Men should stay at home to minimise risk. Can we have this conversation?

[DJLippy]

The stats are showing that men are far more likely to die from Corona than women. It's a 70/30 split according to some estimates.

However when I go out on my daily bike ride I notice far more men in the streets than women. They are very vulnerable to Covid I am concerned. Should we encourage men who are not key workers to stay at home? Would society be able to function?

Many of the key services are staffed by women. The NHS workforce is 74% female and nurses and health care assistant workforces (who provide the most intimate care) are 90% female. Even doctors (who we often imagine as male) are 45% female.

The key workers seem to be split by sex quite a lot. For example - nurses and teachers overwhelmingly female. Drivers, engineers, road crews ect overwhelmingly male. Obviously they are allowed to travel freely. They are doing vital work.

Is there a case to be made (to minimise risk) that men should stay in the house?

Aside from the genetic aspects which make men vulnerable to Covid, stats show that men (as a class) all have much lower personal hygiene than women. Women obey the hand washing rules better than men. Therefore women (as a class) are less likely to spread disease.

Meanwhile police have to concentrate their resources on Covid related issues. Considering that men commit 90% of violent crime maybe it's best we introduce a law which keeps the sex with the greatest propensity for criminality in the house.

I cant help but feel like if the stats were the other way around women would be living under house arrest. Or at least face a lot of social pressure to do so...

Can we have a conversation about this?

People havent actually picked any holes apart they have just straw manned and argued about things I never said.

So you want more people thinking for themselves, but only in ways that you approve of?

It's not just about who can get ill from it, but who can spread it - which is everyone, men and women alike.

That's why schools are shut even though kids aren't badly affected by it - yes, they won't get ill, but they'll spread it around to all the adult staff and then bring it home to their gran.

Straw man and derail I never said that.

It's not just about who can get ill from it, but who can spread it - which is everyone, men and women alike.

We dont have all the evidence about how this virus is spread but the viral load you are exposed to seems to affect the severity of the illness. Bearing that in mind would it not be logical to quaranteen those who are more likely to actually be infected rather than just carriers?

Straw man and derail I never said that.

You said:

We're not allowed to think for ourselves nowadays it seems unless its Government Sanctioned.

So, either, you're complaining about the wrong thing or you believe that thinking for yourself doesn't include people making discussions which you don't find valid.

Someone said near the beginning of the thread women are routinely asked to modify their behaviour in order not to be hurt by males. Police advice on the subject of burglary is all about home security, rather than being directed at the people doing the burglary. Announcements on the Underground tell you to keep your belongings close, rather than being directed at thieves.

So regardless of whether I think it's a good idea, I agree this is a very interesting thought experiment, given we have a situation where males are the vulnerable ones, for once.

Police advice on the subject of burglary is all about home security, rather than being directed at the people doing the burglary. Announcements on the Underground tell you to keep your belongings close, rather than being directed at thieves.

Isn't that what's currently happening? In the sense that it's voluntary. The initial proposal would be more akin to victims being prosecuted for failing to take adequate precautions. On that note, I understand that Germany does have this in some aspects, for example, you can be prosecuted for having facilitated crime if you leave your keys in your car and a thief steals it before causing damage/injury.

I do find it interesting how defensive some women get at the suggestion that society might be able to function without men or that male behaviour makes them more likely to take risks with their own health or others.

It may sound like a crazy idea to ask men who are not key workers to remain at home but we are not living in normal times. Everyone is under house arrest indefinitely and we are all just supposed to get along and live lives as normal as we can and not ask any questions. It's not such a ridiculous idea - Peru and Panama have introduced male and female only days. Would it be so preposterous to ask that men who are not key workers remain indoors?

Those over 70 and with health conditions have been asked to stay at home. We recognise that this is to protect them as they are more vulnerable. It's not prejudice its about keeping them safe.

I also think there are arguments to be made about safety of the whole of society considering that men as a class are much more likely to commit violent crimes or engage in risk taking behaviour. My dad was mugged the other day and I've heard stories of people getting car jacked near me. I'm genuinely scared to leave the house as a woman I am more vulnerable. It's not unreasonable to wonder whether keeping the class that overwhelmingly commits such crime in the house might be good of society? As things start to bite and peole run out of money to feed themselves street robbery will escalate. I dont live in a safe suburb it's a bit of a privledge to go out without fearing for your safety.

I know it's not directly analogous but when the Yorksire Ripper was out murdering women thr police told women to go home early and follow a curfew- rather than the men. Why was that? If you think the idea that men should be collectively punished for the crimes of one man then why dont you think that women should be collectively punished for....not even committing a crime just being vulnerable.

Its always women who have to change their behaviour to keep themselves safe, maybe should give it a go for once.

^maybe men

Ask men to stay at home then. Someone will have to go and get shopping. Who will that be if men are confined to home?

I do find it interesting how defensive some women get at the suggestion that society might be able to function without men

I think that if half the population, male or female, suddenly disappeared then there would be equally terrible issues. Perhaps that isn't what you're suggesting. I think that, beyond basic fertility, women or men could equally build their own functioning independent society with the appropriate initial push and sufficient numbers.

It may sound like a crazy idea to ask men who are not key workers to remain at home but we are not living in normal times.

Isn't that what we're essentially asking at the moment, for both men and women? I certainly wouldn't be lining up to facilitate all the non-essential, single men in the UK staying indoors continuously, they can buy their own food and support their own exercise (important for reducing their risk of dying if they do become infected). I also would find it objectionable if all single men automatically got priority for home food deliveries.

Someone will have to go and get shopping. Who will that be if men are confined to home?

I'm not sure if I'd be more disturbed by the idea of being involuntarily drafted to go shopping or by the idea of all men starving to death.

Not only single men who'd be starving to death either is it? I'm shielded so my husband is shopping for the both of us. If he can't go out and nor can I then we need our shopping done. He's also shopping for our neighbour who is shielding because she has lung cancer so she'll need shopping done. Plenty of other couples in this boat too, but sure, good idea let's make all men stay home.

Someone will have to go and get shopping. Who will that be if men are confined to home?

Women. It's kind of the whole point of the post.

As for men starving to death isn't that a bit melodramatic, come now.

Once again this seems like you're straw manning me.

Please pass these on to your DH, Zebras

Plenty of other couples in this boat too, but sure, good idea let's make all men stay home.

This is yet another issue, why would all the appalling lawbreaking men suddenly stay home because they were told to, especially as the police will be running at a fraction of their current strength?

As for men starving to death isn't that a bit melodramatic, come now.

So which women will go to get food for the single men? I'd probably have starves to death if I hadn't been able to go out for the last 2 weeks and I get the impression men are generally less prepared (based on the many complains about DHs not taking stockpiling seriously).

*have starved to death

DJLippy

So what you're saying is that women need to volunteer to go shopping for all single men plus all couples where the woman can't go out shopping and for gay men couples? Is that right? So, you are suggesting that women should increase their exposure in order to protect men?

This is yet another issue, why would all the appalling lawbreaking men suddenly stay home because they were told to, especially as the police will be running at a fraction of their current strength?

I have thought about that Gronky it's a good question, short of chucking them all in work camps I really dont know. Maybe we can place them all in the womens prisons that have just emptied. I hear men in womens prisons is all the rage...

You've not answered the question op. You are proposing women putting themselves at risk in order to shield men, yes?

Maybe we can place them all in the womens prisons that have just emptied.

Quite apart from imprisoning the innocent (i.e. those not proven guilty) women are, on average, much less likely to get a custodial sentence for a given crime, consequently there's a very small number of spaces.

So, you are suggesting that women should increase their exposure in order to protect men?

Would they be increasing their exposure? My argument rests on the fact that men are more contagious - for genetic as well as behavioural reasons (ie studies which show men less hygienic and likely to follow proper infection control protocols.)

I have noticed lots of men shopping who seem to not have a clue it's usually performed by women. If you dont know the layout of the shop it takes you longer to find things. Furthermore lots of anecdotal evidence suggests men dont obey social distancing as well as women.

Less men out means that the public sphere will have less net Covid particles that you can be exposed to. Therefore less of a threat overall.

My argument rests on the fact that men are more contagious - for genetic as well as behavioural reasons (ie studies which show men less hygienic and likely to follow proper infection control protocols.)

In countries that have implemented mass testing, the infection rate is about the same between men and women. The numbers in countries with testing schemes like the UK are artificially inflated for men since the asymptomatic aren't being tested.

I had a good look round for a paper which actually compared men and women for viral infectivity based upon hand hygiene but could only find papers which discussed self reported rates of hand washing (meaningless if, for example, men are less likely to touch their faces).

My argument rests on the fact that men are more contagious

Are they? Men certainly are suffering more severe complications but are they statistically more likely to get infected? Do please link to those studies, I would be very interested to read them