[mayankk]

I think the title of the thread says a lot. Why only women are being discussed, when so many other non gender exemptions are also part of it.
I won't comment on the policy as such, because I support the man in everything else he is doing in Delhi, but living in Delhi, I'm glad my wife will not have to bother about arranging a ride at 8 pm.

[revvharder]

Originally Posted by VeluM

We aren’t discussing the safety of both genders.

Women have been dealing with harassment on public transport forever, and will continue to do so. The minuscule section of women who will benefit from this exemption will be thankful for the ten days of relatively less traffic, the possible encouragement to drive from their male partners who otherwise think that these women prefer to have a “strong man” with them for their protection. This isn’t going to drastically change their lives, nor will it yours, so relax.

For the one commuting from Dwarka to Janakpuri - seriously child, use the metro.

Just to clarify
Dear adult, wanting a centre at a convenient place is different than living there it does not necessarily mean that my house is situated at that place just like one applies for a job at a convenient location does not mean he/she lives there.

From last 4 or 5 posts, in simple words I am asking is that the rule is just an inconvenience. I am asking safety for both the genders if you see my posts. Yes the women needs safety but men are also not safe.

For the harassment part I would say the upbringing needs to be changed and even if upbringing is right some are just sick from their mind.
Won't be posting and clarifying any further.

[BoneCollector]

Apparently People with Disabilities will also be exempted. This has happened after war veteran Major D. P. Singh tweeted to Arvind Kejriwal and he replied saying that they would be exempted.

Major D. P. Singh's Tweet


Delhi CM's reply.

I sincerely hope that this is taken into account.

Originally Posted by SLK

No one is disputing this, but at 4AM, how am I better of, how does gender change that? Or you think Delhi roads are full of rapists and not carjackers and looters and other anti-social elements, seen Delhi news lately? - My car was stopped in the middle of the road and mobile phone looted. My male colleges car tyre was punctured with a sharp rod and then looted.

I'm in total agreement with you. Delhi - NCR is scary, especially at night.

[Chetan_Rao]

I always ask most men who complain about women getting preferential treatment (matters small or big) one question.

'Given you think they've got it good and you're a victim, would you swap roles with a woman for one day/week/month? No exceptions, you get the exact same treatment every woman on the street gets.'

Guess what the answer usually is?

Ground reality, and I'm no exception, most men often don't comprehend a lot of disadvantages/concerns being the non-dominant participant in a group brings, because most men rarely find themselves in a situation where they aren't the dominant side.

'I don't recognize a problem because it doesn't affect me' is a very real phenomenon (often subconscious), and it's a constant struggle to be (and stay) sensitive.

Simple everyday example: When in a crowd in India, what's your biggest 'instinctive' concern as a man/woman? Getting your pocket picked or getting groped by the 'other' gender? Not saying men aren't groped or sexually harassed (before someone nitpicks on that point), but in general, guess which way the majority of men & women swing on that question day-to-day?

It isn't a hypothetical question either. Better half and I love the convenience the Metro brings. We live near a starting point so there's never a crowd to begin with. When crowds get in a few stations later, I instinctively move to protect my material assets, she her human assets. Harsh reality.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by King_pin09

Well, the contents of the post are self explanatory about your polarized opinions and unilateral approach to portray men in bad-light.

I looked and looked to find the "/s" tag until I realized it isnt really sarcasm.

Originally Posted by revvharder

We can't do away with law of nature unless and until an apocalypse comes specially for males.
.
.
The outcry is that the women needs safety and men do not?
The men must be only very slightly less vulnerable then the females and the thing is in a society if a women shouts a huge crowds come to beat the other one or worse mob lynch him without knowing whether the other person have committed a crime or not and if a man shouts no car will stop because he maybe mad, must be lying as he may not be in trouble, etc.

Why should the whole male society suffer due to other rotten apples. Why should we be ashamed if we are not doing anything wrong or shameful in society?
.
.
Here are a few cases out of the few Lacs that happen every year against the men.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/67800520.cms

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/mum...t-bkc/20730185

https://odishatv.in/odisha/body-slid...of-rage-271360

https://www.indiatoday.in/crime/stor...644-2019-09-26

https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi...jEXaFx1AP.html

Several new cases appear daily if we watch the news and how many are against a man and a woman, the statistics can work itself.

I rest my case and will not be arguing and posting any further on this and the thread will also come at rest because we as people only see things in short term and not long term and this time it is for only 10 days and will end sooner.

My oh my, the poor men going through all those violence and crime every single day for generations.

If only every house had a Grandpa like @Jeroen or @VNarayan.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

If only every house had a Grandpa like @Jeroen or @VNarayan.

Thank you for those kind words. Mind you, technically speaking I am not a grandpa. Yet!

I am happy to announce our daughter is pregnant with our first grand child!

We really have no preference, boy or girl. We will be absolutely besotted with it, no matter what gender.

Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Several categories are exempt under this so called scheme. Yet it is surprising that six pages have been filled up by chauvinism and narrow minded attitudes against women and that too in one of the most dangerous big cities on the world. I wonder if the authors of some of these posts realise they are a part of the problem.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I always ask most men who complain about women getting preferential treatment (matters small or big) one question.

'Given you think they've got it good and you're a victim, would you swap roles with a woman for one day/week/month? No exceptions, you get the exact same treatment every woman on the street gets.'

Guess what the answer usually is?

.

Thanks. Very true. Most men have very little notion about what women face day in day out.

I most certainly do not, but I am trying to understand and it is not a pretty picture.

Jeroen

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thank you for those kind words. Mind you, technically speaking I am not a grandpa. Yet!

I am happy to announce our daughter is pregnant with our first grand child!

We really have no preference, boy or girl. We will be absolutely besotted with it, no matter what gender.

Jeroen

Hearty congratulations and wishes Sir.

[SLK]

Ah! and I thought we were done here. What a non-sense debate we are having here!

Among other things (like not treating women well), men in our country have another problem, of being hypocrites when it comes to topics about women. The debate we are having here has turned into, "which section of men have better morals to support and respect women".

I don't know about others, but to me neither does the title nor the first post talk about defining the agenda of this discussion as whether you support this exemption, "in isolation" of the scheme itself.

Also, differentiating myself from a computer which can process data with an assumption 'All other variables held constant', would you think this exemption is justified?, I can't think like this.

I refuse to make an unqualified statement that this exemption is justified, because the scheme itself is invalid. The whole thought process of the scheme is unjustified, then how can the exemptions be justified?

Safety for women is a concern almost everywhere in the world, more in some places than others, and there are a lot of ways to protect women from risks, and it is completely required. Unfortunately, this step is only addressing convenience for most part and a very insignificant part of security risk, which could have been averted by other means if efforts were made for that by the affected women and their families.

Having said that, putting even one woman at risk due to this scheme is unjustified, therefore this exemption would seem to make sense, even for that tiny risk that this step alone may be addressing____ BUT the people who have a narrow view 'literally' (read seeing it from too far from Delhi) think that all women are just driving. Try to understand, there are many who have drivers, many who travel with their husbands/ male friends, but now most of them will be forced to use some kind of public transport too and if most here now believe that uber is risky then you are putting all these women at risk too. (And I keep wondering what did 12-18 year old kids do wrong to not get to travel with their moms!).

If the high moral narrow argument is that challo at least some women are slightly safer, then this is what you are saying, that you support this half hearted step because the word 'women' figures in the exemption and you support women, and nothing else matters.

If women were not exempt, this scheme would have caused more widespread inconvenience so much so that it won't have been implemented. The biggest advantage of this exemption is that men can exchange cars with their spouses every day and not be affected by this scheme at all! Most women who are driving will represent at least 2 cars in the household. - That just goes to say the objective of this scheme is completely lost.

And there were some who said this is not divide and rule and they are disturbed by this statement. I'm actually disturbed that this stupid scheme has already divided this forum itself and while we burn each other over a stupid scheme, the un-respected politician (in this section of the population) is gaining fan-following! due to the negativity of the people opposing this scheme, sounding as if they are opposing women safety and the politician is all for it! Open your eyes, this is politics and they are the professionals in politics.

The scheme was announced preemptively, that is big enough evidence that this is not for pollution, but for something else, now keep guessing what was it for!

It is a fact that pollution is increasing as weather gets colder, but wait for it to really come to the point where any relief from even this scheme will be welcome! then if it really gets so so serious, every women driving out of turn is probably killing a child everyday with the smoke of her diesel car, I don't think they'll like to be that.

Remember this scheme is supposed to be an emergency and exigency measure affecting health of most and worse for children, then where is the scope for exemptions! and that is what NGT told the government.

[drmohitg]

Interestingly in the earlier versions of this rule, CNG vehicles were allowed to ply on all days. I read that this time the rule even applies to private CNG vehicles. Isn't the move to CNG touted as a measure to help curb pollution? IIRC, at the time of implementation of this rule for the first time, many car drivers were encouraged to get their cars converted to CNG and even sport a sticker on their cars stating the same, allowing them the luxury of travelling on all days. What has changed since then?

[FrozeninTime]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Interestingly in the earlier versions of this rule, CNG vehicles were allowed to ply on all days. I read that this time the rule even applies to private CNG vehicles. Isn't the move to CNG touted as a measure to help curb pollution?

Even I was taken by lack of exemption for CNG cars. BTW any idea what will be timings for odd even scheme this time?

Bit off topic :
It is really appalling to see such vitriolic , stereotypical and myopic statements against male gender made by some learned members. This type of stereotyping gender/community leads to more hatred and gives fringe elements much needed voice.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by SLK

... the scheme itself is invalid. The whole thought process of the scheme is unjustified....

If your argument is odd-even does little, if anything to curb pollution in NCR, I don't think you'll find many that disagree. Momentary reduction in traffic is still a minor boon to those out and about on road, but the net effect on commuting will probably be offset by heavier load on available modes of transport on those days.

The root causes are well known and have not been addressed.

This thread could've easily been titled 'Exceptions to odd-even rule in Delhi' and things would've stayed on-topic. In context, the non-exemption of cleaner fuel vehicles is a far bigger anomaly but the powers-that-be know what buttons to push to distract the gen-pop, who line up with pitchforks like clockwork.

[Malyaj]

I think it's time to close this thread. We are all antagonizing each other - mostly unknown folks about whom we know next to nothing and who otherwise would be helpful to us with their insights on other subjects. Otherwise this thread will last longer than the restrictions themselves.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by SLK

...Think that all women are just driving. Try to understand, there are many who have drivers, many who travel with their husbands/ male friends, but now most of them will be forced to use some kind of public transport too and if most here now believe that uber is risky then you are putting all these women at risk too. (And I keep wondering what did 12-18 year old kids do wrong to not get to travel with their moms!).

+1 to this piece of your argument. I drop my wife, who is a teacher, and my 4 year old daily to school in the morning. My wife doesn't drive and neither she intends to. For now, I can only have a sigh of relief that I am not in Delhi. If I were in Delhi, this rule would have inconvenienced her more than me. And my 4 year old daughter too.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Interestingly in the earlier versions of this rule, CNG vehicles were allowed to ply on all days. I read that this time the rule even applies to private CNG vehicles. Isn't the move to CNG touted as a measure to help curb pollution? IIRC, at the time of implementation of this rule for the first time, many car drivers were encouraged to get their cars converted to CNG and even sport a sticker on their cars stating the same, allowing them the luxury of travelling on all days. What has changed since then?

That is quite contradictory on the policy maker's part. If the intent is only for displaying that 'look, we are doing something' then it's fine. Otherwise banning CNG vehicles during the odd-even makes no sense. May be they thought to skip the difficulties at the operational level as to how the enforcement team would identify CNG vehicles, etc, and they chose to rather have a blanket ban on the basis of odd/even. Public inconvenience, not their problem. Even though the roots of the pollution issue lie somewhere else. It is like repairing my washbasin tap when it is actually the roof leaking!

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

This type of stereotyping gender/community leads to more hatred and gives fringe elements much needed voice.

Though I would not comment on anyone in particular, but yes, I agree with you in principle. I have seen and at times even experienced that people do take to extreme sides and radical views when stereotyped, especially with stuff like religion, gender, food preferences, etc.

Regards,
Saket