Why Isn't There a Ladies-Only UberXX Car Service?

The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.


lady driver
Kris Krug / photo on flickr

My Uber app offers options to hail a ride from Pool, uberX, uberXL, UberBLACK, UberSUV, uberTAXI, and uberX+Car Seat. As a Washington, D.C., rider I can choose how many people I ride with, what kind of vehicle I hire, the level of professionalism of the driver, and even get a car equipped to schlep kids.

What I can't choose is the gender of my driver: There's no such thing as UberXX.

A new company, set to launch next week, aims to test the business and legal landscape for offering a female-only* car service to compete with Uber. Chariot for Women is a Boston-based company that will hire only female drivers and will pick up only female passengers. 

Just one problem: What Chariot wants to offer almost certainly illegal. The same anti-discrimination laws that are supposed to protect women also prevent them from being able to buy and sell what they want. And that sucks.

"To limit employees to one gender, you have to have what the law calls a bona fide occupational qualification. And that's a really strict standard," employment law specialist Joseph L. Sulman told The Boston Globe. "The law's really tough on that. For gender, it's not enough to say, 'we really just want to have a female here because our customers prefer that to feel safer.'"

The Globe reports that refusal to accept male passengers could cause (likely lesser) legal problems as well. "Companies that provide a service need to accept potential customers without discriminating," said lawyer Dahlia C. Rudavsky.

The same laws that are supposed to protect women are actually preventing women customers from getting what they want and potentially keeping some women out of the workforce altogether. This is an unavoidable consequence of using the blunt instrument of the law to prevent unsavory discriminatory behavior—you also remove all kinds of morally neutral or even praiseworthy decisions from the hands of citizens, workers, customers, and entrepreneurs.

As an ovary-haver, I can think of a handful of occasions over the years on which I would have paid a premium to be picked up by a female driver—nearly all of them involving the consumption of too much booze. Granted, that preference is mostly irrational: my chances of getting done wrong by an Uber driver (or a taxi driver) in a gender-specific way are very, very low

BUT! Preferences are frequently irrational (see: getting drunk in the first place). Heck, last week I brought a granola bar that claimed to somehow cater to the fact that I have female biology. How? I have no idea. But it had cranberries in it and I liked the packaging. (Ugh ladies, amirite?)

Many women likely have an even more robust preference for lady drivers than I do. Perhaps riders prefer to chat with women, they'd rather have a female-curated playlist on their ride, or they think women are better drivers. Perhaps they need to borrow a tampon. I don't know. What's more, women who want to work as drivers have a very clear incentive to want only female passengers—there are many documented cases passengers ill-treating their drivers. But a safety rationale is far for from the only legitimate reason for entrepreneurial innovation.

Of course, if we accept the legality of catering to the mostly irrational preference of some customers for female drivers and vice-versa, we also have to accept similarly irrational preferences about gender and other protected categories, like race and sexual orientation. And that's where the rubber hits the road. But if you want to force this guy to bake gay wedding cakes or force Amazon to close its pay gap, you also probably can't have your safer, friendlier women-centered car service. It might be trade off you're willing to make, but it is a trade-off. 

Personally, I'd love to celebrate Equal Pay Day (today apparently!) by spending a little extra dosh to be ferried around while schnockered by a enterprising gig-economy gal in a pink Cadillac. Unfortunately for both me and my would-be chauffeuse, the same forces that aim to protect women from discrimination wind up preventing customers and workers from making choices that would be more desirable for both parties—and command a premium to boot!

While an Uber spokeswoman opted not to comment on whether the big brand in ridesharing had considered getting into the ladies-only market, on borderline occasions, I'm still going to favor Uber over a traditional taxi, since the drivers are better identified, more traceable, less likely/able to scam a drunk lady on the fare, already know my address, and already have my payment details.

Plus Uber cars typically smell better that taxis, which can be highly relevant at moments of intoxication. UberXX cars would probably smell amazing. Too bad.

* Chariot's founders have already thought of most of your clever objections to their model: Yes, boys under the age of 13 can ride with their mothers; yes, trans women will be accepted as drivers and passengers; yes, the drivers will pass extra background checks because women can be violent assholes too. They'll even donate a portion of your fare to a lady-friendly charity. 

UPDATE: Obviously, UberXXX would be a whole different deal. But that should be legal too!

NEXT: It's Equal Pay Day, Obama Dedicates a Monument, Paul Ryan Isn't Trying to Be President: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Necessary: Is UberWhite around the corner?

    How do they determine who is and isn’t a trans-woman?

    1. Is UberWhite around the corner?

      ?bermensch would be much more inclusive.

      1. Maybe, I’m not sure even Nietzche knew quite what that was though.

        1. Please tell me you realize UberBLACK has nothing to do with race and that OP was composed with tongue firmly in cheek.

          1. Right, notice my subtle lack of capital letters, I covered everything. UberAfrican-American, UberWhite, and UberOther are just what we deserve.

            1. No UberChinaBlac or UberChina? You disappoint.

              1. “No UberChinaBlac or UberChina?”

                No idea what the first is (Google gives me a stripper) I assume the second is a rickshaw service.

                “You disappoint.”

                Well, that’s to be expected.

                1. Ah, I see I also am out of touch. It’s Blac Chyna.

                  I mainly liked the name. I envisioned dinnerware, the finest china, all glossy black with a gold trim circle just where the plate deepens. Otherwise I would have forgotten the headline seconds later.

    2. You need to start trolling these people demanding them to stop presuming people’s gender.

    3. just before I saw the receipt that said $9768 , I be certain that my friends brother woz like actualy bringing home money part-time from their laptop. . there moms best frend has done this 4 only about 19 months and just now repaid the mortgage on there home and bought a new Dodge . go ????????????? Click this link

  2. Is this the place to make bad jokes about women drivers?

    What takes up twelve parking spaces?
    Six women drivers! HA!

    1. Seems like KMW was asking for it with this.

      1. “Don’t go down that street at night. Scum, villainy, you name it, it’s there in wait.”
        “We’ll see.”

      2. This is what happens when you let a woman take the editing wheel at Reason.


        2. This is why Postrel hates Hit & Run.

    2. Alert AG Lynch Special FBI Hate Speech & Sexist Joke Unit for Immediate Deploy!!

  3. trans women will be accepted as drivers and passengers;

    Will they require the transwoman driver to inform their passengers in advance, so that women who aren’t comfortable with men or transwomen can get a driver they are comfortable with?

    If not, why not?

    1. They will probably include in the terms of service that only women and transwomen can drive or ride on this service.

      1. Sure, but what if a woman isn’t comfortable with a transwoman driver? The whole point of this is to make women comfortable with their drivers, right?

        Will they allow women to select women-only drivers, or will they not give their customers that option?

        1. They will probably include in the terms of service that only women and transwomen can drive or ride on this service. If women are not satisfied with those terms, they are free to choose another provider.

        2. As I read the origin story below, it looks like they also want women drivers to be comfortable with their passengers, so I guess the same question would apply there, as well.

    2. It’s about providing safe passage to trans women for what will probably be a premium.

      Trans women can still drive themselves around if the service doesn’t tickle their fancy.

      If somebody has a better idea for a competing service, they’ll use that instead.

    3. XX clearly refers to the chromosomes, which determine sex, not gender. Sounds like false advertising to me.

      1. I think UberXX is a clever name for an uber service. KMW should register it.

        Although drunk guys out on a bachelor party might confuse it for UberXXX.

        If you wanted to start a service for gay guys, what would you call it?


        1. UberLumberJack?


          But I’m off to register the trademark for Luber?

      2. UberXX is Mangu-Ward’s joke suggestion. The actual name is “Chariot for Women”.

    4. If not, why not?

      Wait, wait, let me get some popcorn – this will be good.

  4. Is there an app that will stop women from coming in and talking nonsense to me while I’m watching hockey?

    The playoffs start on the 14th.

    1. Ear rape is your own fault. Door locks, how do they fucking work?

      1. You lock ’em out, and it just gets worse.

        It seems to get worse when you get excited about something in the game, too. I think they just instinctively don’t like it when you get that interested in or excited about something that isn’t them.

        She said she doesn’t like my motorcycle because they’re too much alike. She really said that. And they’re both beautiful, nice curves, dangerous, fun, . . .

        Start working on it, and I get a lot of the same weird conversations I’d get during a hockey game.

        Your sister is doing what?

        Am I listening?! What does this have to do with the Caps again?

  5. Safe space for me; compulsory association for thee. [/TERF]

    1. It’s sickening what passes for “libertarianism” around here nowadays, isn’t it?

      Also, ladies, it doesn’t suit you well to insist on being treated as equal to men and demanding respect, while at the same refusing to get a ride home from a man. If you’re really that terrified the guy will try and rape you or something, carry a fucking gun or a taser or something.

      1. “All the benefits of unrestricted freedoms, none of the burdens.”

        Self defense is definitely a hard sell to women. But all is not lost. Reach for it, Sister

      2. With great power comes great responsibility.

        Said no woman ever, except maybe to a man with great power.

        1. Probably in the context of taking out the trash.

  6. UPDATE: Obviously, UberXXX would be a whole different deal. But that should be legal too!

    This is why ENB is awesome.

      1. Damn you!

    1. Because KMW can write?

    2. Not all white women look alike, you sick bigot.

      1. It’s hard to tell with the gimp suit, OK?!

        1. I know droll, intelligent women intimidate you, but some of us appreciate the value they not only bring to Reason, but to our lives.

          Men. SMH.

  7. The same anti-discrimination laws that are supposed to protect women also prevent them from being able to buy and sell what they want. And that sucks.

    First, anti-discrimination laws are not meant to protect anyone except the lawyers whose jobs would otherwise be in jeopardy as there are just so many ambulances one can chase.

    Second, anti-discrimination laws stem from the notion that women, along with people of other protected groups, have no brains, and thus must be ‘protected’ from awful meanies by white liberals in shining armor.

  8. Pelletz, whose wife, Kelly, is the company’s president, said he came up with the idea after a scary experience with an unstable passenger. He imagined how much more terrifying it would have been if he were a woman, and remembered that his wife had thought about driving for Uber but was too afraid to.

    Course of Action 1: Arm yourself, take self defense courses, know your rights, kick asses.
    Course of Action 2: Refuse to deal with a perceived criminal element and fatten yourself up for the female criminals who are going to pounce on this.

    Also, can we maintain SOME level of professional reporting? Unlike:
    BUT! Preferences are frequently irrational (see: getting drunk in the first place). Heck, last week I brought a granola bar that claimed to somehow cater to the fact that I have female biology. How? I have no idea. But it had cranberries in it and I liked the packaging. (Ugh ladies, amirite?)”

    Hard to mock when so colloquial. You are doing my work for me.

  9. Obviously, UberXXX would be a whole different deal.

    Can we take a moment to imagine UberXX evolving into UberXXX?

    1. Do you really have to ask?

      1. “Yeah, I’d like to order a driver to give me a ‘ride’.”

        1. “I’m not used to having a woman in the driver’s seat…”
          “It looks like must’ve I dialed UberXXX by mistake…”
          “Hop in honey and I’ll get you straightened out…”

          Especially since no one’s paying attention, it practically writes itself.

          1. Shit, the last one should’ve been “Slide on in honey…”

            You damned edit button!

    2. I’m going to say – no cloth seats.

    3. Hm? Sorry, I was picturing UberXXX.

    4. “Can we take a moment to imagine UberXX evolving into UberXXX?”

      We’d have to seriously loosen prostitution laws, but Uber is already delivering food, so why not deliver door to door prostitution services?

      Untapped market!

      1. The Bang Bus is legal, isn’t it?

        1. Yeah, but that’s because it’s totally okay to pay a woman to have sex with you and then tape it and release it on the internet, but it’s not okay to just pay to have sex with a woman.

          Because logic.

          1. I always wondered if a clever end run around prostitution could be had if you just videotaped the encounter.

            1. I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect it hinges on two things:
              First, what state you live/work in and that state’s relevant regulations for porn studios.
              Second, whether you think Bang Bus/Bait Bus, and other similar outfits, are “real”, or if it’s all a skit with amateur “normal looking” porn actors.

              Actually make that three things: if your “business” never actually releases porn, then a lawyer could probably argue that the entire thing is a fraud, and it’s just prostitution.

              1. I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect it hinges on two things:

                Business license/tax id and product.

                John Doe filming his hiring of prostitutes won’t (generally) pass the first and any pimps creative enough to have a tax ID are gonna need to have product and selling the product is gonna require all the regular tax and employment paperwork plus 2257 (They’re all 18!) records.

                1. Obviously, there’s a lot of leeway for ‘I know it when I see it.’ so statists can get their state on re: and

              2. But what if you make the movies and hand them over to the buyer, who can distribute at will or consume in private?

                Legislation is usually stupid, but some more so.

  10. I was on Ars Technica the other day (Incunabulum) and saw their article on this and asked if the SJW’s would defend this or stick to their principles.

    They’re defending this because its not ‘discrimination’ – see discrimination is only discrimination if you are inconvenienced or something and we have other options for transport so its not discrimination.

    Oh – and SJW’s really hate it when you use the term SJW.

    1. “see discrimination is only discrimination if you are inconvenienced or something”

      Said the same people who think a transwoman having to use the men’s bathroom is akin to Jim Crow

    2. You said it.

      If I were to switch professions, I would do what my wife does; therapy. These privileged mostly white assholes are coming to her talking about “triggering” events, and all that other shit.

      She’s busy as hell. Some of the weirder cases involve those people who RECOGNIZE their positions are a-factual, but feel COMPELLED to be an SJW.


      1. Your wife really does therapy for fucked up SJWs? I am sure that is a license to print money. I am not sure even big money would be worth having to listen to those sorry assholes every day. How does she keep from going full Lee Ermy on their asses? I would last about a morning before I lost it and started screaming at them to buck the fuck up and get a life.

    3. Oh – and SJW’s really hate it when you use the term SJW.

      Another thing they share with cosmotarians.

      1. And cuckservatives, amiriteguize?

        1. I’m sure both those groups would hate being called SJWs.

    4. Oh – and SJW’s really hate it when you use the term SJW.

      I have a friend who calls herself (and her SJW friends) SJWs.

  11. Freedom of association, yo, so this is fine by me. I think their justifications are pretty much a slurry of bizarre left-wing platitudes and assumptions, but it’s none of my business. /Kermit sipping iced tea

    1. Women are totally equal, except we need special treatment!

      Women can do anything men can do, except ride in a taxi with a male driver!

  12. This will be one car that will not be afraid to pull over and ask for directions, am I right?

  13. Seeing women work less hours on average,gonna need a lot more drivers.

  14. What exactly constitutes a “Transwoman”? If I say I identify as a woman, how can they say otherwise? So what if I look like a man and dress like one? That is just them enforcing there own hetero version of feminity on me.

    I hope men and trannies both sue the living fuck out of these ass clowns. Let them suffer for their own insanity for once.

    1. Or the inverse, biological women who look like Justin Bieber finding themselves excluded from this even though there is no Rape-Muscle with which to rape.

      “But I don’t even have a penis! What am I going to do, run at you with my splayed crotch?”
      “I don’t care! It’s not that you need a penis to scare me; it’s more the idea of penises that scare me.”

  15. How do the breastaurants do it?

    1. Well, I seem to recall that they’ve lost a discrimination case or two . . . .

    2. I think a lot of them consider their staff to be ‘entertainers’, which gives them a pretty wide latitude in deciding who they want to be filling that role.

  16. But it had cranberries in it and I liked the packaging. (Ugh ladies, amirite?)

    My guess as to what was on the granola bar packaging: shoes covered in glitter.

    1. Women are just so temperamental, but I really like them.

      Ugh, Crusty, amirite?

  17. All men are bad and dangerous. Women are wonderful.

  18. You can get attorneys fees and statutory damages in a employee discrimination case. And, since these services are part time jobs, you don’t have to be willing to quite your full time job to apply. If you are a man living in a city that offers this service, you need to apply to be a driver and then file a complaint with the EEOC when they turn you down. When the EEOC turns you down, then sue and collect your statutory damages and let your lawyer bill them at $100 an hour. It would be easy money.

    I think public accommodation laws are bullshit. But if we are going to have them, we shouldn’t make them worse by not enforcing them for politically preferable groups. These people need to be mercilessly sued into bankruptcy just like a company that offered a whites only or men only service would be sued.

    1. Let’s use the force of law to inflict suffering on people who do things that harm no one! For liberty!

      1. Yeah Hugh, lets just selectively enforce the law. We will enforce it on people we don’t like and then not enforce it on people we do. That will work out well.

        Really Hugh? I know you are a prog who pretends to be a Libertarian but you usually at least try.

        1. That’s…already how the law works. And I never pretended to be a Libertarian.

          1. No its not. The law says what it says and if I applied for a job with this company I could sue the shit out of them. And people should do just that. This company should not be allowed to break the law like this.

            1. It is a source of ongoing fascination for me that the commenters here who grind up against the law every day are the most naive about how it works.

              1. Next up: Asking a fish about water.

                1. Coincidentally, I just watched DFW’s commencement speech a couple of weeks ago.

              2. Not sure you’re point as I don’t think they’re naive about how things work, I think they are saying all laws should be enforce equally and to not do so is much worse than selectively enforcing the really crappy laws when the end justify it.

                In the end, selective enforcement is one way in which in very bad law becomes cemented in society.

                What part of this do you disagree with exactly?

          2. “That’s…already how the law works.”

            And it was my understanding that it’s a bad thing when the law is selectively enforced in order to advantage some groups and disadvantage others. The fact that the law is already frequently selectively enforced doesn’t mean we should be okay with that.

      2. Think of it as a form of civil disobedience, Hugh.

        These people are knowingly breaking the law to make a political point. They should be willing to face the music for doing so. That’s what civil disobedience means, right?

        Although, as you seem to be on board with selective enforcement as long as only the Right People are targetted, I can see how “rule of law” and “civil disobedience” might not be particularly persuasive to you.

        1. Is being on board with selective enforcement of the law the same thing as acknowledging that selective enforcement is an inherent feature of legal systems? If so, then yes I am 100% on board.

          1. And cops beating people up is also an inherent flaw in legal systems, but that doesn’t stop us from opposing police abuses. Selective enforcement of the law is bad. You seem to be arguing that since it happens no matter what, we shouldn’t even criticize it when it does happen.

            1. You can criticize it all you like. But the answer to selective enforcement isn’t to use the law to inflict greater suffering. That’s the answer to “how can I be a gigantic dick?”

          2. but the classic example then is to ask if you would be ok with a tax break made only for white people

            1. Hugh apparently also thinks the Jizya is okay. I mean, laws are selectively enforced all the time, so who cares if taxes are created specifically to harm the kafir and for the benefit of Muslims? It happens all the time, so fuck it

              1. I’m totally fine with the Jizya. I mean he can be a little full of himself, but he can lay down a good rhyme and he married Kim Kardashian, so he’s entitled to have an ego.

          3. So, since we know the law is selectively enforced, why don’t we have a law against walking in upscale neighborhoods. But, only when the perpetrator is black.

            You’re down with that, right?

            1. What Hugh seems to be missing is that when one group is deemed ‘superior’ to others and is exempt from certain laws (see: laws designed to hurt non-Muslims in Muslim states or Jim Crow laws that only targeted blacks) those laws tend to have extraordinary staying power because no one gives a fuck if the outgroup is harmed. All that matters is the comfort of the ingroup, who the law is designed to accommodate.

              There’s never been a tyranny where everyone was equally tyrannized. A tyranny exists specifically to help favored groups. Allowing people to carve up laws for their ‘group’ actually puts us closer to legitimate tyranny than having the law be one size fits all. If law fits everyone, then shitty laws will be repealed because the people with political power don’t want to live under them. If we allow carve outs, shitty laws won’t get repealed because those with political pull will simply create niches for themselves where they are not impacted by the terrible laws.

      3. Sorry, Hugh, but selective enforcement is the greater tyranny here.

      4. No, let’s use the law to inflict suffering on people who assent to a law designed to harm others. I’m all for that. If someone wants to make it illegal to refuse to sell milshakes to certain races, and buys milkshakes only at businesses that refuse to sell milkshakes to black people, then by all means, punish them with their own law. It’s the only way they’ll ever learn that it’s a bad law.

        Same reason I support expanding the draft to women. It’s likely the best way to get that half of the population in favor of abolishing it altogether. But as long as they’re given a special exemption, they have no reason to support doing away with it.

        Seriously, how can you expect a bad law to ever be done away with if the people who support it are invariably permitted to render themselves exempt from said law? Your logic is horrible.

    2. Do you think it makes any difference that Uber and the like do not hire employees, but rather have independent contractors?

  19. In principle I’m fine with this idea. If some women want to only be driven by other women (or only drive other women), I’ve no problem with it. The thing that sticks in my craw, though, is that if this sort of thing is accepted, if an exception to the rule is made, neither the state nor the public will come any closer to recognizing the legitimacy of the principle of freedom of association. They’ll just recognize this as okay because women, while still insisting the state has the right to interfere when voluntary associations prove an inconvenience for their favored groups.

    I suspect that it’s only by uniformly applying restrictions on liberty that people ever have any hope of recognizing their downside. An axe wound to my neighbor doesn’t hurt me a bit. But, a pinprick to me is a tremendous cause for concern.

    1. Bill, I agree with you. Problem is, government has produced so many carveouts for so many different groups that we now have a situation where every group petitions government for protection of their ‘special interest’- i.e., rent-seeking of varying degrees.
      Ideally, every one should be able to discriminate regarding who they wish to associate with. Freedom of association includes freedom fromassociation. Yes, there will be racial and/or religious and/or political bigots who would not want to associate with others of a particular religion or race or sexual preference; it’s their loss.

  20. So, right now I can sign up at curves?


  21. In fairness, it’s hardly the first transportation service that avoids taking fares from a demographic perceived as more dangerous than others.

  22. Of course, if we accept the legality of catering to the mostly irrational preference of some customers for female drivers and vice-versa, we also have to accept similarly irrational preferences about gender and other protected categories, like race and sexual orientation. And that’s where the rubber hits the road. But if you want to force this guy to bake gay wedding cakes or force Amazon to close its pay gap, you also probably can’t have your safer, friendlier women-centered car service.

    Oh, sure you can. Female privilege is ok, because Vagina.

    Gyms, homeless shelters, spousal abuse services. Off the top of my head.

    1. Re: gyms and spousal abuse services
      Not “because vagina”, “because it’s not a public accommodation”.

      If a lawyer only wants to take cases involving women, they’re perfectly within their federal rights to do so. Their State Bar Association might have an issue, but I really don’t know if that kind of client discrimination would violate their professional ethics ro not.

      Gyms can discriminate ’cause they’re generally structured as “clubs”, and it’s much easier for clubs to do that.

      As for homeless shelters, there are plenty of men’s homeless shelters. Off the cuff, I’m pretty sure there are more men’s shelters then women’s shelters.

      That said, all three are free to discriminate in their “customers”, but if hiring for, say, the person who makes protein shakes in the gym, they’d be bound by normal employment discrimination law.

      1. “Gyms can discriminate ’cause they’re generally structured as “clubs”, and it’s much easier for clubs to do that.”
        Male only ‘clubs’ face far greater legal pressure to be inclusive than female ones.

        “As for homeless shelters, there are plenty of men’s homeless shelters. Off the cuff, I’m pretty sure there are more men’s shelters then women’s shelters.”
        What? Did you seriously try to use that as an argument? What homeless shelter, pray tell, explicitly excludes women? I’ve never heard of one. Virtually every domestic abuse shelter excludes men. And even most homeless shelters provide special services for women. Saying that the fact that most homeless people are men is akin to there being more ‘men’s shelters’ is as dumb as arguing that there are way more ‘black shelters than white shelters’ because homeless people are disproportionately black. What a privilege.

  23. What about SheTaxis? They’re based in NYC right now, but they’re looking to expand into other cities.

  24. My Uncle Lucas recently got Nissan Frontier from only workin part time on a computer. over here

  25. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to
    the Best adult Dating site!

  26. It just struck me that gal friendly porn may be illegal too. Could that be? Or can my spa actually ask if I prefer a male or female therapist? God help us, even if we’re all atheists.

  27. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  28. yes, trans women will be accepted as drivers and passengers

    Does that include cross-dressing pre-op lesbian trans women, aka “men”?

  29. Why Isn’t There a Ladies-Only UberXX Car Service?

    Because rational, for profit business decisions are micro-aggressions or some other made up bullshit.

  30. Uber should stay far away form this.

    Not because it’s a bad idea. They should stay away because they have money and they would simply be a further target for extortion from the race-feminist- trans-whatever injustice of the day- pimps.

  31. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…


  32. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

  33. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  34. Someone already mentioned, there is already a female-specific taxi service, SheTaxis. And I’m pretty sure the feminist Uber is already underway.

    Will the courts shut it down? Not a chance. The established juristic norm is: sexism isn’t sexism if it’s against men, just as racism isn’t racism if it’s against white people (or Asians).

    These arguments that go ‘women should oppose anti-discrimination laws because such and such discrimination in favor of women won’t be allowed either’ are hollow. All women are well aware by now that they can have their cake and eat it too. Keep the anti-discrimination law, and discriminate against men anyway, and see to it that the law is enforced selectively. It’s ‘worked out’ so far in every other realm of life, why not for taxis too?

  35. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?


  36. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.