General News NYC transit discourages "manspreading" on subways

the article you linked says "mostly male" which seems to indicate that there is also an effort, albeit a smaller one, to target women or nonbinary people sitting like this on the train.

that said, if this did in fact only target men (and was only enforced against men in a meaningful way) this would be about as close to institutionalized "misandry" as you would ever get.

 

If there's a common complaint primarily against men about people rude enough to sprawl as much as they wish, then taking action against it while targeting the most common culprits is hardly sexist.

That said, if they are only going to target men in enforcing it, then it does become a bit of sexism, but a relatively minor one from genuine grounds of customer complaints.

I see this becoming an example for anti-feminists to claim men are discriminated against. Much like the non-existent, let alone universal, women-and-children-first ship evacuation policy, something like this need only be applied in one situation and they'll scream that it's tantamount to a genocide by the misandrists.

 

That poster is hilarious. Seriously, who sits with their legs spread THAT wide?

Okay, I admit it. I "manspread" -- that is my default sitting position. It is the most comfortable. I have never heard a single complaint about it, though in fairness, I have also never ridden on the New York City Subway System.

I think I would become public enemy number one on the subway if this is an issue. I take up more space than with just my "spreading". :lol: What do people do with their arms. Do they just fold them across their chest or something? Is everyone supposed to sit closed legged and hunched forward?

I don't know. It would bother me if someone from the Transit Authority told me that I was sitting incorrectly. I paid my fucking fee, so I am going to sit comfortable. Don't bitch at me if you overbook.

I am trying to think of situations where I have had to share close space with other people. Usually that does mean reducing "spreading", and finding another place for my arms. I never thought about it before now, and no one ever complained or had a problem.

The only way I can see this as a major issue is if people are doing it specifically to send the message, "Do not sit next to me." In other words, it has nothing to do with comfort, and everything to do with negative body language. That would piss me off, and it would make the situation understandable. Of course, the issue then would not be the "manspreading" it would be the culture of unapproachability.

 

I think we should do the following:

1. Run an observational study and use statistical methods approved by the scientific community. The hypothesis will be "men are no more likely than women to take up unnecessary space on public transit." They can use random sampling methods to decide whether to reject this hypothesis, and they can decide a significance level at which to reject it.

2. If they don't reject this hypothesis, then the campaign is an instance of sexism against men. If they do reject this hypothesis, then it's not.

 

Agree with that. They shouldn't restrict that kind of things. I can sit the way I wish. Sometimes I even take my shoes off and sit with legs crossed if there is enough space to do that. Add to that I used to live in a huge city with its own metro system which always gets very crowded on weekday mornings and evenings. Nobody ever complained to me. ;3

 

the problem with this is that then you're just using a scientific basis for justifying sexism. It's obviously not even close to the same level of ridiculously offensive hogwash but too close to the justification that racial realists give for racism or biological determinists give for keeping women out of STEMM fields.

note: I'm not accusing you of being a racial realist or a biological determinist, just that we should be very careful about the way we implement scientific methods to shape public policy.

 

This is a thoughtful response, but I feel it is misplaced. Notice the claim I am responding to is implicitly "it is sexism to focus on manspreading because women are just as capable of sitting like that." So my response is narrowly tailored to that specific claim. It's not a claim that we should refuse to address sexism publicly. If the objection to curbing this obnoxious behavior is going to be "but it's sexism against men," then the obvious question to ask is "is it really?" This is a question science can answer. But just because science can answer a particular question about public policy doesn't mean it has to answer every question about public policy.

I spend my time off of Tumblr reading feminist news and academic publications I find more important. Manspreading is not something I consider of consequence, because my universe of concern includes two (and only two) areas: women in STEM, and violence against women.

 

alright I see what point you're making.

My real concern with this policy isn't so much the "think of the mens" but more that it may be used to disproportionately target people of color, if implemented in an legally punishable way, in a similar manner that Stop and Frisk was.

that said I do agree that this isn't really something I'd consider a very serious concern in the feminist mindset, but I do see the concern from a "we need space on the trains" line of thinking.

 

well that way of sitting is largely considered traditionally masculine gender presentation.

I wonder what they call that movement that seeks to dismantle those traditional gender roles though.
starts with an F.

 

I think this is a legitimate concern. I typically stand on the train to avoid being cramped or cramping others. During rush hour specifically all the seats need to be made available. Having said that, yes I've seen men do this for no other reason... than ... I guess they think its flirting!? :eusa_doh: Its been established that men, generally like to stick that thing out there and both men and women's fashion are designed to show off each sexes good bits. Some men "adjust" constantly while others dont. I've seen men literally stand there and hold there package during the entirety of a conversation. Ive seen men do this in the company of women and other guys. Its a weird dominance thing I suppose! So... yah... "close your legs man and stop adjusting, grandpa needs to sit down!"

 

are you like, a thunderf00t esque antifeminist or a post-feminist?

 

Disagreeing with the viewpoint of the transit officials is one thing. Claiming that this would be an instances of true sexism is another. Never have these officials claimed that they wouldn't hold women to the same standard. Naturally, the campaign would be directed towards males because if the average women dared publicly sit with her legs sprawled true sexism and judgment would be seen. This sounds like merely another attempt by certain members of society that want to feel as though they have something to complain about when it comes to prejudice and discrimination.

I don't mean to offend anyone in this thread who might have felt otherwise, but sexism? Are we really going to go there because of an absolutely unnecessary style of seating? Because your scrotum deserves an extra seat?

 

so post-feminist in the sense that you think 2nd wave feminism has failed in some of its goals (which I will agree) or in the sense that 2nd wave feminism achieved its goals of ending sexism (or severely lessening to the point where it is no longer necessary)?

If your'e taking the first position, then I have this shiny new intersectional 3rd wave feminism to tell you about. If you're taking the second position I would agree that it has helped a lot, but there is still a long way to go in gaining true gender equality specifically, and true justice among all citizenry by extension through acceptence of intersectional analysis of oppression.

 

The only reason feminists talk about this sometimes is that they suppose men are more likely than women to be discourteous with space on public transit.

That's all.

And then the issue becomes (1) is it really true (which is an empirical question), and (2) even if true, why isn't it just a courtesy issue rather than a gender issue?

I would argue--as one of these shiny third wave intersectional feminists--that in order for an issue to count as feminist, it has to implicate a pattern of gendered violence that is asymmetric from one gender to another, or it has to implicate the political opportunities and resources of people of one gender or another on average.