6:00pm Curfew for men

[Toni]

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.

The conditions you mention under which women choose to give birth at home are far from inclusive and indeed, are highly variable. They may or may not have gotten an all clear from medical professionals, for only one example. It is also sometimes the case that they have seen no medical professionals at all during their pregnancy. Of course, this correlates to a higher risk of adverse outcome for mother and for child. There are many reasons women choose to give birth at home--and many reasons women end up giving birth at home even when that was not their (first) choice or a choice at all.

 

[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.

The conditions you mention under which women choose to give birth at home are far from inclusive and indeed, are highly variable. They may or may not have gotten an all clear from medical professionals, for only one example. It is also sometimes the case that they have seen no medical professionals at all during their pregnancy. Of course, this correlates to a higher risk of adverse outcome for mother and for child. There are many reasons women choose to give birth at home--and many reasons women end up giving birth at home even when that was not their (first) choice or a choice at all.

It was an example made up to illustrate a point about correlation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I have read them. But you asked me

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

,
so I pointed out that while I could not tell you again because I had not told you before, there were reasons why you should not do so, and I mentioned some. I still would like to know who is the "we" in your scenario, because that would allow for a more tailored response.

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.

It would be considerably more unjust, because in one case, we are talking about what "society" (by which I take it you mean some people, though I'm not sure who) expects vs. a group of people taking away the freedoms of others for no good reason. In other words, even if those expectations involve false moral beliefs, having false moral beliefs about the matter is much less unjust than taking away the freedom of other people with a 6pm curfew for men, the reason is that on one hand, we're talking about beliefs, and on the other, we are talking about active and deliberate suppression of freedoms (yes, beliefs have consequences too, and people should strive not to have false moral beliefs, but still it's not on the same league as a deliberate suppression of freedom of movement).

That aside, if by "expectations" you mean they expect that women will change their behavior in that manner, it is usually reasonable to expect that humans will change their behavior in response to a significant threat, because humans usually change their behavior in response to a significant threat.

On the other hand, if your use of "expectation", you mean that they believe women have a moral obligation to do that, for some (not all) the points you listed, that's a matter of whether a person has an obligation for self-preservation. I would say they generally do not, though sometimes they do, e.g., when they have others in charge. Even when there is no moral obligation, it is frequently a rational course of action to be careful in that manner, and would not be rational to not be so (again, that doesn't apply to all of the things you mention above, but it does to some of them, depending on context).

Here's a real life example: where I live, it is more dangerous to be out on the streets at night than it used to be. It is not very dangerous, but it's dangerous enough that I do not feel safe if I do that. I used to enjoy going out at night to just take a walk. I just liked it. But (long before the pandemic; now I have further reasons to stay home), I stopped doing that almost entirely. I changed my behavior in response to a threat. And it would be irrational on my part (not necessarily immoral; that's trickier) not to do so, as the expected cost of staying home is less than that of taking the risk outside - not to mention walks are not so enjoyable if I'm looking over my shoulder.
In other words, if there is something I like to do, but it has become dangerous because there are some evil people out there who would hurt me if they find me and I have no way to stop them, it is reasonable that I take that information into consideration when deciding how to act, and if I reckon the risk is greater than the benefits, then I change my behavior accordingly. The same sort of reason applies to other people, regardless of whether they are men or women. The bottom line is: sometimes, bad people really do have pretty much all the power, and it would be irrational not to take that into account when deciding what to do.

 

[Toni]

I have read them. But you asked me
,
so I pointed out that while I could not tell you again because I had not told you before, there were reasons why you should not do so, and I mentioned some. I still would like to know who is the "we" in your scenario, because that would allow for a more tailored response.

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.

It would be considerably more unjust, because in one case, we are talking about what "society" (by which I take it you mean some people, though I'm not sure who) expects vs. a group of people taking away the freedoms of others for no good reason. In other words, even if those expectations involve false moral beliefs, having false moral beliefs about the matter is much less unjust than taking away the freedom of other people with a 6pm curfew for men, the reason is that on one hand, we're talking about beliefs, and on the other, we are talking about active and deliberate suppression of freedoms (yes, beliefs have consequences too, and people should strive not to have false moral beliefs, but still it's not on the same league as a deliberate suppression of freedom of movement).

That aside, if by "expectations" you mean they expect that women will change their behavior in that manner, it is usually reasonable to expect that humans will change their behavior in response to a significant threat, because humans usually change their behavior in response to a significant threat.

On the other hand, if your use of "expectation", you mean that they believe women have a moral obligation to do that, for some (not all) the points you listed, that's a matter of whether a person has an obligation for self-preservation. I would say they generally do not, though sometimes they do, e.g., when they have others in charge. Even when there is no moral obligation, it is frequently a rational course of action to be careful in that manner, and would not be rational to not be so (again, that doesn't apply to all of the things you mention above, but it does to some of them, depending on context).

Here's a real life example: where I live, it is more dangerous to be out on the streets at night than it used to be. It is not very dangerous, but it's dangerous enough that I do not feel safe if I do that. I used to enjoy going out at night to just take a walk. I just liked it. But (long before the pandemic; now I have further reasons to stay home), I stopped doing that almost entirely. I changed my behavior in response to a threat. And it would be irrational on my part (not necessarily immoral; that's trickier) not to do so, as the expected cost of staying home is less than that of taking the risk outside - not to mention walks are not so enjoyable if I'm looking over my shoulder.
In other words, if there is something I like to do, but it has become dangerous because there are some evil people out there who would hurt me if they find me and I have no way to stop them, it is reasonable that I take that information into consideration when deciding how to act, and if I reckon the risk is greater than the benefits, then I change my behavior accordingly. The same sort of reason applies to other people, regardless of whether they are men or women. The bottom line is: sometimes, bad people really do have pretty much all the power, and it would be irrational not to take that into account when deciding what to do.

I disagree that it is dramatically more unjust to impose a curfew on men, who commit the vast overwhelming portion of violent crime compared with expecting women to monitor absolutely everything about their behavior....because of men who might assault or murder them.

Again, I do not suggest imposing a curfew on men, although more than one person has offered the opinion that there might be a sharp drop in some kinds of crime if we did so.

There is absolutely no way that women can dress, no way that they can make themselves small enough, inoffensive enough to avoid being attacked by men. Infants are raped and murdered. Young children, pre-teens, teenagers, college aged young women, young mothers, nuns, soldiers, police officers, doctors, lawyers, old women lying in their beds at night in their own home and even lying in their beds in a nursing home are raped, assaulted and even murdered, usually by men.

It is not women who need to alter their behavior to protect themselves. Indeed, nothing that women can do in the way of how they dress or where they walk at night or in the daytime or whether or not they smile or wear high heels or short skirts or low cut shirts makes a damn bit of difference. It doesn't. It might spark male rape fantasies but that's it--and it is not the responsibility of women to avoid men's fantasies, especially considering that such fantasies can involve anything and everything from infants to elderly nuns in habits and nursing homes.

I agree that we all have a responsibility to do our best to look out for our own welfare (and the welfare of others) but society should place no greater burden on girls and women than it does on men to maintain personal safety.

Do you have any children? Boys? Girls? If you have a daughter, how do you explain to her that she must curtail her freedoms in ways that her brothers do not?

 

[Metaphor]

I disagree that it is dramatically more unjust to impose a curfew on men, who commit the vast overwhelming portion of violent crime compared with expecting women to monitor absolutely everything about their behavior....because of men who might assault or murder them.

Of course it is dramatically more unjust. It beggars belief that you cannot see it. At least, it would beggar belief if you were not a feminist.

Replace 'men' with 'black people', and 'women' with 'white people', and tell me if you would see any injustice on a curfew for black people, given that when there is an inter-racial crime, it is more likely to be black offender and white victim than white offender and black victim.

It is unjust for the State to punish and restrict all men collectively because of the actions of some men.

 

[Toni]

I disagree that it is dramatically more unjust to impose a curfew on men, who commit the vast overwhelming portion of violent crime compared with expecting women to monitor absolutely everything about their behavior....because of men who might assault or murder them.

Of course it is dramatically more unjust. It beggars belief that you cannot see it. At least, it would beggar belief if you were not a feminist.

Replace 'men' with 'black people', and 'women' with 'white people', and tell me if you would see any injustice on a curfew for black people, given that when there is an inter-racial crime, it is more likely to be black offender and white victim than white offender and black victim.

It is unjust for the State to punish and restrict all men collectively because of the actions of some men.

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe that curfews past 6 pm (or 9 or 10 or 11) for men would be just. Substitute any demographic you would like: women, blacks, Hispanics, white people, Asians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever and it would remain extremely unjust.

It is also extremely unjust to expect women to choose their clothing, their entertainment, their mode of transport, where/when/how far/how much they walk and how late at night, whether or not they should frequent any gathering place where alcohol might be served, what kind of shoes they wear, how they should style their hair, their makeup, what shoes they should wear, how much they should smile at strangers (too much and it's a come on and she's asking for it; too little and she's a cold frigid bitch who deserves what she gets), whether she can go to a (male) friend's home or dorm room or hotel room and not expect that she will be expected to provide whatever sexual favors he chooses to demand---and so on.

It seems that for many of the men in posting in this thread, the restrictions that society implicitly and sometimes explicitly imposes on women are just fine. Because they don't apply to them. Because otherwise the men might have to monitor their own behavior.

And it's just fine that girls get to grow up afraid to walk around freely, to be themselves fully, to ever, ever, ever let their guard down.

Is that what men really want for their daughters? Their nieces? Their sisters? Is that what they think was fair for their mothers and grandmothers?

I will never and I mean NEVER forget the fury and outrage on my daughter's face when I told her I wanted her to be home by dark unless she was with a friend. Because she was right: I did not ask the same of her brothers. I was not worried about her brothers the same way I worried about her being attacked--even though I knew--I absolutely knew as a fact because I had been attacked--that she was much much more likely to be attacked by some boy or some man she knew and maybe even cared about than a stranger on the street. That asking that of her was to ask her to accept that society was OK with her growing up with a certain level of fear. That fear does not end at not walking home alone after dark. No. It teaches girls that they must always, always, always be careful. They must always be just a little bit afraid.

Fuck that shit.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I disagree that it is dramatically more unjust to impose a curfew on men, who commit the vast overwhelming portion of violent crime compared with expecting women to monitor absolutely everything about their behavior....because of men who might assault or murder them.

First, when you say "impose a curfew on men, who commit the vast overwhelming portion of violent crime", that sentence entails that the people on whom the curfew is imposed are the same people who commit the overwhelming proportion of violent crime. That is false. The curfew would be imposed on many people who do not commit any violent crimes alongside a minority who do.

Second, it is dramatically more unjust because it deliberately takes away the freedom of people who did nothing wrong, whereas the expectations that you mention are just expectations: the people having those expectations are not deliberately trying to reduce the freedom of women.

Third, I'm not sure what "absolutely everything" means here. But while I would not expect people to act always rationally, it would be of course irrational of a person (whether a man or a woman) not to monitor their own behavior in response to significant threats coming from violent bad men, or for that matter any other significant threat: people who live in areas where leopards or worse tigers walk around and attack humans should adjust their behavior accordingly, if they want to avoid being hunted and eaten - which humans clearly want to avoid.
It is also morally obligatory under usual circumstances, though not under all of them.

Again, I do not suggest imposing a curfew on men, although more than one person has offered the opinion that there might be a sharp drop in some kinds of crime if we did so.

Yes, I have read it. And I disagree, as explained. I would like to know more about the details about who would be, in that counterfactual scenario, impossing the curfew (e.g., who makes the law, how do they justify it in the eyes of the public, how they attempt to enforce it, etc.), but pretty much all of the scenarios with present-day tech I come up with lead to riots until the curfew is lifted, or eventually civil war if it is not. I would need more information about their scenarios to see whether the curfew would have chances of working in those cases.

There is absolutely no way that women can dress, no way that they can make themselves small enough, inoffensive enough to avoid being attacked by men.

One can mirror that for both men and women: There is absolutely no way that humans can dress, no way human can make themselves small enough, inoffensive enough to avoid being attacked by robbers, etc., who would often beat them and sometimes kill them in order to take their money ( and the muggers are at least an adequate category, because they are the ones who commit those crimes, whereas "men" are not - just a minority of men).

In reality, one can actually reduce the risk of attacks by adjusting one's behavior, even though it's not a guarantee of not being attacked.

Infants are raped and murdered. Young children, pre-teens, teenagers, college aged young women, young mothers, nuns, soldiers, police officers, doctors, lawyers, old women lying in their beds at night in their own home and even lying in their beds in a nursing home are raped, assaulted and even murdered, usually by men.

More precisely, they're attacked by rapists, and robbers, etc., who are a minority of men - and in many cases, they are attacked by criminals they do know, but then that's not what the curfew is about: it's for strangers.

It is not women who need to alter their behavior to protect themselves.

Both women and men, if they live alongside dangerous criminals (or leopards, etc.), who need to alter their behavior if they aren't taking the reasonable precautions already, in order to reduce the risk of being attacked.
How much do they need to alter their behavior? It depends on the circumstances, which specific risks there are, etc.

Indeed, nothing that women can do in the way of how they dress or where they walk at night or in the daytime or whether or not they smile or wear high heels or short skirts or low cut shirts makes a damn bit of difference.

Actually, some of the things that one does makes a difference. For example, if I do not go for a walk at night, I reduce the chances that someone will mug me and perhaps kill me. If I stay away from dangerous neighborhoods during the day and at night, the same happens, etc. Of course, that does not make me immune to attack. I might get mugged or murdered anyway. But I can definitely reduce the risks. The same applies to women and to everyone else.

It doesn't. It might spark male rape fantasies but that's it--and it is not the responsibility of women to avoid men's fantasies, especially considering that such fantasies can involve anything and everything from infants to elderly nuns in habits and nursing homes.

Whether it's a moral obligation to protect oneself depends on the circumstances. For example, if one has children or other people in charge, there is such an obligation; if one has loved ones, then also, even if to a lesser extent. If one is a lone hermit, there is no obligation. And so on. But sometimes it's not immoral to take some risk, but it's still irrational to take it.

I agree that we all have a responsibility to do our best to look out for our own welfare (and the welfare of others) but society should place no greater burden on girls and women than it does on men to maintain personal safety.

But the actual burden is not imposed by "society". Whether one has a moral obligation depends on the circumstances, not "society". And the circumstances are created in part by pretty bad violent people - most of whom are men, but for that matter, they can be created by tigers or leopards, and sometimes they are.

Do you have any children? Boys? Girls? If you have a daughter, how do you explain to her that she must curtail her freedoms in ways that her brothers do not?

I do not have any children. But if the risks are a lot higher for women, the explanation if she asked would be just that: you are at a greater risk, so you have to limit your activities more in order to reduce the risks to a similar extent. It's the same reason I have to curtail my freedoms more than a bigger, younger and much stronger man, all other things equal: the risk for me is higher. And I have to curtail my freedom to go out at night much more than someone who lives in a place where there is no violent street crime.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

Metaphor is not saying anything like that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Reality check: The clearance rate for murder is high enough we know the pattern is real.

Reality check should be followed by credible source.

It's been discussed on here multiple times. It just doesn't fit your belief that discrimination is the cause so you don't remember it. (A common failing--it's harder for everyone to remember facts that don't fit their worldview.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Both of these are inherent in biology.

A male runner likely has nothing of value to a criminal--keys require identifying what they are a key to which will be a severe limit on their value. A female runner, however, inherently has something of considerable value to certain criminals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems that for many of the men in posting in this thread, the restrictions that society implicitly and sometimes explicitly imposes on women are just fine. Because they don't apply to them. Because otherwise the men might have to monitor their own behavior.

What do you mean restrictions imposed by society? Who is society, and how do they impose those restrictions?
I do monitor my own behavior of course. We all do it, to different degrees, depending on risks. And we should if we want to reduce the risks, and sometimes we even morally should. And the risks are created by violent criminals. But the fact that violent criminals should abandon their violent criminal ways - though they will predictably fail to do so in nearly all cases - does not change the fact that the risks exist, and it would be irrational not to take them into consideration.

And it's just fine that girls get to grow up afraid to walk around freely, to be themselves fully, to ever, ever, ever let their guard down.

It's not fine. And it's not fine that I am afraid of walking around at night. But it is reality.

Is that what men really want for their daughters? Their nieces? Their sisters? Is that what they think was fair for their mothers and grandmothers?

No, of course not. It's like you are not understanding what we are saying at all. I also do not want the risk of being mugged and killed for myself, or for my male friends. But the risk exists, and one should take it into consideration.

I will never and I mean NEVER forget the fury and outrage on my daughter's face when I told her I wanted her to be home by dark unless she was with a friend. Because she was right: I did not ask the same of her brothers. I was not worried about her brothers the same way I worried about her being attacked--even though I knew--I absolutely knew as a fact because I had been attacked--that she was much much more likely to be attacked by some boy or some man she knew and maybe even cared about than a stranger on the street. That asking that of her was to ask her to accept that society was OK with her growing up with a certain level of fear.

No, that is not to tell her to accept that "society" (whoever that is) was OK with that. If there was a significant risk for her outside that did not exist for their brothers, of course asking them to take different precautions only makes sense. If there wasn't, then she was right. So, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That chart (or older versions of it) have been presented before. Demanding the same info over and over is a form of derailing.

And while that chart does not directly prove my point combine it with the racial makeup of the US and it does. Just because it's not spoonfed to you doesn't make it not there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

What you are highlighting is the lack of rational arguments in this discussion. Nobody seems to care about actual crime patterns. We all seem fixated on what feels dangerous. Not what is dangerous. Now with Corona there's less dating in bars. Women are far more likely to have the first date in the man's home. Well, that's obviously what's going to happen if there's curfews of men. Minimal thinking about this comes to the conclusion that it'll only act to make it more dangerous for women. If they need to take more risks to get laid, they will.

Don't be silly. Dates can begin before 6 pm. They can take place in her home as well as his. Or in motels, whatever. She can leave when she's done with him or just kick him out and let the cops pick him up for violating curfew.

And her home is safer than the bar how??? She's guaranteed no witnesses, no need to slip something in her drink.

 

[Metaphor]

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

No. I am saying it is unjust to collectively punish all people in a group for the actions of some people. It was wrong when God did it to Adam, Eve, and humanity, and it is wrong when societies do it.

I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe that curfews past 6 pm (or 9 or 10 or 11) for men would be just. Substitute any demographic you would like: women, blacks, Hispanics, white people, Asians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever and it would remain extremely unjust.

And yet you think it is more acceptable (more just) than girls and women being afraid and altering their behaviour. Those are your words.

It is also extremely unjust to expect women to choose their clothing, their entertainment, their mode of transport, where/when/how far/how much they walk and how late at night, whether or not they should frequent any gathering place where alcohol might be served, what kind of shoes they wear, how they should style their hair, their makeup, what shoes they should wear, how much they should smile at strangers (too much and it's a come on and she's asking for it; too little and she's a cold frigid bitch who deserves what she gets), whether she can go to a (male) friend's home or dorm room or hotel room and not expect that she will be expected to provide whatever sexual favors he chooses to demand---and so on.

It seems that for many of the men in posting in this thread, the restrictions that society implicitly and sometimes explicitly imposes on women are just fine. Because they don't apply to them. Because otherwise the men might have to monitor their own behavior.

And it's just fine that girls get to grow up afraid to walk around freely, to be themselves fully, to ever, ever, ever let their guard down.

Society does not impose these restrictions. Society frees women. As a woman in 21st century America, you as a woman can count yourself amongst the most free women have ever been. In a state of nature, women everywhere would be at the mercy of stronger males. It is society that has curtailed the behaviour of dangerous males. It is society that punishes dangerous males.

Is that what men really want for their daughters? Their nieces? Their sisters? Is that what they think was fair for their mothers and grandmothers?

Whoever said it was fair?

I will never and I mean NEVER forget the fury and outrage on my daughter's face when I told her I wanted her to be home by dark unless she was with a friend. Because she was right: I did not ask the same of her brothers. I was not worried about her brothers the same way I worried about her being attacked--even though I knew--I absolutely knew as a fact because I had been attacked--that she was much much more likely to be attacked by some boy or some man she knew and maybe even cared about than a stranger on the street.

Your sons were more likely to be attacked with violence than your daughter was. Why weren't you afraid for them?

That asking that of her was to ask her to accept that society was OK with her growing up with a certain level of fear. That fear does not end at not walking home alone after dark. No. It teaches girls that they must always, always, always be careful. They must always be just a little bit afraid.

Fuck that shit.

That women are more afraid on average than men is a reality that cannot ever be overcome, as long as women are physically weaker on average than men.

 

[Toni]

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

Metaphor is not saying anything like that.

Yeah, he is.

And you are, too. It is perfectly acceptable to you that girls and women bear an extra burden. So that men don't have to inconvenience themselves enough to model respectful behavior towards women, to show that they are valued as fully as are men.

Because you don't.

 

[Trausti]

It is perfectly acceptable to you that girls and women bear an extra burden. So that men don't have to inconvenience themselves enough to model respectful behavior towards women, to show that they are valued as fully as are men.

Patriarchy. When it's gone, ya miss it.

 

[Derec]

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

Who is saying that?

I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe that curfews past 6 pm (or 9 or 10 or 11) for men would be just.

And yet you keep defending the idea.

It seems that for many of the men in posting in this thread, the restrictions that society implicitly and sometimes explicitly imposes on women are just fine. Because they don't apply to them. Because otherwise the men might have to monitor their own behavior.

What restrictions are imposed on women? Btw, women are far less likely to become victims of violent crime than men. That the society nevertheless treats violence against women as the bigger problem is a huge example of female privilege.

 

[Metaphor]

What you are really saying is that it is just fine for girls to grow up being afraid.

Metaphor is not saying anything like that.

Yeah, he is.

And you are, too. It is perfectly acceptable to you that girls and women bear an extra burden. So that men don't have to inconvenience themselves enough to model respectful behavior towards women, to show that they are valued as fully as are men.

Because you don't.

It is unavoidable that girls and women bear an extra burden of fear, because the reality is that they are less physically strong than men. Plus, feminism has taught girls to view themselves as a perpetual victim class.

If men are so bothersome and burdensome and disposable to you, withdraw yourself from men.

 

[Toni]

No. I am saying it is unjust to collectively punish all people in a group for the actions of some people. It was wrong when God did it to Adam, Eve, and humanity, and it is wrong when societies do it.



And yet you think it is more acceptable (more just) than girls and women being afraid and altering their behaviour. Those are your words.

It is also extremely unjust to expect women to choose their clothing, their entertainment, their mode of transport, where/when/how far/how much they walk and how late at night, whether or not they should frequent any gathering place where alcohol might be served, what kind of shoes they wear, how they should style their hair, their makeup, what shoes they should wear, how much they should smile at strangers (too much and it's a come on and she's asking for it; too little and she's a cold frigid bitch who deserves what she gets), whether she can go to a (male) friend's home or dorm room or hotel room and not expect that she will be expected to provide whatever sexual favors he chooses to demand---and so on.

It seems that for many of the men in posting in this thread, the restrictions that society implicitly and sometimes explicitly imposes on women are just fine. Because they don't apply to them. Because otherwise the men might have to monitor their own behavior.

And it's just fine that girls get to grow up afraid to walk around freely, to be themselves fully, to ever, ever, ever let their guard down.

Society does not impose these restrictions. Society frees women. As a woman in 21st century America, you as a woman can count yourself amongst the most free women have ever been. In a state of nature, women everywhere would be at the mercy of stronger males. It is society that has curtailed the behaviour of dangerous males. It is society that punishes dangerous males.

Bullshit. Society allows men and boys to rape girls and women and finds excuses to blame it on the women. As you do here.

Is that what men really want for their daughters? Their nieces? Their sisters? Is that what they think was fair for their mothers and grandmothers?

Whoever said it was fair?

Don't ignore the first part: Is that what you want for your wife? Your mother? Your sisters? Your nieces? To have to live their lives being very, very very careful?

I will never and I mean NEVER forget the fury and outrage on my daughter's face when I told her I wanted her to be home by dark unless she was with a friend. Because she was right: I did not ask the same of her brothers. I was not worried about her brothers the same way I worried about her being attacked--even though I knew--I absolutely knew as a fact because I had been attacked--that she was much much more likely to be attacked by some boy or some man she knew and maybe even cared about than a stranger on the street.

Your sons were more likely to be attacked with violence than your daughter was. Why weren't you afraid for them?

Bullshit. One in four women are sexually assaulted by the time they reach 21. I was much younger than that the FIRST time I was sexually assaulted. My daughter was younger than 21 when she was sexually assaulted.

My sons were not sexually assaulted.

That asking that of her was to ask her to accept that society was OK with her growing up with a certain level of fear. That fear does not end at not walking home alone after dark. No. It teaches girls that they must always, always, always be careful. They must always be just a little bit afraid.

Fuck that shit.

That women are more afraid on average than men is a reality that cannot ever be overcome, as long as women are physically weaker on average than men.

Of COURSE it can be overcome. Men need to start viewing and treating women as equals and as equally entitled to walk the streets, enter establishments, live their lives without fear of being assaulted. Men need to step up.

As for women being physically weaker: Funny thing. I was much smaller than any of the guys who attacked me. I'm sure any and all of them could have bench pressed much more than I could. But I laid them out flat on the ground.

But never mind that: Aren't men supposed to look out for those weaker than themselves? Why aren't you?

 

[Derec]

3) How are women supposed to have fun out, if they don't have men "making them feel better about themselves"

Not to mention that there would be nobody to buy them drinks.