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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!"

Doesn't reduce femicide rates.

Would it reduce domestic violence against women and children?

So then the predators know when to strike!
Great idea!

Totally and utterly unreasonable. The majority of men are not a risk and you cannot restrict their liberty arbitrarily because some men are. This kind of suggestion makes me very angry because it is bullshit like this which causes strife and conflict. It makes good men feel they are being punished for no good reason, which is likely to damage gender relations and will not encourage any engagement with the genuine problems faced. This does not improve the situation for women and girls, it damages feminism and it damages relations between the genders.

it’s also pointless- men who are a risk are hardly going to respect such a measure, nor will it restrict their behaviour on that evening/night or any other. So, you alienate lots of men, send the message to boys growing up that they are viewed with such hostility that they have to have their liberty restricted at random (and then wonder why they won’t engage in any of the issues relating to misogyny/violence towards women and girls etc). Is this really the best solution that you can suggest?!

I don't know is the honest answer, as I don't have any reliable data on the prevalence of DV in 'dry' countries.
If I had to speculate (which I realise is no substitute for evidence) I'd say probably not, because alcohol doesn't create abusers from decent non violent men, it merely heightens the emotions that trigger the episodes.
So perhaps it might reduce the number of incidents of violence within the individual family of an abusive male; but I doubt it would reduce the number of families living with an abusive male.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that roughly 55% of domestic abuse perpetrators were drinking alcohol prior to assault.

Many of these men would have hit their wives and kids anyway but that figure does seem chilling.

Thank you. That's interesting and as you say, very disturbing.
Many of the survivors I work with come from teetotal homes, so I'm just concious that sobriety is no protection. I'd also say that (anecdotally again) the strongest link with abuse and substance use reported by the women involves cocaine, and/or other drugs that induce paranoia with heavy use. Which are of course illegal already.

I absolutely see your perspective. But looking to women to have to engage the good men in this issue enough to care about it and make it their problem too also doesn't work. Why should victims have the responsibility to engage the potential perpetrators? How do you propose we move forward?

But that could easily be true. As was pointed out upthread, yes the decent men need to step up and call out this behaviour, but how do you measure that ? I’ve seen it being called out in our own circle of friends, and also at work. And I don’t think anyone is leaping to the defence of men here - they’re mostly leaping to the defence of liberty.

Some decent men might call out some of the problematic men, but no one calls out the really bad men because they are scared of them.

Well, I cannot see any situation in which mass punishment of a whole group (in this case, men/older boys) to tackle an issue caused by a minority is justifiable. Can you imagine if you said this about, say, all white people or anyone with a certain mental illness or all Muslims? It’s simply unacceptable. And intellectually lazy, I think- hugely blunt instrument that us likely to cause so much damage and not even achieve what you set out to do in the first place- leaving us even further away from where we need to be.

I think putting a curfew on men will alienate many people (not just men), cause significant resentment if not outrage (with justification imho) and possibly actually increase misogyny and violence towards women. It will damage boys growing up- you wonder why the likes of Andrew Tate et al and his hideous views gain traction? It’s never as simple as one simple thing, of course, because it’s complex and based on societal exposure and personal experience etc- but honestly, boys hear this “all men are dangerous/ awful people/ predators” and so on- and then you want them to engage in a conversation where they are demonised simply for being male? How can anyone expect that to work?

I will say, in response to your question that as a starting point I don’t buy into mass victimhood for all women, any more than I buy into mass guilt for all men. I am not a victim, I don’t think my daughters are victims. I don’t feel unsafe at all times/ unsafe whenever I encounter men. I think this is so unhealthy- and in my experience inaccurate- outlook on the world. I don’t view my son as inherently guilty/a perpetrator simply by virtue of being male. It saddens me that this narrative of mass victimhood/mass guilt is gaining traction. I feel it is harmful to both females and males.

At the same time, I know there is a significant problem with misogyny and violence towards women and we do need to address that somehow. I also recognise that we don’t live in an ideal world and we have to deal with the world as it is and engage in it and those less than ideal people (of all genders, ethnicities, religions etc) who inhabit it on that basis. I guess I believe you can chose to be “in the right”- I.e. refusing to have the “victims” engage with the “possible perpetrators” (allowing for my scepticism that all women are victims and all men are perpetrators) or you can try to do the most effective thing- and I believe education is the key. You are not going to change this quickly- matters that are at the societal level never, ever are! But education that comes from a place of accusation, blame and mass guilt will never work. If you tell someone they are awful (or any other negative thing) long enough they will either believe it and internalise it or rebel against it. Is that really what you want for all boys growing up? I don’t want it for my make relatives and friends. I, therefore, chose to engage with my son to educate him about the problems women face- from misogyny, inequality in career/employment, violence and harassment, the importance of consent etc. I could chose to say “not my problem to help you see it”- but if it’s not down to me, whose job is it? Obviously, the state and education systems, as well as the media and legal/justice systems have their own roles to play. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I just feel very strongly that a curfew is not in any way a part of the answers.

Can you imagine if you said this about, say, all white people or anyone with a certain mental illness or all Muslims? It’s simply unacceptable. And intellectually lazy, I think- hugely blunt instrument that us likely to cause so much damage and not even achieve what you set out to do in the first place- leaving us even further away from where we need to be.

Why would people say it about white people or Muslims? Because a minority are violent and aggressive, some to the point of murder? Then surely the next thing people would notice that it's not skin colour or culture or religion but sex that's the common denominator.
So yes of course it would be wrong to say curfew x,y,z groups. Because it's always sodding men.

No. I have no real reason to fear men where I live. There are more good people in the world than bad. Half the NHS staff we rely on would be included in this. Dont be ill on a Wednesday as there are half the doctors available! Or whatever essential service you can think of.

No, it really isn’t as simple as that. Even if it was- the reason is not simply being male that has caused them to coming whatever crime has happened. There will be a variety of reasons (reasons are never excuses) as to why they committed that act/acts. Those reasons may well be complex in some cases. If we understand where those driving factors come from, then ways to tackle them can be worked on. It won’t be tackled with one measure or quickly.

Or, you can attempt to turn all women into victims, all men into villains and attempt reductive, unjustifiable measures which won’t work and may make things worse.

I fundamentally do not agree that this problem will be effectively altered by vitriolic posturing and saying all boys and men are inherently responsible/ evil/ dangerous/ perpetrators.

@jacks11 "I fundamentally do not agree that this problem will be effectively altered by vitriolic posturing and saying all boys and men are inherently responsible/ evil/ dangerous/ perpetrators"

Nobody is saying that all men are. However, suggesting that some men are, or even saying that just possibly the issue of male violence is something that men should be thinking about and addressing brings so many people to the barricades to defend men that any useful discussion gets submerged.

OL so forgetting the curfew. How do we make this a problem men engage with? How many threads are there about male violence started by men? Who is looking at this issue? Who is considering the complexity, the complex multifactorial socioeconomic and political factors at play? I can't say I have ever been invited to an event on tackling this hosted by, financed by and facilitated by experts in this from the male sex.