Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

China shopping centre builds 'car park for women'

A shopping centre in China's Hebei province has built a car park with wider spaces that it says is designed especially to suit women drivers.

The women-only car park in Shijiazhuang city is also painted in pink and light purple to appeal to female tastes.

Official Wang Zheng told AFP news agency the car park was meant to cater to women's "strong sense of colour and different sense of distance".

The parking bays are one metre (3ft) wider than normal spaces, he said.

The Wanxiang-Tiancheng shopping centre had also "installed signs and security monitoring equipment that corresponded more to women's needs", he said.

The Global Times website says female parking attendants have been trained to help guide women drivers into their parking spaces. The bays also have extra lighting.

Driving in China is a dangerous activity, with more than 200 deaths in road accidents each day last year, AFP reports, citing police statistics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8432887.stm

Maybe making the driving test a little harder would help.
If you cant park in a bay, then you shouldnt be driving 0_o

No wonder there are so many deaths due to driving.

Female parking attendants?

I'd park there

You couldnt make it up.

That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

All I know She Who Must Be Obeyed has determined that minor things like paint stripes, curbs, etc. are merely "guidelines." As such, I would welcome such a lot here.

Bah, we need traffic lanes for women drivers. Lets us men avoid accidents and sunday driving on a Monday afternoon.

Owain wrote:That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

Owain wrote:That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

Owain wrote:That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

I can't even begin to tell you how hilarious I find your extremely appropriate multi-post...

Owain wrote:That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

Political correctness is one of the biggest oxymorons out there, it is political, but rarely is it correct.

China doesnt kowtow to sensibilities, in this and other things. Sometimes its a little heavy handed but 'diferent sense of distance' that is putting it gently enough. If the feminist lobbies wont see that, stuff em.

I would welcome larger parking spots, simply so that a-holes with mega-SUV's won't have to take up two of them or park so close you can't open the doors.

Lol i would love extra large parking spots when i learn to drive.

Why is it offensive?

Orlanth wrote:
China doesnt kowtow to sensibilities, in this and other things. Sometimes its a little heavy handed but 'diferent sense of distance' that is putting it gently enough. If the feminist lobbies wont see that, stuff em.

What studies have indicated that the female sex is more sensitive to color, and lacking with respect to depth perception?

warpcrafter wrote:I would welcome larger parking spots, simply so that a-holes with mega-SUV's won't have to take up two of them or park so close you can't open the doors.

Same, though it isn't just people with SUVs.

Orlanth wrote:

Owain wrote:That's... a little offensive, isn't it? "different sense of distance"?

Political correctness is one of the biggest oxymorons out there, it is political, but rarely is it correct.

China doesnt kowtow to sensibilities, in this and other things. Sometimes its a little heavy handed but 'diferent sense of distance' that is putting it gently enough. If the feminist lobbies wont see that, stuff em.

Allright, I need help. Is this satire, or is he really that much of a ?

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
China doesnt kowtow to sensibilities, in this and other things. Sometimes its a little heavy handed but 'diferent sense of distance' that is putting it gently enough. If the feminist lobbies wont see that, stuff em.

What studies have indicated that the female sex is more sensitive to color, and lacking with respect to depth perception?

Well cavemen worked it out, and everyone else since until PC dogma overrode biological facts very recently. Its true apart from the bit about increased sensitivity to colour, that was just the Chinese being kind.

Women have a wider angle vision than men, they can also multi task better, but conversely depth perception is relatively poor and hand eye coordination. Essentially its all about human ancestry, males threw the spears and needed focus vision, womens wide angle vision kept an eye out for berries to eat, where the kids were and any nearby predators at the same time.

You might as well argue that women have equal physical strength because its more fair to beleive such. Fairness and equality has nothing to do with biological reality.

Right-o satire it is because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

Bookwrack wrote:Right-o satire it is because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

Well sort of satire. let me test you with this: Must a PC equality driven male believe an average woman can brench press the same kilos as an average man. If you dont you beleive they do would you be a horrid sexist male peeg?
If you dont beleive that why is it so hard to beleive that the sexes are different in other ways? Before anyone gets on the dogma trip about inequality etc, if you read up you will see there are other differences too, some give women the advantage.

For example the wide angle vision is sen as true, and in relatiion to cars because women can see at wider angles can see incoming traffic better, they are also less prone to on road agresssion for other biological reasons (most of the time). All told many companies offer insurance discounts to women drivers. Now if men got the discounts on the grounds that they are less likely to prang a car while parking (which is very true) the feminist lobby and the dogma swallowers would no doubt complain. Its ok if the politicised minority gets the advantage though yes? Men get no insurance advatages, only women do. If car companies say women are safer drivers enough to skew insurance opportunitiers the point its not challenged because it doesn't challenge the dogma of feminism or male apologism.

Allowing for the real differences in proven biology, and corresponding advantagers between the sexes why is it so hard to beleive that men have better depth perception? Only the convention that a man saying he is better than a woman at anything except raw physical strength is just not acceptable in the dogma driven world of today. The only reason increased strength is acceptable is because even the most hardened femeinst and male apologist finds it hard to deny.

I think I have explained enough, of course there are exceptions, wide angle seeing men, women with targeter vison and women with huge muscles and male wimps. But exceptions dont prove a rule, statistically there are marked differences between the sexes beyond morphology, even the most asleep PC apologist should be able to detect that. when some cant accept this, we really cant help much further. tIf they wont accept this becasue it offends their preassigned view of reality you will come across my satire. I am more than happy to laugh at the politically correct, and with good reason because the factually correct are seldom in agreement with them.

Orlanth wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Right-o satire it is because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

Well sort of satire. ?Becauase as tghe PC equality male you mujst of course beleive an average woman can brench press the same kilos as an average man. If you dont you must bwe oh so horrid sexist.

You beleive that, if you dont why is it so hard to beleive that the sexes are different in other ways. Before anyone gets on the dogma trip about inequality etc, if you read up you will see there are other differences too, some give wiomen the advantage.

For example the wide angle vision is sen as true, and women because they can see at wider angles can see incomiong traffic better, they are also less prone to agresssion. All told many companies offer insurance discounts to women drivers. Now if men got the dicounts on the grounds that they are less likely to prang a car while parking (which is very true) the feminist lobby and the dogma swallowers would no doubt complain. Its ok if the politicised minority gets the advantage though yes. Men get no insurance advatages, only owmen do. If car companies say women are asafer drivers and can prove the point its not challenged because it doesnt challenge the dogma of feminism or male apologism.

Allowing for the ereal differences in proven biology, and corresponding advantagers between the sexes why is it so hard to beleive that men have better depth perception? Only the convention that a man saying he is better than a woman at anything except raw physical strength is just not acceptable in the dogma drioven world of today. The only reason incrased strength is acceptable is because even the most hardened femeinst and male apologist finds it hard to deny.

I think I have explained enough, of course there are exceptions, wide angle seeing men, women with targeter vison and women with huge muscles and male wimps. But exceptions dont prove a rule, statistically there are marked differences between the sexes beyond morphology. If you cant accept this, I canv really help you much further. If you wont accept this becasue it offends your view of reality you will come across my satire. I am more than happy to laugh at the politically correct, with good reason because the correct reality is on our side.

I agree with the basic concept of what you say, but on the side I have to ask if you're a bit looped. Your spelling is way off from what it usually is, and you seem way pissed off.

I speed type so my first draft is usually very poor.
Hence the edit done while you were typing.

I am a literate and educated man, but too many of my posts dont show this very well. please remember though that internet texts should be reasd as speech not prose, diction analysed acordingly.

Also posts appear far crabbier than they actually are. I am quite calm and having fun at the moment.

The idea that I might be a sexist because I beleive that there are areas in which men are better than women is not a challnge, its an easy stand point to defend. So no angry defence is required.

Orlanth wrote:
Well cavemen worked it out, and everyone else since until PC dogma overrode biological facts very recently. Its true apart from the bit about increased sensitivity to colour, that was just the Chinese being kind.

You seem to like this word fact a lot, but rarely seem to substantiate the articles its being attached to. In many ways you're simply asking rhetorical questions, and leaving out the question mark. Ultimately its just a means of hiding the weakest component of an argument.

Orlanth wrote:
Women have a wider angle vision than men, they can also multi task better, but conversely depth perception is relatively poor and hand eye coordination.

On average, this is true. However, average is not all. There is a very strong body of evidence which supports the notion that genetics only go so far in determining how a given being will develop. Environmental stimuli is very nearly as important in determining individual capacities.

Orlanth wrote:
You might as well argue that women have equal physical strength because its more fair to beleive such. Fairness and equality has nothing to do with biological reality.

No, that's really not the same thing. Its well documented that women carry, on average, less muscle mass when compared to men of the same age. In fact, its very easy to determine that the disparity is significant enough to legitimately disqualify most women from certain jobs. Most, but not all. If a woman can reliably lift, and carry 60 pounds throughout the course of a day, then she should be able to hold a job with that requirement. Its a matter of individual capacity, not the average abilities of a human sex. That's the point of anti-discrimination laws. Not to make people believe that women are equal to men, but that simply being a woman does not prevent any given person from performing any given task (short of properly using a urinal).

As far is this applies to parking spaces: the question is not about the differences between male and female vision, but whether or not those differences are sufficient to significantly impact the ability of women to park cars vis a vis men.

You have a very strange understanding of feminism.

dogma wrote:
You have a very strange understanding of feminism.

I understand equal opportunities well enough thankyou. I grew up with Thatcherism, and am in no illusions that you can still do the tough jobs with a XX chromosome pair.

In fact the idea that women should be restricted in opportunity is pretty much unthinkable to me. However gender differences exist and there is a lot of denial about that, maily on a point of dogma. Gender equality and feminism are two different things, feminism should have been expended by now, the job is lagely done, but its still there and is growing spikes.

@Dogma,

I know people running artillery that ,in the interests of PC had to have a woman on the guns with them. She was too weak to carry her load, even though she power lifted, and the men ended up having to do her job as well as their own. Thye couldn't get rid of her because of the whole PC angle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Orlanth,

No argument from me about your literacy. That's why I remarked about your post before your edit. It seemed not your usual standard, but I understand now.

Relapse wrote:
@Orlanth,

No argument from me about your literacy. That's why I remarked about your post before your edit. It seemed not your usual standard, but I understand now.

Thats odd, the unedited post you quoted is nothing like as bad as many I have posted, and the edit still contains many typos that i just keep on missing. for some reason I cannot easily see typos in a text wndow, but they stare back at me in the posted thread for some reason.

@Orlanth,

I haven't seen all of your posts, but the ones I have are usually pretty well done.

Orlanth wrote:
However gender differences exist and there is a lot of denial about that, maily on a point of dogma. Gender equality and feminism are two different things, feminism should have been expended by now, the job is lagely done, but its still there and is growing spikes.

As a matter of precision: you're talking about sexual equality, not gender equality. Sex is genetically determined, while gender deals with the manner in which sexual characteristics are perceived. There are 2 sexes (more if you consider transsexuals to be their own sex/es), and a far larger number of potential genders (though most people attribute 4 to Western society).

As far as 'spiky' feminism goes: I don't know what your experience is, as I've not spent a lot of time in England, but it seems kind of odd to me that feminism would be considered 'spiky' today when laid against the 1st and 2nd wave projects of the past. Certainly there are a lot of former radicals in positions of power with respect to the movement, but they're the remnants of a movement that has since left them behind. At least that's how it appears in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I know people running artillery that ,in the interests of PC had to have a woman on the guns with them. She was too weak to carry her load, even though she power lifted, and the men ended up having to do her job as well as their own. Thye couldn't get rid of her because of the whole PC angle.

The military has a whole mountain of problems with respect to sexual and gender integration. Simply put, no one really knows what to do about it, and the only concerted voice seems to be "kick out the women and the queers". Ultimately, I blame the lack of an in-depth look at how to handle the issue. I think that, in part, this comes from the fact that the vast majority of people who think seriously about military policy have little to no experience dealing with the PC police (or gender theory, for that matter). As such, they tend to err on the side of caution in order to avoid any potential controversy at all. In short, its not a matter of overbearing feminists, or even misguided individuals in positions of power, but simply fear derived from ignorance.

dogma wrote:As far as 'spiky' feminism goes: I don't know what your experience is, as I've not spent a lot of time in England, but it seems kind of odd to me that feminism would be considered 'spiky' today when laid against the 1st and 2nd wave projects of the past. Certainly there are a lot of former radicals in positions of power with respect to the movement, but they're the remnants of a movement that has since left them behind. At least that's how it appears in the US.

Try being the only male in a English Lit. class while studying A Street Car Named Desire, alot of 'men are this...' talk and i bore the brunt of it.

on the women in military, there are some roles they cannot do (but there are alot of men that couldn't do the either), but look at the isralie army, there are women that could snap your neck before you could pull a gun on them. i do believe it is biological, Sex Differences in the Brain; The Hidden Mind; Special Editions; by Doreen Kimura is an interesting read on the subject of differences between male and female brains. In another research project it was shown the transsexuals, both male to female and female to male brains (of the dead), had sections of brain that were structured in the same way as the opposite sex of their birth (i can't remember the journal details).

But i do think 'sexist' programs like this, such as women only taxi services, do reduce sexual crimes against women.

BluntmanDC wrote:
Try being the only male in a English Lit. class while studying A Street Car Named Desire, alot of 'men are this...' talk and i bore the brunt of it.

I've got sympathy for that. I took a few gender theory classes in college, and was not only 1 of 3 men in an average class of 20, but the only straight person in the room. I always got asked for the 'masculine' perspective, which usually ended up with me pointing out that asking that question of me could only done on grounds of 'justified' stereotyping. Oh, and one of my teachers wore a half-cape.

BluntmanDC wrote:
on the women in military, there are some roles they cannot do (but there are alot of men that couldn't do the either), but look at the isralie army, there are women that could snap your neck before you could pull a gun on them. i do believe it is biological, Sex Differences in the Brain; The Hidden Mind; Special Editions; by Doreen Kimura is an interesting read on the subject of differences between male and female brains. In another research project it was shown the transsexuals, both male to female and female to male brains (of the dead), had sections of brain that were structured in the same way as the opposite sex of their birth (i can't remember the journal details).

Its a really interesting subject. Looking at some of the more recent research on physical development it seems as though biology is only the beginning of the game. It establishes a range within which one can be expected to fall, while physical experience accounts for the actual fulfillment of potential. Basically, a woman who grows up playing football, tennis, and basketball is going to be inherently stronger and faster than she would have been otherwise (not just in terms of muscular development, but in terms of biochemical balance).

BluntmanDC wrote:
But i do think 'sexist' programs like this, such as women only taxi services, do reduce sexual crimes against women.

Yeah, that's probably true.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I know people running artillery that ,in the interests of PC had to have a woman on the guns with them. She was too weak to carry her load, even though she power lifted, and the men ended up having to do her job as well as their own. Thye couldn't get rid of her because of the whole PC angle.

The military has a whole mountain of problems with respect to sexual and gender integration. Simply put, no one really knows what to do about it, and the only concerted voice seems to be "kick out the women and the queers". Ultimately, I blame the lack of an in-depth look at how to handle the issue. I think that, in part, this comes from the fact that the vast majority of people who think seriously about military policy have little to no experience dealing with the PC police (or gender theory, for that matter). As such, they tend to err on the side of caution in order to avoid any potential controversy at all. In short, its not a matter of overbearing feminists, or even misguided individuals in positions of power, but simply fear derived from ignorance.

If I wasn't getting the artillery support I needed and was on the point of getting killed because someone had their head shoved up their PC butt
about having women in a job they couldn't do, I wouldn't refer to it as erring on the side of caution.

Relapse wrote:
If I wasn't getting the artillery support I needed and was on the point of getting killed because someone had their head shoved up their PC butt
about having women in a job they couldn't do, I wouldn't refer to it as erring on the side of caution.

I see you've misunderstood the difference between discrimination as an extension of category, and discrimination as an extension of capability. I know you feel that the fact that the woman was a power lifter marks her as a woman of singular physical strength, but it really doesn't. Note the weight classes involved in power lifting, and how average men of average strength can generally outperform smaller men of high strength (where strength is relative to size). If this woman made it into an artillery crew its because there is an institutional misunderstanding with respect to the nature feminism, and equal opportunity which has lead to either poorly constructed ability tests, or the active dismissal of the indications provided by sound tests.

Its all well and good that this makes you mad, but I really don't care as I already know its a problem.

The really funny thing is that "political correctness" was originally a feminist term...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The funny thing is that "political correctness" was originally a feminist term...