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.

You are getting very frustrated over this, but haven't offered how the logistics would be applied.
Rather than dismissing away the responses you are getting, you are simply screaming 'something must be done'. So, why don't you, rather than passing this monkey, own it yourself? Why not do some research as to how cities/countries with lower levels of male violence have ensured this? Then suggest to your local MP how this may work in this country.
Good luck

And don't forget, OP, if you have a male child, you are responsible for making sure he doesn't turn out to be an unsafe adult male

@5475878237NC Exactly that. I've seen/started threads on this subject before-the idea of men addressing the issue of male violence seems completely alien.

@FinalInstructionstotheAudience Yep-because this is obviously a problem for women to address.....

For parents, not just women, ffs. Not that difficult to infer that it applies to both parents.

@FinalInstructionstotheAudience
"For parents, not just women, ffs. Not that difficult to infer that it applies to both parents"

Good. It usually doesn't! What do you think fathers, in particular, should be doing?

Everyone needs to take responsibility for living in a civilised society. Men and women aren’t two classes in the same way as you might look at educational classes, race or wealth. They will always choose to live together and, by definition, at least one parent will have children of the opposite sex.

The idea that 85% (at least) of good men alone need to take responsibility for the other 15%, and that women have no culpability for the violence of their sons, holds no water. I, and I imagine, most other men posting here, probably don’t know any obviously violent or sexist men, because we choose not to be friendly with them (and, if it is all going on behind closed doors, it is impossible to call out).

However, men are responsible for laws and all the violence cited here is illegal and imprisonable. This is men taking responsibility for other men. There are societies where this doesn’t happen, and 50 years ago, where rape was legal in marriage, possibly this was one of them. It isn’t now.

Given this thread is about stranger violence against women (a curfew wouldn’t help within the home, arguably, as PP have argued, it might make it worse), most violent men will be imprisoned at some point.

One thing that would really help would be better male role models for children. Getting male teachers into primary schools would help but, in the febrile environment characterised by this thread, many women don’t trust males to parent their children and this really discourages men from teaching primary.

(Where I suspect I would agree with most in this thread is we should ban all violent porn, I also think sport needs to be far tougher in terms of setting good male role models, especially premier league football).

erratum: women don’t trust men to reach their children (not parent).

@Newbutoldfather "The idea that 85% (at least) of good men alone need to take responsibility for the other 15%, and that women have no culpability for the violence of their sons, holds no water"

I agree with you on this point. I have to say I agree with this point in every single bloody conversation either on here or in RL! No it's not all up to men. But men do need to step up and do SOMETHING!! What do you suggest?

If people simply added a word and said "many men need to step up..." we could avoid this. But they don't.

Saying "men are.." "men do..." is inaccurate, and just as annoying as we would find men saying "women are .." and "women do..." to criticise us as a sex.

@saraclara Personally, I'm happy with class analysis. And I do find it frustrating that we have to smooth men's egos before we can have a discussion! I honestly see very little,if any, public discourse suggesting that men, either as individuals or as a class, are committed to constructive ways of addressing male violence.

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

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..

@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"......

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

don't be ridiculous

@SoupDragon "don't be ridiculous"

🤣🤣🤣

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

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.🙄

You cannot possibly know that 100%.

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.

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.