I'm sorry, but it's a totally false equivalency to say that adding cars for women is somehow segregationist, that it's like "separate but equal" treatment, etc. It's also a false equivalency to say that this situation is somehow punishing men through segregation.

The only people I've seen commenting on this thread who have any idea of what Indian culture is actually like, and what India is actually like, have also been pleased to see this happen there. Those of you who say "oh, these women should just speak up more" or the like do NOT understand the culture, or the situation on these trains. Unless you have actually been on one of these trains during rush hour, you just cannot understand what it's like. It is like nothing you have ever experienced in the United States. I've been on rush hour trains in Manhattan, San Francisco, Paris, London, Singapore and Rome, and nothing has ever been like rush hour on a subway in India.

The fact is, just as someone commented about affirmative action, solutions like this are needed because women have been harassed and groped for a long time, and they shoudn't have to deal with being groped while the culture grinds slowly toward respecting women. Lots of women are harassed because there is a deeply embedded male cultural concept that women going outside of the house are somehow asking for it, that they are looser in morals or deserve to be teased and groped. Not by all men - there are plenty of progressive, conscientious and kind men in India - but by enough that it's a problem. This is because for centuries, women were required to stay indoors, and only to be out of doors with a brother, husband or father. Even now that's still often the case - if I want to walk around by myself in India I practically have to sneak out of the house. And when I'm by myself, I almost invariably get harassed and/or groped in public in the city, especially on the subway.

So, I see why women are appreciative of these trains. It's not taking anything away from the men - in fact, if women take these new trains it should free up space on the others, right? Many of these men would just prefer that it was them getting the shiny new trains, because, after all, they're the men, after all.

Swine flu has killed a small handful of people around the globe, far less than the actual flu. The hype is manufactured to make a lot of money for media and pharmaceutical companies. The vaccine is new, there's no idea of what it will do to people in the long term.

The way to avoid swine flu is the way you avoid every other flu. Teach your kids to wash their hands frequently (after going to the bathroom, before and after eating, etc), and to cough into their elbow rather than their hand. Simple educational measures instituted in my sister-in-law's kid's school has reduced the rate of disease and infection by 75%! That is a HUGE impact, all from handwashing and hygiene instruction for kids and parents, and consistent modeling from teachers and parents.

I'm still appalled that there are so many people who don't think you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom! Bleh.

amen.

The LW could give in and avoid further conflict with this person, or they could keep going about their business and remind this person on his next (dare I say inevitable) visit that the parking spots aren't allocated, that they've been parking in all sorts of different spots, per the purchase agreement. If he wants to keep his car in that spot, he shouldn't move his car. Or he should spraypaint his name on the spot and see if that works.

Of course, people get very fanatical about this kind of thing. Two married friends of mine who live in a condo ended up parking in a neighbor's perceived permanent parking spot - like the LW, there was a specified agreement that none of the spaces were reserved. This neighbor then took it upon himself to vandalize their car, slashing their tires and scratching up the paint, banging in the bumper, etc., with his old van. Fortunately they went and took pictures and got enough evidence to prove that it was this guy, and sued him. But it's a little ridiculous that it came to that. You never know with people!

The social stigma attached to widows and orphans can be lessened through remarriage. And in the current political and social climate, remarriage is a safer option for a lot of women. They're not being forced into these marriages, there is choice involved, albeit a choice made in an environment that narrows the range of choices for these women. But it gives them some amount of control over their lives and a way out of the road toward gross exploitation.

At the same time, I agree that more opportunities should be made available to women. But that is a long-term goal, and what women need are immediate answers. So I think you can have it both ways - work for long-term solutions in regard to women's rights, but also work for long-term solutions in regard to women's lives.