To suggest a male curfew one night a week

[twojumps]

when women can walk free in the streets without fear?

Yes, violence still happens in homes and behind closed doors but what a powerful message it would send.

I'd say every night but let's start with one.

I think that's quite enough internet for you for today.

@TempestTost Are you familiar with the concept of a "thought experiment"?

Quite incredible lack of awareness of the reality. I stick by my original assesment.

Ditto

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or suggesting the same for me! :)

Totally agree. I cannot believe this is a serious conversation...

I grew up in central London. I am hands down more 'aware' than a lot of people.

Stick to whatever you like.

Must go now... I'm off to meet some amazing male friends! 👍

The predators that prey on women will not follow a curfew and then you’ll have women out thinking their safe and if something does happen one of the very decent males who might have stopped and saved them are stuck in on the curfew.

Criminals do not follow rules and the law. We have no way near enough police to cover something like this. If anything you can bet crime would rise.

Women couldn't really hurt you if we wanted to.

That's absolutely saying women can't hurt men. Plenty of people on this site act as though women are no threat.

Some women can and are a threat to some men and we need to stop acting otherwise

Sure, but what's the experiment here? It leads nowhere, other than a society that has completely given up on the basic principles of liberal democratic society.

How is that going to turn out for women or anyone else?

It's not at all clear what the OP thought such a thought experiment might reveal, but actually it seems to me she thinks it's a serious possibility to be discussed.

The idea is morally repugnant and shouldn't've got past the first page.

Just saying 'Thought experiment' doesn't give people the right to be offensive.

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.

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.

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

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.

At last, a suggestion that might actually be effective.

@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......

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?)

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.