That is the entirety of the problem. You can't do that on an NYC public bus. If someone decides they want to sit at the front and be stared at, they've a right to.

Private bus seems like a good compromise. In order to make it work though they'd probably have to switch to fare cards and then only sell those to members, or something.

As for men at the back, the issue is they don't want to look at women. But, someone suggested they could flip all the seats backwards... though then it's expensive to get those special buses I guess. Others have suggested to just run two (again, private) lines, one for men and one for women, since apparently that bus is overcrowded anyway and hasn't had any expansion in years.

Regarding the part I bolded, it is this kind of dickish behavior that is so infuriating. Would it kill you to change seats so that a woman could get where she needs to go? Apparently women are the only ones supposed to exercise courtesy and consideration. Don't want to have to look at women? Blindfold yourself and hire a sighted person to guide you around. You are not so special that 1/2 the world's population should have to become invisible.