6:00pm Curfew for men

[Trausti]

We're both in the US, I believe so I'm not sure why you are bringing up UK crime rates?

But since you are, the US crime rate is higher than that of the UK. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Don't get your facts from Donald Trump.

The OP is about the UK. But the US has higher crime because of different demographics.

Really? The rate of obesity in the US is far greater than in the UK. Maybe obesity causes crime. A higher percentage of the UK population is Muslim compared with the US. Perhaps Islam is a religion of peace after all.

Black American males commit homicide well beyond their representation in the population. This is also true for black males in the UK.

 

[Toni]

From a practical point of view, it makes perfect sense. Just like from a practical point of view, it may make sense to tell women to not go out after 6pm. Yet for some reason, the same people who suggest the latter have a conniption about the former. Hmmm.

Neither one makes sense.

The biggest problem I have with most of the responses in this thread was how fast the feminists went into "victim blaming" mode.
Should this ridiculous proposal get passed, the main victims will be the law abiding guys out there. Secondly, the vulnerable women who would prefer not to go out alone and want a male escort for security. The big winners are most likely the predators who don't bother with laws, and now have more vulnerable targets.

One of the more "WTF?" moments was:

Why do you believe women need men to protect them from other men?

Tom

Victim blaming?


Can you explain more clearly what you mean by predators having more vulnerable targets?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So your link was meaningless?

91% of convicted murderers are male. Sorry this report is not presented in table form: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Yes. Men commit more violent crime than women. By a lot. And when you breakdown which men are committing the crime, there’s obvious patterns.

One very obvious pattern is that most victims of violent crime know their attacker(s). The other pattern, as you pointed out, is that the vast overwhelming number of violent criminals are male. Which is, I believe, the reasoning behind the proposal in the OP for imposing a curfew on men.

Those are two of the patterns. There are others, including a race-based pattern, and that's Trausti's parallel (the "Hispanic" category complicates assessments though).

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Overall, 91% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties were male, ranging from 89% of those convicted of felony assault to 99% of convicted rapists. Ninety-three percent of convicted robbers and 91% of convicted murderers were male.

Forty-one percent of violent felons were black, non-Hispanic , 30% were Hispanic, and 26% were white, non-Hispanic. Blacks (46%) comprised a higher percentage of murderers than Hispanics (27%) or whites (23%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

49.3% of the population and 91% of people convicted of violent crimes are male.

61.5% of the population and 26% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic White.

12.3% of the population and 41% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic Black.

Percentages change when we consider specific crimes, of course.

 

[Trausti]

Well, come on. The proposed male curfew is not serious. Otherwise, who would enforce it?

 

[Toni]

One very obvious pattern is that most victims of violent crime know their attacker(s). The other pattern, as you pointed out, is that the vast overwhelming number of violent criminals are male. Which is, I believe, the reasoning behind the proposal in the OP for imposing a curfew on men.

Those are two of the patterns. There are others, including a race-based pattern, and that's Trausti's parallel (the "Hispanic" category complicates assessments though).

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Overall, 91% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties were male, ranging from 89% of those convicted of felony assault to 99% of convicted rapists. Ninety-three percent of convicted robbers and 91% of convicted murderers were male.

Forty-one percent of violent felons were black, non-Hispanic , 30% were Hispanic, and 26% were white, non-Hispanic. Blacks (46%) comprised a higher percentage of murderers than Hispanics (27%) or whites (23%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

49.3% of the population and 91% of people convicted of violent crimes are male.

61.5% of the population and 26% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic White.

12.3% of the population and 41% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic Black.

Percentages change when we consider specific crimes, of course.

So, tell me again why we should not put a curfew on men?

It seems obvious that there would be a precipitous drop in violent crime.

 

[Toni]

Well, come on. The proposed male curfew is not serious. Otherwise, who would enforce it?

Women.

 

[Trausti]

Well, come on. The proposed male curfew is not serious. Otherwise, who would enforce it?

Women.

Hah!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are all Swedish prostitutes female?
.

Nobody seems to care about gay prostitution. I think it ruins the ruling pomo feminist theory. So they simply ignore it.

Male prostitutes who serve women is a very marginal occurrence, but for whatever reason isn't seen as a problem.

Why do you believe women need men to protect them from other men?

Men are guilty of almost all violent crime. Its only fair if we clean up our own mess.

But short answer, yes. Unless we lock up all men.

I don't subscribe to the idea that violent men are anomalies. I think keeping men peaceful is essentially what civilisation is about. It's an endless ongoing process. If women and men are to coexist in close proximity we will need to figure out methods for getting men to behave. Whether this is done by other men or also by women is of less importance.

But I think it's good to keep in mind that men with nothing to lose are inherently dangerous

 

[bilby]

One very obvious pattern is that most victims of violent crime know their attacker(s). The other pattern, as you pointed out, is that the vast overwhelming number of violent criminals are male. Which is, I believe, the reasoning behind the proposal in the OP for imposing a curfew on men.

We might also, ya know, get serious about criminal justice. The UK has quite the reputation for coddling criminals, even for serious offenses. The irony being that this kid gloves approach to crime is likely the consequence of women being in politics and influencing policy.

Funny thing. The US is much tougher on criminals, and has much more crime. Norway is much more kind to criminals, and has much less.

Being harsh to criminals, and avoiding "coddling" them correlates strongly with worse crime rates. Which is exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis, that toughness will reduce crime, predicts.

Correlation doesn't imply causation; But a negative correlation certainly implies an absence of causation.

 

[bilby]

We're both in the US, I believe so I'm not sure why you are bringing up UK crime rates?

But since you are, the US crime rate is higher than that of the UK. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Don't get your facts from Donald Trump.

The OP is about the UK. But the US has higher crime because of different demographics but I dismiss that because I found a way to rationalise it that fits my biases.

FTFY.

You are not a criminologist, have no idea what that reasons are, and have chosen a hypothesis purely on the basis of its appeal to your preferences, without the slightest reference to evidence. It's obvious, so you didn't need to check to know that it's true, right?

 

[Trausti]

One very obvious pattern is that most victims of violent crime know their attacker(s). The other pattern, as you pointed out, is that the vast overwhelming number of violent criminals are male. Which is, I believe, the reasoning behind the proposal in the OP for imposing a curfew on men.

We might also, ya know, get serious about criminal justice. The UK has quite the reputation for coddling criminals, even for serious offenses. The irony being that this kid gloves approach to crime is likely the consequence of women being in politics and influencing policy.

Funny thing. The US is much tougher on criminals, and has much more crime. Norway is much more kind to criminals, and has much less.

Being harsh to criminals, and avoiding "coddling" them correlates strongly with worse crime rates. Which is exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis, that toughness will reduce crime, predicts.

Correlation doesn't imply causation; But a negative correlation certainly implies an absence of causation.

Norway has much different demographics.

 

[Trausti]

We're both in the US, I believe so I'm not sure why you are bringing up UK crime rates?

But since you are, the US crime rate is higher than that of the UK. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Don't get your facts from Donald Trump.

The OP is about the UK. But the US has higher crime because of different demographics but I dismiss that because I found a way to rationalise it that fits my biases.

FTFY.

You are not a criminologist, have no idea what that reasons are, and have chosen a hypothesis purely on the basis of its appeal to your preferences, without the slightest reference to evidence. It's obvious, so you didn't need to check to know that it's true, right?

Dude, one does not need to be a criminologist to read statistics. Young black males are more homicidal than any other group. You can argue why that is, but it still is. It’s also true in the UK; black males are overrepresented as homicide offenders. But the black male population there is much less than in the US. If the UK and USA had similar demographics, you’d get similar crime statistics. Compare Asian-American homicide offender rates with East Asian countries. Low in both cases. Or, for that matter, compare East Asian homicide offender rates in the US and UK.

 

[Toni]

Are all Swedish prostitutes female?
.

Nobody seems to care about gay prostitution. I think it ruins the ruling pomo feminist theory. So they simply ignore it.

Male prostitutes who serve women is a very marginal occurrence, but for whatever reason isn't seen as a problem.

Why do you believe women need men to protect them from other men?

Men are guilty of almost all violent crime. Its only fair if we clean up our own mess.

But short answer, yes. Unless we lock up all men.

I don't subscribe to the idea that violent men are anomalies. I think keeping men peaceful is essentially what civilisation is about. It's an endless ongoing process. If women and men are to coexist in close proximity we will need to figure out methods for getting men to behave. Whether this is done by other men or also by women is of less importance.

But I think it's good to keep in mind that men with nothing to lose are inherently dangerous

Interesting. As so often happens in threads where rape or prostitution is discussed, it is indeed a feminist who brings up the fact that there are male prostitutes and male rape victims. Me. That’s who usually brings it up. As I did here in the post you quoted.

I don’t know why you think women are incapable of acting as law enforcement officers. Women do it quite well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One very obvious pattern is that most victims of violent crime know their attacker(s). The other pattern, as you pointed out, is that the vast overwhelming number of violent criminals are male. Which is, I believe, the reasoning behind the proposal in the OP for imposing a curfew on men.

We might also, ya know, get serious about criminal justice. The UK has quite the reputation for coddling criminals, even for serious offenses. The irony being that this kid gloves approach to crime is likely the consequence of women being in politics and influencing policy.

Funny thing. The US is much tougher on criminals, and has much more crime. Norway is much more kind to criminals, and has much less.

Being harsh to criminals, and avoiding "coddling" them correlates strongly with worse crime rates. Which is exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis, that toughness will reduce crime, predicts.

Correlation doesn't imply causation; But a negative correlation certainly implies an absence of causation.

You are from out of town, so I expect you misunderstand what they said. "Serious about criminal justice" is synonymous for Trausti with "Serious about criminal punishment". "Justice" and "punishment" are equivalent terms to people like them.

 

[Trausti]

Funny thing. The US is much tougher on criminals, and has much more crime. Norway is much more kind to criminals, and has much less.

Being harsh to criminals, and avoiding "coddling" them correlates strongly with worse crime rates. Which is exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis, that toughness will reduce crime, predicts.

Correlation doesn't imply causation; But a negative correlation certainly implies an absence of causation.

You are from out of town, so I expect you misunderstand what they said. "Serious about criminal justice" is synonymous for Trausti with "Serious about criminal punishment". "Justice" and "punishment" are equivalent terms to people like them.

I live in the Seattle area where there’s a revolving door of arrest and release.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those are two of the patterns. There are others, including a race-based pattern, and that's Trausti's parallel (the "Hispanic" category complicates assessments though).

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Forty-one percent of violent felons were black, non-Hispanic , 30% were Hispanic, and 26% were white, non-Hispanic. Blacks (46%) comprised a higher percentage of murderers than Hispanics (27%) or whites (23%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

49.3% of the population and 91% of people convicted of violent crimes are male.

61.5% of the population and 26% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic White.

12.3% of the population and 41% of people convicted of violent crimes are non-Hispanic Black.

Percentages change when we consider specific crimes, of course.

So, tell me again why we should not put a curfew on men?

1) It'd crash the economy.
2) Legislatures would pass the Men Daylights Savings act and push the clock back about 6 hours.
3) How are women supposed to have fun out, if they don't have men "making them feel better about themselves"

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, tell me again why we should not put a curfew on men?

It seems obvious that there would be a precipitous drop in violent crime.

I cannot tell you again because I have not told you. I pointed out that there was a race-based pattern as well. But if you want me to assess why you shouldn't put a curfew on men, okay. Let us consider the matter:


1. It would be very unfair to men. It would an attempt to deprive most men of their freedom in order to prevent crimes they would not be inclined to commit at all, just because they belong to a class of people (namely, "men") who are statistically more probable to engage in violent crime and the people taking away the freedom believe that that would result in a precipitous drop in violent crime. For that matter, one could think of measures like a curfew on everyone, or on Black males, etc.

2. Who is "we"? Who is in a position to impose a curfew on men? The British Parliament. The US Congress? You?
I'm asking because the consequences one should expect from this action depend to some extent on that.

3. As I wait for the answer to 2., I find it difficult to see anyone with the power to do it in a way that actually reduces crime. If something like that were to happen, I would expect that millions would take to the streets in defiance of the curfew, due to the vast injustice it involves (or, if you believe it's not vastly unjust, then due to the vast injustice they believe it involves). Once you have protests, riots and all of that, the curfew would probably be lifted, either by law or in practice due to no enforcement. Now if you (whoever your "we" is) insisted on enforcement, that would require a lot of violence, but I would expect then a revolution or a civil war.

So, in short, I would say the main reasons why you (whoever your "we" is) shouldn't do it are:

- As a matter of ethics, it is very unjust.

- As a matter of practical result, it would not reduce crime. Rather, it would be quickly lifted on the face of riots or be brought down alongside the government by a revolution or civil war. Well, that if it were practical to put the curfew in place to begin with, so again my question is: Who is "we"?

 

[Toni]

So, tell me again why we should not put a curfew on men?

It seems obvious that there would be a precipitous drop in violent crime.

I cannot tell you again because I have not told you. I pointed out that there was a race-based pattern as well. But if you want me to assess why you shouldn't put a curfew on men, okay. Let us consider the matter:


1. It would be very unfair to men. It would an attempt to deprive most men of their freedom in order to prevent crimes they would not be inclined to commit at all, just because they belong to a class of people (namely, "men") who are statistically more probable to engage in violent crime and the people taking away the freedom believe that that would result in a precipitous drop in violent crime. For that matter, one could think of measures like a curfew on everyone, or on Black males, etc.

2. Who is "we"? Who is in a position to impose a curfew on men? The British Parliament. The US Congress? You?
I'm asking because the consequences one should expect from this action depend to some extent on that.

3. As I wait for the answer to 2., I find it difficult to see anyone with the power to do it in a way that actually reduces crime. If something like that were to happen, I would expect that millions would take to the streets in defiance of the curfew, due to the vast injustice it involves (or, if you believe it's not vastly unjust, then due to the vast injustice they believe it involves). Once you have protests, riots and all of that, the curfew would probably be lifted, either by law or in practice due to no enforcement. Now if you (whoever your "we" is) insisted on enforcement, that would require a lot of violence, but I would expect then a revolution or a civil war.

So, in short, I would say the main reasons why you (whoever your "we" is) shouldn't do it are:

- As a matter of ethics, it is very unjust.

- As a matter of practical result, it would not reduce crime. Rather, it would be quickly lifted on the face of riots or be brought down alongside the government by a revolution or civil war. Well, that if it were practical to put the curfew in place to begin with, so again my question is: Who is "we"?

I don’t know if you’ve read my responses throughout this thread but I have repeatedly stated that I am
NOT in favor of a curfew on men.

It would indeed be unjust but perhaps a tiny bit less unjust than societies’ expectations that women alter their dress, behavior, their transportation and recreational preferences, the types and amounts of beverages they drink, Where and when they walk and whether they walk without some big strong man, the careers they choose, the shoes they choose, how, how much and at whom they smile and a thousand other things in order to avoid provoking men to assault them or even murder them.

 

[Metaphor]

The Welsh gov't believes "trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid". I wonder if Wales has a system in mind to keep track of the current gender of the gender fluid? Perhaps a tracking app

because three is too high to count for you?

You've misunderstood: the app would be to inform the gov't in real-time of the gender of the genderfluid. Obviously, any genderfluid person identifying as male who is also outside after 6 p.m. would be in violation of curfew, but if at that time they identify as something else, they're okay. The app would let cops check someone's gender, just like cops check a driving license.

 

[Metaphor]

But a negative correlation certainly implies an absence of causation.

No, it does not.

For example, a study might find that giving birth at home is correlated with fewer birth complications and faster recovery time, compared to giving birth in a hospital. But the small number of women who decide to give birth at home are by definition systematically different to the women who give birth at a hospital. They might be younger, they might be wealthier, they might have a bigger and more reliable support network, they'll have gotten the all-clear from medical professionals.

But that doesn't mean giving birth at home is safer. It almost certainly is not.