CTA Tattler

I had a guy rubbing his crotch up against my hand just this morning. I yelled at him, though I used a term other than crotch. We were on the express part of the bus ride, so he got to stand there for 15 minutes while men who witnessed this told him exactly what was going to happen to him when he exited the bus. Thanks, guys!

Cheryl, great story and great of those guys to do that. I had to yell at a guy a few years ago who was wacking it on a semi-crowded Red Line train while seated next to a young girl. She was very taken aback and didn't know what to do.

Remeber ladies, what to do is this: shame them. Yell, tell the whole bus/train what they are doing and tell them to stop, and get the f away from you. Be loud, don't be embarassed (THEY are the ones behaving badly, not you) and get it done. I'm shocked how many women will stand or sit there meekly while they're being harassed. Stand up for yourself.

Of course you had this happen to you. Wishful thinking, for the most part..

Does anyone have any idea what "Questioner" is talking about?

Prevalent groping. Every girl seems to think they've been a victim of it at some point.

No they haven't..

Huh? Still don't know what you're getting at. If you've been groped, you know it. It's not like it's hard to tell when it happens to you. Are you calling every woman who has been groped a liar?

Questioner, is it true "no" really means "yes"?

Whenever this comes up, a misogynist like questioner always pops by to deposit some droppings. My other favorite is the guy who says, "what's the big deal?"

This can only turn out bad... if people start posting pictures of people they THOUGH grouped them on a packed bus/train... well... anyone who is standing during rush hour could get their picture up there

How come there has been so little dicussion about this: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52334

Neither the Tribune, the Sun Times, or any of the television stations (except, of course, the one that engaged in the initial yellow journalism) has covered this. Huberman threw away advertising revenue in order to cave to complaints from right wing extramists who believe that video games are the cause of all evils. That bears repeating. Huberman threw away CTA money, which will eventually have to be recouped from riders or taxpayers, in order to please the decency police. These are the people who think that video games and realistic TV shows rather than drugs, lack of oppertunities, or guns are the causes of people killing each other. I think this is an outragous abuse of his power as CTA President. His job is to run the transit agency. It is not to make himself look good to certain political groups in an attempt to gain their favor for a future run for some political office(although I think this will backfire). I don't care how small a portion of the budget the money that he threw away was. It is enormouselly irresponsible fiscally. And there should be much more outrage about this than I have seen.

MK, at least the children are safe now.

MK, where is the outrage you must feel every day of your life fretting about the CTA's decision to reject lucrative alcohol advertising?

I wasn't aware that they did. But come to think of it I don't remember ever seeing any alcohol ads. So you are probably right. If so, I find that outragous as well. What purpose does it serve? What earthly reason could the CTA have for thinking that alcohol is not an appropriate product to be advertised? It's not like it achieves anything anyway. Everybody who rides the CTA sees alcohol advertising every day or two.

The CTA should not be in the morals business. It wouldn't be effective anyway if it tried.

Absolutely, but then this is an argument against the FCC as well. Why should they spend tax dollars keeping censored what they claim must be censored. Dont get me wrong, I believe the CTA should allow any advertisements, but then you open the floodgates to porn ads, et al.
There has to be some sort of standard, just like the FCC has to keep the airwaves clean to their standards, so must the CTA keep its ads clean to their own standard.

But seriously, GTA 4 ads and the absence of them is not going to stop any violence, and it was VERY stupid to remove them.

Well, I don't have a problem with porn ads being rejected. Not neccessarally for any moral reason but because they are generally thought of as contributing to an unpleasant (maybe that's not the right word) or "dirty" atmosphere. Maybe that says more about society than anything else. But porn ads would probably cause the CTA to lose more revenue than it would get from discoraging people from riding. So it is in their interests to ban them. But, needless to say, the same is not true with alcohol or video games. Is the CTA saying that alcohol is immoral? If so, that is obviously ridiculous and something you would expect in Utah, not Chicago. So it is not in the CTA's interest and there is no moral reason for the CTA to ban it. So it is wrong for it to do so. The only reason it does, I'm sure, is to please a small but vocal pressure group or two who complain. The only way to combat this type of stuff is for the rest of us, the large but not vocal people who have common sense, to complain as well.

A wise friend once said, "The only thing preventing me from embracing public transit is my vivid disdain for the public."

Let's see...getting stuck in a tunnel for 2 hours. Racist epithets being tossed around. Getting groped by creeps. It's been a lovely few days hasn't it?

But then again, would you move to Alaska and complain it was cold?

Buy a car. Climate control. Bucket seats. A radio tuned to music of your choice. No groping. No ads. No strange liquids, smells or stains (unless you put them there.) And if your sanctimonious stomach can't handle buying a car, buy a Prius.

Well, yes. I could see how I must have misconstrued the gentleman's taking out his erect penis and vigorously rubbing it while making eye contact with me as some sort of... wait, no. I'm sorry, I think it lacks a certain class to expose one's genitalia
in public. And I can tell the difference between being pushed against me by the crowd and having my breasts or buttocks grabbed, squeezed, and rubbed. I can see how you might feel nervous about being accused of such a thing, Questioner, Mr. Catalano, but the line seems very clear when you are actually (pardon the term) exposed to it.

It's not "whiny" to not want to be the victim of a crime, nor is it "sanctimonious" not to want others to have to deal with rudeness of that sort, Nick. I am sad that you feel that way, but maybe you can think of a few reasons why someone might ride the CTA that do not arouse your ire and censure? Do try to put yourself in the other's place; it does make for easier communication, sometimes.

I'm with you, LauraH. It hasn't happened to me, but I completely feel the cringe factor that even thinking about being groped while on mass transit, or seeing someone masturbating in public induced. Ugh.

So to imply that the people who see this, or the women who have a groping incident happen to them are liars is disingenuous at best, and at worst, outrightly cynical. There IS a HUGE difference between someone accidentally bumping into you on a crowded bus and intentionally rubbing their privates against you. The difference then has a massive impact: your personal space has been deliberately violated, while an accidental bumping-into is precisely that.

(Side note: I find it interesting that all those who question the reality of these incidents are male. I don't know why, I just do).

MK, I distinctly remember Captain Morgan Rum ads on the Red Line, circa 1998. They featured a fun bunch of attractive, multicultural, urban party people dancing it up and having a genuine all-around blast. The headlines read, "get spicy," and "don't stop the flava."

I'm not making this up.

I'm fairly certain I've seen that Captain Morgan ad also. But not lately. Is this something they decided on recently? Because I'm sorry, the CTA can't afford to live up to somebody's moral code.

What's so strange/disturbing about the banning of the GTA ads is that they showed NOTHING. They just showed characters from the game standing there, not even holding a gun! The offense to it was an IMPLIED offense. "Well, we understand that GTA is a violent game, so merely seeing the letters GTA will incite violence. Take them down!"

So how many violent movies have been advertised on CTA property? What's the diff?

BTW, I saw the headline "El groping" and thought it was a Mexican bandit.

Looking around the buses and trains, I don't see much unsold advertising space, so I don't quite get the whole "the CTA is throwing money away" argument. I don't really worry one way or another about CTA ads and morality (hey, maybe Pleasure Chest can buy train wraps and turn those nice long 8-car trains into vibrators), but my understanding a few months ago from all the CTA pundits here and elsewhere was that the bill that pushed our sales tax to 10.25% fixed the CTA's funding issues for good, and like any other business the CTA can choose whom to do and not to do business with.

I want to see the Pleasure Chest Train. Really, I do.

>>>
Looking around the buses and trains, I don't see much unsold advertising space, so I don't quite get the whole "the CTA is throwing money away"
<<<

Well, not only that, but doesn't the CTA outsource the whole advertising thing? Don't they get the same amount whether the company that sells the ads sells them all, or doesn't sell any?

It seems to me the CTA lost no revenue by excercising their veto right, and if there are companies waiting in line to take those empty spaces, the ad company didn't lose anything, either.

So I really don't think we can make this an economic arguement. We're not in a "take the porn money or cut-back on service" situation.

But we are in a "who gets to draw the line where, and why" situation.

Perhaps there were "worse" ads in the past, but were there any complaints? If the system is complaint-driven, that could happen. But then what happens if someone organizes a fake complaint campaign against some inoculous ad? Who decides if complaints are valid complaints?

There needs to be some disclosure about what the policy is, how it's applied, who's judgement is used, and what appeal process is in place. Ultimately, as a public agency, any policy decision should be able to be appealed to a publicly accountable body.

But then there's also the question as to who has standing to complain. What if the advertiser really would rather have the ad banned to get the publicity associated with a banning?

I'm sure the makers of GTA are thrilled that we're discussing this here, and disappointed that the banning hasn't gotten more publicity.

So are we just acting as pawns in a big game by discussing this? Are we just creating free publicity here that has a better return than the paid ads would have brought?

The symbolism of the Pleasure Chest train entering the subway would be amazing. Flickr's servers surely would explode.

I think we should start a campaign to pressure the Pleasure Chest into advertising on the CTA.

I've certainly seen a lot more empty advertising space than others have. But that is beyond the point anyway. If all the advertising space is sold it doesn't mean that there are companies waiting in line and that no revenue would be lost if ads are refused. The advertising rates are set, I'm sure, based on the supply and demand. The more advertisements that companies want to put up, the higer the rate. That doesn't mean more advertisements. It means higher prices for the same amount of advertisements. It is just like the airline industry. As you may notice, many airlines going through difficult fininancial times. It is not because every seat is not sold, because they pretty much are. But they cannot charge a fare that is enough for them to cover their increasing costs because people wouldn't buy it. And it does not matter if this is outsourced or not. A contract would not be worth as much if there are restrictions. There undoubtadly are set rules in the contract that penalize the CTA if there are restrictions that limit ads. The revenue reduction will have to come back to the CTA somehow.

>>>
There undoubtadly are set rules in the contract that penalize the CTA if there are restrictions that limit ads.
<<<

Why?

It's pretty standard that if an ad agency is selling ad space someplace they don't own that the owner retains veto rights. But unless the veto rights are excercised to such an extent that the ability to sell advertising is severely restricted, the ad agency has to live with it.

If the CTA was rejecting an unusual number of ads with no rhyme or reason, they might have a case. But rejecting a couple ads here and there aren't going to affect anything.

Heck, I'm guessing that with this being an election year there are going to be a lot of ads rejected by owners of every medium. That's just the way the business works.

Our quesioning ought to be regarding what the policy is, what standards are used, who applies the standards, and what method of appeal are available. And do these all pass constitutional mustard in regard to commercial speech.

If we're going to make this an economic issue, well, my personal choice of Coke or Pepsi at the grocery store is more significant of an issue.

I did a thoroughly non-scientific survey of today's homebound bus. Close to 30% of the advertising was for CTA (get a Chicago Card; we're hiring part-time bus operators; become a Mystery Shopper; let the people in wheelchairs on first). The paid advertising was the current Cottonelle campaign. I don't need a cute puppy to tell me how to wipe while I'm riding a filthy bus, or really any time. Despite the fact that I spend my workdays immersed in violence and teenage nihilism, I think Grand Theft Auto would be a major step up from the Cottonelle Puppy.

I hardly think any woman posting on here has had a groping incident happen. They may have had a slightly questionable moment, which they have morphed into, "I was forcibly groped on the CTA!", but they haven't really had it happen.

Don't feed the troll

It's not worth it

absolutely right, Answerer. All I will say is that's plain who's male, 'tany rate...

Should we consider Japan's solution of Women's only cars on the train? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only_passenger_car

Feed the troll, fakers. Don't clam up when called out.

Could the Questioner possibly be Reasonable Man and/or Asshole Guy who answered similarly to Kevin's post late last year about his daughter's classmate having an El Gropo experience on the Red Line? Methinks it entirely possible.