6:00pm Curfew for men

[J842P]

It would be interesting, in theory, to see how a 6 pm curfew for men affected crime rates.

I wonder how it would affect homicides, assaults, drunk driving, burglaries and robberies, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. Obviously, not all who commit such crimes or purchase such products are male.

I am NOT suggesting this is something that should happen. But very interesting and very predictable to see men lose their minds over the loss of any amount of freedom for themselves while happily embracing the loss of freedom of women who seek to protect themselves against crimes. Women: If you don't want to be raped, stay at home where you belong, with your knees together, abstaining from liquor and any other intoxicant and watch your hemlines and necklines! Just....make your man some dinner. Don't have your own man? Well, there's your problem right there. Act right and get yourself one.

No doubt it would decrease a lot of violent crime, most of which is perpetrated by men. I suppose, it may just *change* the time at which offenses occur. But I find it hard to believe it wouldn't reduce the overall rate.

 

[J842P]

Seems like this proposal has come about because people are still telling women to change their behaviour in order to avoid being assaulted.

Of course they are. Whatever the crime there are things to do to reduce your chance of being a victim. Why should rape be any different? In an ideal world there wouldn't be crime but until then we will do things to reduce our chance of being victims.

There are reasonable things to expect of people, like "don't do illegal activity with violent criminals" and "don't go picking fights". No-one can reasonably expect society to keep you safe if you go out of your way to get your head kicked in. On the other hand, there are unreasonable expectations that people can put on you, like "always carry a defensive weapon", or as the Welsh police advised in this particular case, "don't go out at night". As long as you put these unreasonable expectations on people, women will have far less liberty than men. That's obviously out of place in a society that values freedom and justice.

Um, I suspect the majority of crime victims at night are men. Society just cares more against violent crime against women.

 

[Toni]

Seems like this proposal has come about because people are still telling women to change their behaviour in order to avoid being assaulted.

Can't say I would ever like to be subject to a curfew. But convicting the perpetrators has not been enough of a deterrent to future perpetrators, and this curfew would actually make a real improvement of women's public safety.

This wins the thread.

 

[Toni]

There are reasonable things to expect of people, like "don't do illegal activity with violent criminals" and "don't go picking fights". No-one can reasonably expect society to keep you safe if you go out of your way to get your head kicked in. On the other hand, there are unreasonable expectations that people can put on you, like "always carry a defensive weapon", or as the Welsh police advised in this particular case, "don't go out at night". As long as you put these unreasonable expectations on people, women will have far less liberty than men. That's obviously out of place in a society that values freedom and justice.

Um, I suspect the majority of crime victims at night are men. Society just cares more against violent crime against women.

Then the curfew would make men safer--a noble goal, correct?

 

[Toni]

It would be interesting, in theory, to see how a 6 pm curfew for men affected crime rates.

I wonder how it would affect homicides, assaults, drunk driving, burglaries and robberies, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. Obviously, not all who commit such crimes or purchase such products are male.

I am NOT suggesting this is something that should happen. But very interesting and very predictable to see men lose their minds over the loss of any amount of freedom for themselves while happily embracing the loss of freedom of women who seek to protect themselves against crimes. Women: If you don't want to be raped, stay at home where you belong, with your knees together, abstaining from liquor and any other intoxicant and watch your hemlines and necklines! Just....make your man some dinner. Don't have your own man? Well, there's your problem right there. Act right and get yourself one.

No doubt it would decrease a lot of violent crime, most of which is perpetrated by men. I suppose, it may just *change* the time at which offenses occur. But I find it hard to believe it wouldn't reduce the overall rate.

I do wonder. Making some assumptions: Most people work during the daytime, so we could presume that most of the men would be at work from morning until 5-6 pm or so. This would dramatically cut down on the amount of time they had to spend in bars, at liquor stores, etc. It only takes reading the police reports in a small city newspaper and talking to prosecutors and public defenders to know that the vast, overwhelming amount of crime in this country (for me: USA) is related to drug and/or alcohol abuse, and in my area, specifically, alcohol abuse. Alcohol is legal and is the most commonly abused substance in my small little corner of the world. It is also an underlying cause or accelerant of most domestic crimes, most other criminal activity in the area, including some drunken break ins, most violence (fairly low violence community), most traffic arrests and many of the traffic accidents which most often occur either during commute times or in the late evening after everybody has been at the bars.

Most perpetrators of these offenses are male. Not all of them, but the large majority--at least 3 out of 4 judging by the arrest photos.

It seems as though there is the potential for an increase in domestic assaults but if both partners are working during the daytime hours, then those opportunities would be reduced. If men were confined to home after dinner, then women would be more free to go out and enjoy each other's company at a bar or restaurant. Probably the portion of DUI arrests and drunken disorderlies attributable to women would increase as the proportion attributable to men would decrease.

As for violent crime: I think you are correct. The crime rate would almost certainly go down.

 

[J842P]

There are reasonable things to expect of people, like "don't do illegal activity with violent criminals" and "don't go picking fights". No-one can reasonably expect society to keep you safe if you go out of your way to get your head kicked in. On the other hand, there are unreasonable expectations that people can put on you, like "always carry a defensive weapon", or as the Welsh police advised in this particular case, "don't go out at night". As long as you put these unreasonable expectations on people, women will have far less liberty than men. That's obviously out of place in a society that values freedom and justice.

Um, I suspect the majority of crime victims at night are men. Society just cares more against violent crime against women.

Then the curfew would make men safer--a noble goal, correct?

No? It would make everyone safer if we put everyone in cages. Society is plenty safe as is.

 

[J842P]

It would be interesting, in theory, to see how a 6 pm curfew for men affected crime rates.

I wonder how it would affect homicides, assaults, drunk driving, burglaries and robberies, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. Obviously, not all who commit such crimes or purchase such products are male.

I am NOT suggesting this is something that should happen. But very interesting and very predictable to see men lose their minds over the loss of any amount of freedom for themselves while happily embracing the loss of freedom of women who seek to protect themselves against crimes. Women: If you don't want to be raped, stay at home where you belong, with your knees together, abstaining from liquor and any other intoxicant and watch your hemlines and necklines! Just....make your man some dinner. Don't have your own man? Well, there's your problem right there. Act right and get yourself one.

No doubt it would decrease a lot of violent crime, most of which is perpetrated by men. I suppose, it may just *change* the time at which offenses occur. But I find it hard to believe it wouldn't reduce the overall rate.

I do wonder. Making some assumptions: Most people work during the daytime, so we could presume that most of the men would be at work from morning until 5-6 pm or so. This would dramatically cut down on the amount of time they had to spend in bars, at liquor stores, etc. It only takes reading the police reports in a small city newspaper and talking to prosecutors and public defenders to know that the vast, overwhelming amount of crime in this country (for me: USA) is related to drug and/or alcohol abuse, and in my area, specifically, alcohol abuse. Alcohol is legal and is the most commonly abused substance in my small little corner of the world. It is also an underlying cause or accelerant of most domestic crimes, most other criminal activity in the area, including some drunken break ins, most violence (fairly low violence community), most traffic arrests and many of the traffic accidents which most often occur either during commute times or in the late evening after everybody has been at the bars.

Most perpetrators of these offenses are male. Not all of them, but the large majority--at least 3 out of 4 judging by the arrest photos.

It seems as though there is the potential for an increase in domestic assaults but if both partners are working during the daytime hours, then those opportunities would be reduced. If men were confined to home after dinner, then women would be more free to go out and enjoy each other's company at a bar or restaurant. Probably the portion of DUI arrests and drunken disorderlies attributable to women would increase as the proportion attributable to men would decrease.

As for violent crime: I think you are correct. The crime rate would almost certainly go down.

Alcohol by itself is huge. Even in areas with big problems with drug abuse, like the area I live in right now (the Tenderloin in San Francisco), alcohol is still probably the chief cause of substance-abuse driven victimization of *others*.

 

[Toni]

It would be interesting, in theory, to see how a 6 pm curfew for men affected crime rates.

I wonder how it would affect homicides, assaults, drunk driving, burglaries and robberies, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. Obviously, not all who commit such crimes or purchase such products are male.

I am NOT suggesting this is something that should happen. But very interesting and very predictable to see men lose their minds over the loss of any amount of freedom for themselves while happily embracing the loss of freedom of women who seek to protect themselves against crimes. Women: If you don't want to be raped, stay at home where you belong, with your knees together, abstaining from liquor and any other intoxicant and watch your hemlines and necklines! Just....make your man some dinner. Don't have your own man? Well, there's your problem right there. Act right and get yourself one.

I wouldn't be surprised if crimes against women actually went up. The good men out there would be generally compliant and stay home, while the bad men (who don't much care about laws anyway) would sneak out and take the opportunity to commit crimes against women who are now largely unprotected and unsupported by the good men of society (their husbands, boyfriends, family members, good samaritans). Not to mention female criminals would have a veritable smorgasbord of victims to choose from. Plus, aren't most rapes and murders against women done by men who are known by the victim, rather than strangers? Which means women who have home obligations in the evening are having to spend more time with their abusers. Men wouldn't have the (legal) option to leave the house and cool off in a motel overnight if a conflict is brewing with their spouse. A curfew strikes me as just a really bad idea.

ETA: Looks like it was a police officer who murdered her. So, a curfew wouldn't have done much good anyway, unless police officers were curfewed too.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/13/uk/sarah-everard-officer-charged-gbr-intl/index.html

Again, continuing with the thought exercise. I am NOT advocating for a curfew for men (or women).

It seems obvious that we would need to recruit and hire many more female officers.

Crimes against women going up? Possibly but most people work during the day and so there would be less opportunity for men to commit crimes against women if they were both at work. If men were required to be at home in the evening hours, then women could more easily leave their homes and meet up with friends to relieve stress, etc. Spend the night at a friend's house or in a motel. Why could women not do that?

I genuinely would worry about children, though. If men are frustrated by not being able to attack their female partners, they might take out their frustration on any children present. That would be a genuine and serious concern.

You are correct that most rape and sexual assaults are committed by males known to their victims. Speaking for myself, I have rescued myself from such situations rather than be rescued by some man. I have also stopped a situation which was shaping up to be a gang rape of a very drunk friend who had no idea what was going on but there was a long line of guys lined up as she lay on the bed. It wasn't another guy who stopped that. It was all 95 lbs or so of me who did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be surprised if crimes against women actually went up. The good men out there would be generally compliant and stay home, while the bad men (who don't much care about laws anyway) would sneak out and take the opportunity to commit crimes against women who are now largely unprotected and unsupported by the good men of society (their husbands, boyfriends, family members, good samaritans). Not to mention female criminals would have a veritable smorgasbord of victims to choose from. Plus, aren't most rapes and murders against women done by men who are known by the victim, rather than strangers? Which means women who have home obligations in the evening are having to spend more time with their abusers. Men wouldn't have the (legal) option to leave the house and cool off in a motel overnight if a conflict is brewing with their spouse. A curfew strikes me as just a really bad idea.

ETA: Looks like it was a police officer who murdered her. So, a curfew wouldn't have done much good anyway, unless police officers were curfewed too.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/13/uk/sarah-everard-officer-charged-gbr-intl/index.html

Interesting point--and I suspect you're right. Criminals much prefer lone victims to go after and criminals prefer not to have witnesses. A curfew for men means far more women would not be with a partner and with fewer people out the risk goes up. City streets at night with plenty of people, fine. Empty city streets at night--you probably don't want to go there no matter what your plumbing.

And from a practical standpoint what happens to someone who is delayed coming home? The last time I was out hiking I wasn't paying enough attention to the route (there was no trail) and ended up taking a substantial detour. (Note that that's a different thing than being lost--I knew there was a basically east-west road north of me and my primary bearing was north. I just let the terrain guide me more northwest rather than northeast. I would have had zero difficulty finding my car even without a map. To actually be lost you need to not know where to go--a distinction that might not seem clear to those who don't wander about, but to those of us used to the backcountry it's quite meaningful. So long as you still have your orientation to the situation it's just a minor annoyance to not know exactly where the desired path is.) With a curfew what should I have done? Stayed in the wilderness? (I come prepared to survive a night in the wilderness but it wouldn't be remotely pleasant.) Returned to my car and stayed there? (It would have been unlikely anyone would have come by during the darkness--it was a dirt road, driveable in an ordinary car at that point but farther on it requires a high clearance 4x4--not something you want to do in the dark.)

 

[Toni]

Seems like this proposal has come about because people are still telling women to change their behaviour in order to avoid being assaulted.

Of course they are. Whatever the crime there are things to do to reduce your chance of being a victim. Why should rape be any different? In an ideal world there wouldn't be crime but until then we will do things to reduce our chance of being victims.

Exactly what behavior would you have women change to reduce their chances of becoming victims of sexual assault or murder? As is pointed out elsewhere in this thread, most women know their attackers. Given that rape victims can be male or female, of any age, including infants and elderly persons, of any profession, including military and law enforcement and that assaults and murder can occur at any time of day, and given that despite the attempts to use clothing choices to discredit rape victims, a victim can be wearing anything at all, including flannel night gowns in their own beds or heavy winter coats and boots or grubby jeans and tshirts, it seems obvious that changing how one dresses does not affect ones chances of becoming the victim of an assault or murder. How one dresses and where one walks or how one behaves does very little or nothing to offer protection against rape.

Keeping men off the streets (and out of bars and off of street corners) might truly reduce the level of violent crime.

 

[TomC]

That this is even being discussed in the House of Lords is a pretty clear indication that the British Government is failing to protect around half of its citizens properly.

It's also a clear indication that the feministas are being held in check by the law, and little else.

I'm confident that [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION]; and friends were being hyperbolic. But what I read on this thread was feminists ignoring profound gender bigotry from a government official because it matched their own bigotry. Sounds like that "Basket of Deplorables" I dislike so much.

Some explain why "You can grab them by the pussy" with "He didn't really mean that". means it's just talk. Some explain that "Men should have a curfew of 6pm" . with "She didn't really mean that". means it's just talk.

I do not consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights, feminists do not.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

That this is even being discussed in the House of Lords is a pretty clear indication that the British Government is failing to protect around half of its citizens properly.

It's also a clear indication that the feministas are being held in check by the law, and little else.

I'm confident that [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION]; and friends were being hyperbolic. But what I read on this thread was feminists ignoring profound gender bigotry from a government official because it matched their own bigotry. Sounds like that "Basket of Deplorables" I dislike so much.

Some explain why "You can grab them by the pussy" with "He didn't really mean that". means it's just talk. Some explain that "Men should have a curfew of 6pm" . with "She didn't really mean that". means it's just talk.

I do not consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights, feminists do not.
Tom

It's no different than laws that feminists float discussing boner pill prescriptions that come up whenever some lawmaker is getting shitty about abortion.

I would bring this law up and then I would vote against it. Ideally, I would make sure there were at least enough people in the party who would make token "for" votes enough to make republicans sweat.

 

[Elixir]

I do not consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights, feminists do not.
Tom

I'm sure Mike Pence would agree that neither men nor women should have the right to get an abortion.
Yay "equality".

 

[Toni]

That this is even being discussed in the House of Lords is a pretty clear indication that the British Government is failing to protect around half of its citizens properly.

It's also a clear indication that the feministas are being held in check by the law, and little else.

I'm confident that [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION]; and friends were being hyperbolic. But what I read on this thread was feminists ignoring profound gender bigotry from a government official because it matched their own bigotry. Sounds like that "Basket of Deplorables" I dislike so much.

Some explain why "You can grab them by the pussy" with "He didn't really mean that". means it's just talk. Some explain that "Men should have a curfew of 6pm" . with "She didn't really mean that". means it's just talk.

I do not consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights, feminists do not.
Tom

I’m not sure I understand this post.

In case it was misunderstood, I am in no way advocating for curfews for men.

I am a feminist and have been since i first noticed the disparities in how boys were treated and how girls were. I assure you that I believe in equal rights. In fact, that is the cornerstone of feminism, despite what anti feminists like to claim.

 

[Toni]

Then the curfew would make men safer--a noble goal, correct?

No? It would make everyone safer if we put everyone in cages. Society is plenty safe as is.

I think there are a bunch of kids sitting in cages along our southern border who would disagree about the safety of cages. Also people in actual jails and prisons.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm glad that the SCOTUS already decided that the constitution protects equal rights and protection of the laws regardless of sex or gender, so that shit wouldn't fly here.

Oops, did you expect me to say something defending stupidity?

Though it SEEMS like this bill isn't intended to pass but is rather a political statement turning the whole victim blaming narrative on its head.

Also, who cares who is trans, gender-fluid, or even anti-gender and where they are and how many? Like, why do any of y'all conservatives care? Putting that shit on birth certificates and IDs at all was a completely unnecessary activity. It is private information.

I do agree it's political. There's no way it would pass constitutional muster.

This is the UK, not the US.

 

[Rhea]

I'm confident that Toni and friends were being hyperbolic. But what I read on this thread was feminists ignoring profound gender bigotry from a government official because it matched their own bigotry. Sounds like that "Basket of Deplorables" I dislike so much.

I’m surprised you decided to write this after Toni clearly and deliberately and repeatedly stated that she was NOT IN FAVOR, she was merely disussing the thought exercise. I think she said it three times. She was clearly not being hyperbolic, she was being contemplative “dscussing the thought exercise”.

And yet, you never digested her actual words.

It’s fascinating to watch - you tried to silence her voice. How could you miss that? It was so clear. Yet you had an emotional reaction to her posts, disparaged her for somethign she did not say, and never even realized the words that were in front of your eyes.

Profoundly ignoring, indeed.

 

[Derec]

That you think Jones was serious in her proposal of a curfew shows how skewed your thoughts of women are.

It's not about my thoughts on women writ large but about my thoughts on radical feminists. By the way, there are plenty of men who are radical feminists - just look at this forum!

Interesting you always seem to have nazi imagery at the ready. You must have a whole hard drive full of it.

No. I just have google image search at the ready. As to knowing that Nazis imposed curfews on Jews, I guess I know my history.
Upshot is, Baroness Knackfuß-Jones' proposal is very Naziesque.

I also note you didn't say anything about the accused perp and his family's reaction as you usually do when the accused is a black man.

Why is everything about race to you? Besides, you didn't bring up this case yourself either. This is apparently a murder case from UK, and we have more than enough murders in the US to talk about. The only reason this is newsworthy in the US is that a Green Party politician and government official is trying to restrict freedoms of a half of the population.

 

[Derec]

I noticed the usual splutterings of outrage and "blame the victim" views from the usual suspects, but not an iota of comment about what ws driving the that musing of the baroness. While totally predictable, it is also very disappointing.

What's driving it is pretty obvious - Baroness Knackfuß-Jones is a misandrist.

 

[ZiprHead]

I noticed the usual splutterings of outrage and "blame the victim" views from the usual suspects, but not an iota of comment about what ws driving the that musing of the baroness. While totally predictable, it is also very disappointing.

What's driving it is pretty obvious - Baroness Knackfuß-Jones is a misandrist.

It's not about my thoughts on women writ large

Yeah, right...