• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

6:00pm Curfew for men

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 is not 'the feminists who are being held in check by the law, and little else.' It's that men are NOT being held sufficiently in check by the law or by anything else.*

* Based on the statistics that most crime and most violent crime is committed by men. Which brings up the question: Why are the VICTIMS being told that they should monitor their clothing, their beverages, their behavior and.....men are simply allowed to go about their business however they choose, for the most part never held accountable for crimes against women. Yeah, I wrote that. Based on the number of rapes that are brought to police, the number of cases that result in charges and yes, the number of convictions. Same and even more so if you are talking about domestic assaults.

Yes, I know that women also commit domestic assaults, rapes, murders. But in much smaller numbers than do men.
 
And then I get attacked when I call radical feminists like this woman "feminazis".

View attachment 32301

If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, maybe they should not be stealing their ideas.

Like so many of the things that many consider to be Nazi ideas, the curfew in its modern sense was originated by the British.

Of course, the word itself and many of the related concepts had been around since the C14th, but the first modern curfew, like the first concentration camps, come from the good old British Empire.
 
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 @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.

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 is not 'the feminists who are being held in check by the law, and little else.' It's that men are NOT being held sufficiently in check by the law or by anything else.*

* Based on the statistics that most crime and most violent crime is committed by men. Which brings up the question: Why are the VICTIMS being told that they should monitor their clothing, their beverages, their behavior and.....men are simply allowed to go about their business however they choose, for the most part never held accountable for crimes against women. Yeah, I wrote that. Based on the number of rapes that are brought to police, the number of cases that result in charges and yes, the number of convictions. Same and even more so if you are talking about domestic assaults.

Yes, I know that women also commit domestic assaults, rapes, murders. But in much smaller numbers than do men.

When houses are broken in to, or somebody's mobile phone is stolen, nobody says "parents, teach your sons not to steal".

I don't know how feminists raise their children (I'm guessing with seething contempt and disrespect for their sons, like Clementine Ford for hers). But neither of my parents were feminists or anything like it, and yet somehow it never occurred to me to become a rapist.
 
Like so many of the things that many consider to be Nazi ideas, the curfew in its modern sense was originated by the British.
It's not about the curfew per se, it's about a curfew that applies to a hated subgroup - Jews for OG Nazis, men for the feminazis.
 
* Based on the statistics that most crime and most violent crime is committed by men.

And blacks commit murder five times more than whites. But if a US Senator suggested, even in jest, a curfew for blacks, he or she would be run out of the Senate on a rail.

So why is similar bigotry against men considered acceptable?
 
* Based on the statistics that most crime and most violent crime is committed by men.

And blacks commit murder five times more than whites. But if a US Senator suggested, even in jest, a curfew for blacks, he or she would be run out of the Senate on a rail.

So why is similar bigotry against men considered acceptable?

Blacks are ARRESTED for murder five times more than white people are.

Again, no one in this thread, including and even especially me, is suggesting that men have a curfew.

OTOH, in the US, there is indeed a history of placing black people under curfew in some places:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town
The earliest legal restrictions on the nighttime activities and movements of African-Americans and other ethnic minorities date back to the colonial era. The general court and legislative assembly of New Hampshire passed "An Act To Prevent Disorders In The Night" in 1714:[6][7]
Whereas great disorders, insolencies and burglaries are oft times raised and committed in the night time by Indian, Negro, and Molatto Servants and Slaves to the Disquiet and hurt of her Majesty, No Indian, Negro, or Molatto is to be from Home after 9 o'clock.

Notices emphasizing and re-affirming the curfew were published in The New Hampshire Gazette in 1764 and 1771.[6]

Following the end of the Reconstruction Era, many thousands of towns and counties across the United States became sundown localities, as part of the imposition of Jim Crow laws and other racist practices. In most cases, the exclusion was official town policy or was promulgated by the community's real estate agents via exclusionary covenants governing who could buy or rent property. In others, the policy was enforced through intimidation. This intimidation could occur in a number of ways, including harassment by law enforcement officers.[8] Though widely believed to be a thing of the past—racially restrictive covenants were struck down by the Supreme Court in its 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer decision—many hundreds of towns continue to effectively exclude black people and other minorities in the twenty-first century.[9]

In 1844 Oregon banned African Americans from the territory altogether. Those who failed to leave could expect to receive lashings under a law known as the "Peter Burnett Lash Law", named for Provisional Supreme Judge Peter Burnett. No persons were ever lashed under the law; it was quickly amended to replace lashing with forced labor, and eventually repealed the following year after a change in the makeup of the legislature.[10][11] However, additional laws aimed at African Americans entering Oregon were ratified in 1849 and 1857, the last of which was not repealed until 1926.[12][13][14] This law in Oregon was the foreshadowing of future laws restricting where minorities could live, not only in Oregon but other jurisdictions.

Outside Oregon, other places looked to laws and legislation to help restrict black people from residing within cities, towns, and states.[15] One example is Louisville, Kentucky, whose mayor proposed a law in 1911 that would restrict black people from owning property in certain parts of the city.[16] This city ordinance reached public attention when it was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court case Buchanan v. Warley in 1917. Ultimately, the court decided that the laws passed in Louisville were unconstitutional, thus setting the legal precedent that similar laws could not exist or be passed in the future.[16] This one legal victory did not stop towns from developing into sundown towns. City planners and real estate companies used their power and authority to ensure that white communities remained white, and black communities remained black. These were private individuals making decisions to personally benefit themselves, their companies' profits, or their cities' alleged safety, so their methods in creating sundown towns were often ignored by the courts.[17] In addition to unfair housing rules, citizens turned to violence and harassment in making sure black people would not remain in their cities after sundown.[18] Whites in the North felt that their way of life was threatened by the increased minority populations moving into their neighborhoods and racial tensions started to build. This often boiled over into violence, sometimes extreme, such as the 1943 Detroit race riot.[19]

This was not confined to the South, either. Please read about Anna, IL

https://features.propublica.org/illinois-sundown-towns/legend-of-anna/

And here's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

I did not grow up in the south, but in a small midwestern town, surrounded by farmland. There were no black people in my town, something I didn't really think about until high school. There were occasional rumors that a black family had wanted to move in but was 'run out.' I always thought it was simply rumors---until years later, when talking with classmates who like me, moved far away from our home town. Multiple people from my home town have told me of their experience with black friends who, upon hearing the name of our town, by now with its own exit off of the interstate, they would say that all black people knew better than to get off the interstate at that exit. The town is no longer racially segregated. By the way, the school system has improved dramatically--my nieces attended the same schools I did.
 
It is not 'the feminists who are being held in check by the law, and little else.' It's that men are NOT being held sufficiently in check by the law or by anything else.*

* Based on the statistics that most crime and most violent crime is committed by men. Which brings up the question: Why are the VICTIMS being told that they should monitor their clothing, their beverages, their behavior and.....men are simply allowed to go about their business however they choose, for the most part never held accountable for crimes against women. Yeah, I wrote that. Based on the number of rapes that are brought to police, the number of cases that result in charges and yes, the number of convictions. Same and even more so if you are talking about domestic assaults.

Yes, I know that women also commit domestic assaults, rapes, murders. But in much smaller numbers than do men.

When houses are broken in to, or somebody's mobile phone is stolen, nobody says "parents, teach your sons not to steal".

I don't know how feminists raise their children (I'm guessing with seething contempt and disrespect for their sons, like Clementine Ford for hers). But neither of my parents were feminists or anything like it, and yet somehow it never occurred to me to become a rapist.

My sons are healthy, well adjusted, well educated and successful and enjoy healthy relationships with people of all genders and racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds. They seem to like my husband, me, extended family, and more importantly, themselves pretty well. They speak very fondly of their childhoods and mostly of their adolescences, although a couple of them have expressed wonder that we put up with them during that time period. (Which surprises me: they were good kids who did not fool us nearly as much as they thought they did) When they were growing up, the house was filled with their friends, some of whom still stop by and visit when they are in town and otherwise keep in touch, and a couple of whom still refer to me as Mom or Mom #2 (depending on friend).

I am sorry for the failures of your imagination. It seems to be a significant handicap. I hope that you can find ways to overcome this because I think it would make you a much happier person.

When houses are broken in to, or somebody's mobile phone is stolen, nobody says "parents, teach your sons not to steal".

Most parents explicitly teach their children from a young age that it is wrong to take what does not belong to you. They don't usually say: don't steal but 'give that back, it doesn't belong to you or wait your turn, Johnny was using that' and similar, adjusted as children grow from toddlerhood.

There isn't the same explicit messaging around treating girls and women with respect (or for girls to treat boys with respect or for white children to treat not-white children with respect, etc.). There still is a lot of explicit teaching: Don't hit girls! which in my house was: Don't hit people! Many children grow up seeing the subtle ways and not so subtle ways that their mothers and sisters and other women are treated. When I was growing up, there were zero principals, police officers, politicians, heads of companies, etc. in my community. We were never taught that women ever did anything....other than save a painting when the White House was being burned down, write a book that started the Civil War and spark the Temperance Movement. Things have changed dramatically but there is still a lot of explicit and implicit sexism in society. It's hard to not absorb those messages. What I have noticed thoughtful parents do, and what we have tried to do, is to instill the message and example of respect for all.
 
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.

Crime safety is far more about not being in a dangerous situation than in what you wear.
 
There isn't the same explicit messaging around treating girls and women with respect (or for girls to treat boys with respect or for white children to treat not-white children with respect, etc.). There still is a lot of explicit teaching: Don't hit girls! which in my house was: Don't hit people! Many children grow up seeing the subtle ways and not so subtle ways that their mothers and sisters and other women are treated. When I was growing up, there were zero principals, police officers, politicians, heads of companies, etc. in my community. We were never taught that women ever did anything....other than save a painting when the White House was being burned down, write a book that started the Civil War and spark the Temperance Movement. Things have changed dramatically but there is still a lot of explicit and implicit sexism in society. It's hard to not absorb those messages. What I have noticed thoughtful parents do, and what we have tried to do, is to instill the message and example of respect for all.

You've entirely missed the point.

Nobody looks at other crimes and thinks the solution is to 'educate' children, as if children have been given the explicit or implicit message it is okay to assault, rape, and murder women.

Nobody calls it "victim-blaming" when people are given general advice on how to stay safe against other kinds of crime.

And nobody calls for special obligations on other groups to allay the fear of one particular group. The idea of men being obligated to cross the road to allay the fear of women is not only a thought able to be uttered in polite society, it's positively championed.
 
I would add a requirement that all women wear ab bag to avoid tempting men.

That's pretty funny! But as a father of daughters, very sad. There's another thread that white people have great privilege. But all men have a different kind of privilege that women don't get. I'm a runner. I started running 10 miles plus starting when I was 10 by myself. My daughters can't run by themselves. We teach them to run with a partner and be vigilant. Their male cousins have no such issue. Bar hopping: we teach young girls to stay with a partner. Be careful of someone slipping a date drug into your drink (this should be attempted murder by the way). Males don't have to worry about this. Society also seems to becoming more tolerant of abusive behavior which affects women more. It's sad.
 
I would add a requirement that all women wear ab bag to avoid tempting men.

That's pretty funny! But as a father of daughters, very sad. There's another thread that white people have great privilege. But all men have a different kind of privilege that women don't get. I'm a runner. I started running 10 miles plus starting when I was 10 by myself. My daughters can't run by themselves. We teach them to run with a partner and be vigilant. Their male cousins have no such issue. Bar hopping: we teach young girls to stay with a partner. Be careful of someone slipping a date drug into your drink (this should be attempted murder by the way). Males don't have to worry about this. Society also seems to becoming more tolerant of abusive behavior which affects women more. It's sad.
It’s more than sad. It is infuriating.
 
Reality check should be followed by credible source.

So for you, FBI crime statistics don't exist.

I was asking that Loren back up his claims of fact with actual data. Which he rarely does. I stated to say never but I'm sure there's some example of Loren actually linking a credible data source for some claim he makes or another.

Sorry if that is a difficult concept for you to understand.

Also, the table you posted does not back up Loren's claims. It DOES demonstrate that men are about 7 times as likely as women to be murder offenders.
 
Reality check should be followed by credible source.

So for you, FBI crime statistics don't exist.

I was asking that Loren back up his claims of fact with actual data. Which he rarely does. I stated to say never but I'm sure there's some example of Loren actually linking a credible data source for some claim he makes or another.

Sorry if that is a difficult concept for you to understand.

Also, the table you posted does not back up Loren's claims. It DOES demonstrate that men are about 7 times as likely as women to be murder offenders.

No, no. Men are ARRESTED seven times more than women for murder.
 
One of the risk factors that had been mentioned in relation to Sarah Everard's abduction is the danger of women walking home alone at night.

Women may always be vulnerable in that situation. As long as there is no-one around to render assistance then it will continue to come down to a woman defending herself from a male attacker. So as far as I can tell, the solution has to come in one of two forms:
1. We make it so women don't have to walk home alone at night. Some kind of transport service, that takes a woman all the way to her house, would do the job. It could also be available to everyone else.
2. We put police on every street corner, so that there's never a chance for a predator to catch a woman alone. And this solution doesn't expect women to forgo the liberty of walking home.

Either of these measures could be at least partially implemented in the most high-risk areas and don't impinge on men's civil liberties in the slightest.

Point being, there's absolutely no way anyone can claim that there's nothing to be done about this problem.
 
One of the risk factors that had been mentioned in relation to Sarah Everard's abduction is the danger of women walking home alone at night.

Women may always be vulnerable in that situation. As long as there is no-one around to render assistance then it will continue to come down to a woman defending herself from a male attacker. So as far as I can tell, the solution has to come in one of two forms:
1. We make it so women don't have to walk home alone at night. Some kind of transport service, that takes a woman all the way to her house, would do the job. It could also be available to everyone else.
2. We put police on every street corner, so that there's never a chance for a predator to catch a woman alone. And this solution doesn't expect women to forgo the liberty of walking home.

Either of these measures could be at least partially implemented in the most high-risk areas and don't impinge on men's civil liberties in the slightest.

Point being, there's absolutely no way anyone can claim that there's nothing to be done about this problem.

I'm sorry, but is this the first time you've considered the problem of violent crime and the various ways of dealing with it? Was violent not a problem in the UK until now? Honest question. Looking at the stats, it seems like murder is relatively low in the UK. And as far as men and women are concerned, it seems women should be significantly less concerned about being murdered overall, particularly by strangers at night.

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-56365412
 
Back
Top Bottom