To suggest a male curfew one night a week

Would it reduce domestic violence against women and children?

Doesn't reduce femicide rates.

My problem is always that whatever is suggested people always leap to the defence of men. Even if somebody says "Men need to step up in their parenting and take some responsibility for how the next generation of men grow up" or "men need to call out other men on their sexist and misogynist behaviour or language" there is an instant chorus of " Well, all the men I know do this already!"

You could ban alcohol all together.
That would reduce many crimes.

Once again civil liberties. You can restrict alcohol in the street - some places where we live have actually banned alcohol consumption in public with a hefty fine. But I don’t see how you could restrict the consumption of alcohol in your own home. The only way I can see that happening is the use of the breathalyser in calls to the police for domestic violence. No idea how you could frame it though.

I wasn't being serious but I do agree with you.

The number one most effective thing we could do to reduce violence against men and women would be to restrict or otherwise discourage the excessive consumption of alcohol. That's both violence in the street or inside the home.

That’s actually worse. You’re punishing women for the perceived danger from the man, when in 85% of cases there is none. That’s not a sensible solution. As much as it’s an unpopular thing to say here, a partial solution is education. And it’s not a short term solution, it starts with our children. We educate them as to how to treat women with respect and not as possessions or playthings, or to be used as punchbags whenever you feel like it. No means no, every time. That requires everyone being on board, but sadly, as I said upthread I’ve seen some dreadful parenting with kids left to their own devices until they’re practically feral. Until we have proper legislation and joined up services the problem is always going to be here - it is anyway to a certain extent because you can’t legislate 100% via education, punishment or anything else because of biology.

To echo what's already been said. It's men carrying out this violence so the issue is very much male aggression.

And as pointed out already it is overwhelmingly men meting out said violence on men. While there is no shortage of drunk dickheads in town centres on a saturday night unable to walk away from a potential confrontation over some nonsense perceived slieght a huge number of men are getting assaulted, or 'jumped' for just minding their own business at a taxi rank or walking home or whatever. Pretty much every one of my male friends at some point have had to either take extreme evasive action (run like the wind) from drunk groups of men or have been punched / kicked from behind for the crime of just being there. I never ever understood the mindset that some men have where they think their night out is not complete without viciously assaulting some random man for shits and giggles.

In fairness, I think the 'emergency' does reference the problem of male violence in general but acknowledges the particular subset of male violence that is directed disproportionately at women BECAUSE they are women and includes rape, sexual assault and murder of female victims as a direct consequence of their sex. So in this way is different from male on male violence due to theft, fights, muggings etc which accounts for the largest numbers of victims.
I suppose if you feel that too many resources are being directed towards female victims of male violence and this is unfair to men, you could raise it with your MP.

But men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. A quick Google brought up lots of studies to show this. Should violence against males and females be a national emergency. I think so, otherwise the majority of victims (males) are being ignored.

You seem to be adopting an air of superiority about that. There are many factors that influence the level of fear women may feel in going out after dark. The neighbourhood they live in, their age, physical vulnerability, ethnicity, religious identity, past experiences of harassment or assault.
I sound like a broken record as I've said this so many times on here, but the government and police have classified VAWG and girls as 'a national emergency'. If you are fortunate enough to live in circumstances where that doesn't touch your own life, then that's great for you.
Other women are not so lucky, and attempting to belittle what may well be justifiable fears by bragging about your own confidence and using language that insinuates other women are cowards is unnecessary and unfair.

Exactly, same, I don't just hide away indoors all scared as soon as the sun goes down.
Agree with more police presence needed on streets and better street lighting.

The hypothesis is based on locking up every individual man because they belong to that sex class, though. In the hypothesis, their sex class couldn't be more relevant, because it is literally the only criteria being used to lock them up. Its central premis is that the single most important risk factor in determining whether a person poses a danger is their sex class. That's exactly what we're being invited to explore.

@5128gap ,

The reason sex class is irrelevant is that the hypothesis is based on a curfew of all men I.E every individual man.

You can’t curfew a class without damaging individual rights. As I explained group punishment is both immoral and illegal in all civilised societies, and against the Geneva convention.

If we get confused between class analysis (theory) and imposing consequences on innocent individuals, we are going down a dangerous road.

There are many logical and moral reasons why you are wrong however as the fundamental principle of a male curfew is beyond the pale so these are irrelevant.

Statistically, the men most likely to hurt you are already in your house. The narrative of "the dangers are out there" is what keeps women frightened and scared to go out alone. This thread is contributing to that narrative.

The entire thread is based around the concept of sex class. The OP is suggesting a curfew of people based solely on their belonging to a sex class, so how on earth is the concept irrelevant to the thread?
(Oh, and I've said from my first post I don't agree with the OP, so if you respond there's no need to repeat all that stuff about how terrible it is, and accuse me of being 'chilling', I'm only asking why you think sex class has 'zero relevance' on the thread?)

@WotsYourExcuse "Maybe we should also ban dogs from public places so people who are terrified of them can walk in peace?"

Well, we do already restrict dogs' freedom for the safety and convenience of humans-acknowledging that, while most dogs are safe and delightful, a minority aren't......

At last, a suggestion that might actually be effective.

A more sensible solution would be to forbid women from being alone with their spouse/partner and introduce a chaperone system instead. This would tackle the most common form of femicide.

Maybe we should also ban dogs from public places so people who are terrified of them can walk in peace?

This whole sex class thing has zero relevance to this thread.

It may be relevant in feminist analysis or sociology but, unless you believe in group punishment, is irrelevant to this ‘thought experiment’.

We have had many examples of group punishment throughout history for real or imagined wronged. We tend to call them atrocities or war crimes and they are illegal under the Geneva convention (Israel quickly rowed back from trying to starve Gaza into giving up the hostages).

As I said earlier, the amount of people who would gladly imagine innocent people being punished is chilling, if maybe not surprising.

I don't know whether you genuinely lack the ability to grasp the difference between women (plural, as in the sex class) couldn't really hurt you (plural, as in the sex class) and "no individual woman could ever hurt an individual man"; or whether you're just using my post as a springboard for your agenda.
Given I've explained to you in terms a child could understand the difference, yet you still persist in quoting me as an excuse to repeat that 'women hurt men' I'm leaning towards the latter.
Either way, I'm genuinely sorry if you have personal reason to be scared of women. As I said before, the risk of danger to you from women as a group is very small indeed. Much smaller than the risk you face from other men. So if I were you, and you don't want to acknowledge the problem of male violence to women, you'd probably still be better served by focusing on male violence towards men rather than inflating the risk from women, which is negligible by comparison.