Talk:Women-only passenger car

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to Women-only passenger car per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Josei Sen'yō Sharyō → Women-only car — Per WP:NAME, article names should be in English, and I have not seen a reliable source use the Romanized Japanese term.

I do realize that Women-only car isn't perfect - it's not train-specific, and it could conflict with an article about, say, women-only train cars in Australia. So I'm open to other name suggestions. But my observation is that women-only train cars in Japan are the most notable, and it's nothing that can't be fixed with disambiguation.

But the current name runs afoul of WP:NAME and it's a non-notable term. Ytny (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strongly Support per Wikipedia policy as stated above. If women-only cars exist elsewhere, what would the harm be of including them here? Jimp 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as per reasons given above. Maybe it could be named "Women-only car (Japan)" to keep it specific to the situation in Japan. DAJF 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:ENGLISH. To clarify it's train-specific, I suggest "women-only passenger car", which is the term used in the first sentence of the article. --Kusunose 07:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Exitmoose 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per above. -- John Smith's 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

I like Kusunose's suggestion: Women-only passenger car. This seems to be simplest way of showing that it's train-specific. I don't really see the need for (Japan) though. Let the article be about women-only passenger cars. If it so happens that these only exist in Japan, so be it, would we need to mention this in the title? If they exist elsewhere, include mention of them them here ... at least whilst the page is under 30kB. Jimp 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, the names that have been suggested are Women-only passenger car and Women-only coach. I prefer the former, since it's more specific, but one can be a redirect to the other. As for other countries, there are countries that segregate men and women for religious reasons, and some other Asian countries that have done the same (see: Japanese Wikipedia article), but it doesn't appear to be as widespread or as controversial, so I think a section titled "outside Japan" or something should do, if needed. --Ytny (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd do it the other way around i.e. have the general topics covered in the intro & have a subtitle In Japan but this bridge when we get to it. I too would prefer the former: coach can refer to a kind of bus (amongst other things). Jimp 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also support using "car" over "coach", as this seems to be the more widely used term on a global basis. Also, it conforms with other Japanese usages such as "Green Car" and "Reserved Car". I don't see any particular need to include "passenger", as this makes it unnecessarily unwieldy. What do people here actually say when talking about "女性専用車両" in English? I know "Women-only car" is the term I use. DAJF 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another name that might be considered is Women-only carriage. While there's very little ambiguity in this term, it is BrE, so it might not be in line with current English use in the article. -- Exitmoose 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reaction

Let me get this straight. There is a mention, in the Reaction to sexual segregation section, of those mentally sick people who actually approve of this. There is a mention in the reaction section of "tolerating various smells" as if males are some sort of disease. There is mention of false accusations being allayed. There is a mention of overcrowding in other cars. There is even a mention of how women are the victims of this due to increased risk! The ridiculous charade continues: even the embarrassing experiences of blind people are mentioned.

Am I the only Man on the planet? If so, I will submit the following to your Reaction section on behalf of a historical race of people called sexual equalitists.

The use of women only compartments in anything, vehicle or not, is sexual discrimination against the Male race.

We didnt approve of white-only carraiges early in the last century. Why, then, am I the only one who has raised objection to such a thing in this website?! Is this the Truman show?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.144.242 (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It says in the background section that cases of molestation have increased. It does not mention the fact that there have been high profile cases where accused molester were aquitted (in one case where the accused was a professor at the Self Defence Force University [1], it was found that the young woman got off and then back onto the same position in the same car after the alledged molestation had commenced, in the other the alledged victim had brought such cases against various people repeatedly usually ending in an out of court settlement, and another where the woman owned up to have been making up the crime in order to extort money, at the suggestion of her boyfriend[2]). It could be argued that proliferation of the stereotype that men are molesters and women are their victims is being used to enable women to make men the victims of extortion. --Timtak (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only women

While women are the primary target, young male children and old men may ride them as well. I do not recall the exact age limits. Bendono 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that most (all?) rail operators allow young boys and disabled male passengers to ride these cars if accompanied by a female, but a citation is needed if this is to be included in the main article. DAJF 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the TV clip on the Anti-Women-Only-Passenger Car Group web site, the carriages are 任意で "voluntarily" only for women and that young men and disabled males can board them even without going against the "voluntary" prohibition.--Timtak (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cairo Subway

The subway in Cairo also has women-only cars. The reasons are of course not exactly the same, but it's comparable and relevant, if anyone wants to do the research. 84.94.89.206 09:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

This weekend, I got a leaflet in my mailbox from a group named "女性専用車両に反対する会" (Association against Women-only passenger cars). It has the audacity to compare the prejudice against men (caused by a few chikan) with Apartheid, and may go on to make other points; but, I really couldn't make it past the first paragraph. I can scan it (minus the web site and bank account information) if anyone thinks it would be worthwhile to the article. Not many people on the English wikipedia can read Japanese, but, if this handout is not isolated to my area, it may add a bit to the article just by showing the flyer as an illustration of the depth of the dislike that some people hold for the system... Neier (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They have a Japanese language website with a lot of information about this issue. [3]--Timtak (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding a controversy section regardless. This is a pretty touchy issue. Many critics suggest it is a terrible idea since it does violate the entire ideology of feminism since it is for gender equality, whereas proponents think it protects women against sexual assault. Bitsdotliestalk 04:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

sen'yō vs. senyō

Not sure which is correct, but they're different in Japanese pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Bendono (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Why is the stupid section about Israel in this page?

It is not relevant - it talks about males and females seperated in the same car, not about female only cars.

It is not sourced - two links to blogs are hardly source.

It is wrong - there are no gender segregated bus lines in Israel, by order of the supreme court.

All this is well described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehadrin_bus_lines

5.28.160.5 (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that this section has been hijacked by ultra-orthodox activists. I don't know the current status of "experimental" Mehadrin bus lines, but AFAIK regardless of "suggested" seating, legally-speaking, anyone may sit anywhere other than a disabled seat in an Israeli bus. It might not be a pleasant experience, but AFAIK that's what the law says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.25.34 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The section on Israel was trying to present the issue of bus sex segregation (men at the front, women at the back) as being a "women-only carriage" situation when it's much more complicated. It was essentially an apologetic ultra-Orthodox view of this issue. There's a full article on these buses at Mehadrin bus lines. I don't have time to rewrite the section here but the text was so bad that I've removed it and left a link to the fuller Mehadrin bus lines piece. If someone wants to summarise that article for the section here that'd be great Ariehkovler (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Women-only passenger car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20070417030808/http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070405p2a00m0na017000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070405p2a00m0na017000c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722074411/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2006/new/aug/3/today-life7.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2006/new/aug/3/today-life7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)