Why Muthu could be right, if he wasn't so entitled.

I am writing this in reference and perhaps a reply to a now viral post made by muthuwrites on Instagram where he wrote a series of paragraphs displaying his disapproval of MRT Corp’s implementation of “Women Only Coaches”. This of course comes after MRT Corp’s decision to follow the footsteps of its sister company, KTM, for its Kajang Line. Do note, that the existence of “Women Only Coaches” are far from being new and has been implemented across various cities, from Tokyo to Delhi.

As such, amongst his disapprovals, Muthu expressed various criticisms against the initiative, from points ranging from “inequality” to “men’s safety and comfortability”. To be fair, these criticisms are valid when we exclude the very reality of women’s safety when taking public transportation. However, because of such lack of acknowledgement towards the reality of gender-based harassment and violence, his criticisms fall short in understanding urban policy and women’s safety.

Let’s break down his criticisms, slide-by-slide:

1. Segregation of the Genders?

His first criticisms points out the very real issue of potential segregation between men and women in public transport. One of his first questions, or concerns, was whether “female passengers aren’t allowed to enter regular coaches”. While MRT has addressed the concern by stating female passengers are allowed to enter regular coaches, it is understandable why he would have raised such a question.

Even if women were allowed to enter regular coaches, it does not negate the potential segregation or the “effects” of segregation in public transport. Thus, it is necessary to look at other cities where such initiatives have also been implemented. In the book “Engendering Cities: Designing Sustainable Urban Spaces For All”(great book btw)¹, Yamini Narayanan wrote extensively in criticism of “women-only coaches” across India’s metro systems. However, unlike Muthu, Yamini understands the reality of women’s safety in India. Her main takeaway isn’t the fact that women are somehow treated like “treasures” as Muthu argues. Instead, it’s the daunting reality of how the patriarchy is able to persists through the existence of “women-only coaches”.

Such views are reflective of the concept of “the culture of a place”, particularly how different places affects the behaviours of people within such spaces. Hille Koskela and Rachel Pain explains how certain places (such as the MRT) can be labelled as masculine where typical masculine behaviours are normalised.² Thus, when a place adopts a “masculine” label, it further enables the culture of harassment and violence against women.

As such, this brings onto my second analysis of Muthu’s criticisms.

2. What about the men?

Above we talked about how when a place adopts a masculine label, people’s behaviour changes. For men, it is the belief that they are entitled to such space. For women, it is the belief that they should adapt to such space. As such, Muthu writes: “Does this mean men’s safety and comfortability is not a big deal?”.

You see, when an initiative is made where men aren’t at its centre, the often response is that such initiatives are made to the disadvantage of men. In other words, it reeks of entitlement. Even with “women-only coaches” such culture and entitlement persist. As Yamini suggests, the segregation of men and women could transform into an extension of misogynistic practices such as the culture of zenana³. Wherein a separate ladies section/wing is incorporated into a space. Take for instance, certain restaurants in Saudi Arabia where there’s a women-only corner and a men-only corner. Sure, it allows for a greater level of safety, but it also creates isolation, limits freedom of movement and re-introduce restrictive moral norms against women.

In any way you see it, with or without “women-only coaches”, men are never placed at a disadvantage. Thus, for Muthu to use this opportunity to pull a “what about men” card only reminds me of when white supremacists pull the “all lives matter” card in response to the BLM movement. It is insincere and disingenuous, period.

3) Can’t we just increase surveillance?

Well, we can, in fact this is probably the only non-problematic and non-entitled criticism from him. This isn’t the first time such suggestion has been raised. In fact, I’m sure across the 20+ years of RapidKL’s operations, passengers have asked for greater policing and surveillance.

Beyond that, in various metros across the world, surveillance is complimentary to the implementation of “women-only coaches”. This is especially prevalent in Mexico City where alongside an entire PR campaign where “women-only coaches” were seen as a social movement, there was an increase in surveillance alongside a 24-hour hotline. Not only did it create women safe spaces, but it also empowered women to pursue action when dealing with gender-based violence and harassment. Most importantly, the advent of data and proper surveying allows for better levels of monitoring city-wide. Viajemos Seguras, meaning “We Women Travel Safety” was a city-wide program that established monitoring stations throughout the metro where it encouraged women to report any form of sexual harassment or violence.⁴

Es nuestra derecha a viajar sin miedo - “It is our right to travel without fear”. These are the words that are repeated every day, in every coach, in every metro line across Mexico City. Clearly, eliminating violence and harassment against women is more than just pink tape separating 2 metro coaches, it requires more, a lot more.

Slowly but surely, Mexico City’s metro transformed from being what Hille Koskela and Rachel Pain’s definition of a “masculine place” to a place where both genders could utilise and where men understands that their behaviours are not welcomed. The real effect of such movement enables women to be viewed as actual members of the public, who are also deserving of public facilities and spaces.

Real Policies, Real Voices, Real Safety:

While this short article has expressed much of my opinion on the matter as well as the opinion of other urban designers, it is important to also understand the real substantive policies that have been implemented across the world. For instance, the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) has implemented various initiatives that were chaired by women of various neighbourhoods. Safety audits were properly conducted across Toronto’s transit lines and between 2000 to 2004, such audits had massive involvement of female-led community groups. Subsequently, the TTC worked extensively, hand-in-hand with other civil societies and mobility groups in understanding ways in which women, children and the disabled safety is prioritised.⁵

Even though statistically, initiatives such as the ones found in Toronto and Mexico City has only seen a slight drop in violence and harassment against women, it is important to remember that this is not an isolated issue but a societal and systemic one.⁶ Gender-based violence and harassment is multifaceted, as such these initiatives play a massive role in the fight for women’s safety.

That is not to say that what MRT Corp has done is not beneficial. Of course, to many urban designers, it is not ideal to implement a form of segregation in public transport. However, it is the best we can to curb gender-based violence and harassment towards women. Hence, it is important for men like Muthu to recognise and understand how to move forward away from “women-only coaches” by ensuring that the MRT is not a place where sexual harassment and violence is tolerated. Thus, the issue Muthu needs to understand is that it was never about gender-segregation, it has always been about men endangering the lives of women. It doesn’t take a degree in women studies to figure that out.

---

Gen Z and Simplified/Satirised Version:

Basically, Muthu is basically talking mad crap about an attempt to allow women to just have a safe space when taking their daily commute. However, perhaps some of his criticisms aint that bad when we consider how gender-segregated public transport doesn’t do a whole lot when it comes to curbing harassment and violence towards women. Even then, the thingy that Muthu wrote was not from that perspective but form a more entitled, “what about men” perspective which is like not slay. Not saying he is like cancelled like whatever, but he should really look into urban policy and design before he starts talking crap about an honest initiative.

1. ISBN 9780815391746

2. Revisiting fear and place: women's fear of attack and the built environment - https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00033-0

3. Zenana (Persian: زنانه, Urdu: زنانہ, Bengali: জেনানা, Hindi: ज़नाना) literally meaning "of the women" or "pertaining to women", in Persian language^[1] contextually refers to the part of a house belonging to a Muslim, Sikh, or Hindu family in the Indian subcontinent which is reserved for the women of the household. ^{(thx wikipedia!)}

4. Women-Only Transportation: How “Pink” Public Transportation Changes Public Perception of Women’s Mobility” - Amy Dunckel-Graglia & SUNY Stony Brook

5. Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women And Children.

6. Women-Only Transportation: How “Pink” Public Transportation Changes Public Perception of Women’s Mobility” - Amy Dunckel-Graglia & SUNY Stony Brook