To suggest a male curfew one night a week

I’m a man and I'd happily stay at home one night a week if it meant women felt safe. But I don't see a way it could be workable.

Old thread - bonkers

I've said this before but until there is a massive change in society, religions and parenting its not going to change.

It needs to be done from the cradle and every greed and colour needs to take part.
You would need both parents to stop excusing poor behaviour, education in healthy relationships for both sexes on how to treat each other.
It would need a radicle change in the choices made as to who to date and what to look for in a date.
And a massive change in who we look up to roles models and heroes.
And even then it would still have to be done in a non accusatory way.

I agree op it would lovely to just not have to deal with male entitlement/aggression or men leering how freeing

I am thankfully largely ignored now but would have been very welcomed when I was younger to be able to just pop to the shops without dealing with creeps

And what exactly do you think the message that a curfew for men suggests? It is a purely punitive (and quite aggressive) measure that says that all men must pay for the acts of some men, and they must do so by restrictions being placed upon their liberty (something usually reserved for people who have actually committed a crime or those who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves due to age/mental illness or cognitive impairment)? I cannot see how this could be framed as anything other than collective punishment of men, for nothing more than being male.

As I have said previously- do you actually believe this will lead to positive change? Let’s face it- those are predators or violent or abusive will not likely change because if this, nor will they respect it. How do you enforce it? What bout people who work during the proposed curfew hours- do we suddenly not have any male staff working in hospitals & emergency care settings/emergency services such as ambulance or fire service; no men working in care facilities, hospitality, emergency vets, vehicle rescue services, transportation (e.g. bus and train drivers, station staff and maintenance/repair staff) etc on a given day per week. Utter rubbish- it’s not fair, practical, sensible or enforceable. I strongly suspect would also not be legally enforceable- thankfully.

I don’t think the majority of the population actually believe male violence does not require action. I think the majority also realise that it can’t be adequately addressed unless men are engaged in making those changes. FWIW, I don’t think that it can be addressed unless men are involved and actively engaged- my objection to this is not simply a defence of men for the sake of it, or because I don’t think that there is an issue or because I don’t see that men do need to play a significant role. My objection is because I think this particular measure is fundamentally wrong, unjust and unjustifiable- as well as impractical, ineffective and unenforceable. I would hate to see the men and boys in my life subject to this sort of measure. I also think it is likely to drive disengagement from the male population, if not cause a backlash of some sort. The only possible reason to suggest it would be vindictive- a desire to punish for the sake of being able to do so. It smacks of a desire for revenge.

Many men are defensive about male violence and misogyny, which is an issue- but I doubt this measure will get them engaged, more likely to cause anger, resentment and an entrenchment. I suspect even men who are concerned might be alienated by this sort of measure. I suspect many women may also not support it. So, again- what exactly is it trying to achieve?

@Boomer55 "Most men aren’t a threat to women."

I agree. Most people aren't burglars either. Or shoplifters, or drunk drivers or child abusers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from the people that are.

And as I keep saying, the men who aren't a threat HAVE to take some responsibility for dealing with the men that are.

You definitely cannot know that 100%

When I was at uni there were several of these events, linked in with other areas, mental health etc

The funny thing is that they were protested by the uni feminist groups, they even managed to shut several of them down.

Tbf, if lockdown was anything to go by, there'd be enough curtain twitchers reporting them that they'd be apprehended before they reached the end of their drive.

It’s not like they’re going to look at the calendar, realise it’s Tuesday, and put off the murder they were planning on committing until tomorrow 🙄

How utterly ridiculous. Why should my lovely DH have to stay inside just because there’s other men who act like twats?

attempting to shut down discussion, and attempting to shame people for discussing, the benefits we discovered from having that kind of curfew in a very specific situation where it could be politically and socially justified isn't helpful either

par for the course these days. There is no nuance in discussions. We really need to stop shutting people down. See Brexit for what happens when you don't listen to people.

Actually I was going to make the exact same point. On the thread about the fire and the mum and kids who were killed, a poster made clear that societal attitudes are that if something is wrong with or for a man, it's ultimately down to women. So if a boy becomes an unpleasant man, that's his mother's fault.

You cannot possibly know that 100%.

I’ve had two husbands, a son, and I’ve got 4 adult grandsons. None have ever abused, or been a threat to women.

Most men aren’t a threat to women.

Silly idea.🙄

Nope.

I'm saying we should use the data that is available to us, including data we acquired by accident (Panama and Peru didn't set out to prove a feminist point, but they inadvertently did), and the personal and subjective experiences of women worldwide, to consider all alternatives for what they can teach us.
And also that we should not allow discussion and brainstorming to be shut down by thought-terminating and very culturally specific clichés.

Let's say, as many posters in this thread have passionately insisted, that stats really do prove that most or almost all VAWG in the UK occurs at home rather than in public. I question that for the reasons I stated in my previous reply, but I would be interested to know what I am missing. REGARDLESS, I don't think that anyone can legitimately argue that the instances of women and girls in the UK being targeted by men (or even my male strangers, if you like - and I'm including a person who's been stalking me for months as a stranger if I don't think I have a relationship with him) outside the home/in public, BECAUSE they are female, is trivial. Because it's not.

Of course a curfew for males isn't viable in non-extraordinary circumstances!! It would completely violate rights on the basis of sex. That's not in anyone's interest. And in a UK context, EA 2010 protects sex as a characteristic; discrimination against men would be and should be as unlawful as discrimination against women. But attempting to shut down discussion, and attempting to shame people for discussing, the benefits we discovered from having that kind of curfew in a very specific situation where it could be politically and socially justified isn't helpful either. I think we should consider why we're so willing to shut down a line of inquiry when men might be upset by it when there is so much more reason for women to be upset by the current state of affairs and that is NOT a crisis.

Yes, it is. Women as mothers, yes. If you don’t take the time to teach your sons respect for women, what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour, no means no, women are neither playthings nor punchbags, then you are very much part of the problem you seem to be so keen to pass of as something that just needs to be policed by men.

Oh well if they were laughing ones it makes all the difference!
🤣🤣🤣

@Hateam they weren't smily face emojis, the were laughing ones. I used them because I couldn't be bothered to respond to @SoupDragon's baffling, but also rude, response to my perfectly valid point.

Just so you know, using smilie face emojis is nowhere near the killer blow you clearly think it is. You're not 12.

@SoupDragon "don't be ridiculous"

🤣🤣🤣

Even though that means men can all relax and consider themselves not a member of the "most"...

don't be ridiculous

@saraclara "Seriously, if you visited a forum for fathers and there were frequent posts saying "women need to..." or "women are (insert unpleasant characteristic)" would you be equally comfortable with that? "

If there was an damaging issue that was overwhelmingly created by women, and that women seemed to be distancing themselves from or minimising, then I do think I would be comfortable with that, yes. But hey ho. I will say "most men" from this day forward. Even though that means men can all relax and consider themselves not a member of the "most"......

It's not smoothing their ego to say 'many' or 'most'. It's about accuracy.

Seriously, if you visited a forum for fathers and there were frequent posts saying "women need to..." or "women are (insert unpleasant characteristic)" would you be equally comfortable with that?

And on a practical level, inserting that word would mean fewer threadjacked discussions, of course..

The "lot" of women has vastly improved over the years. And often that comes from the work of women. Because it takes the "victim" to be able to explain WHY something is problematic (this is why I hate the notion of "it's not my job to educate you" - you're the one who the problem, you need to be the one to let people know)

You wouldn't say "Muslims need to tackle the problem of extremist Muslim terrorists". In fact, whenever there is an attack by extremists, there's always reminders and talk afterwards about how we CAN'T blame all Muslims.

*I use Muslim here as the most common group in recent years who are group blamed but there are other communities it could equally say