Current Events > "What do you think about the idea of a 6pm curfew for men?"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Green Party peer Jenny Jones has suggested it after the disappearance of Sarah Everard [in the UK]. Baroness Jones will be with us tomorrow to tell us why she thinks it'll make women feel safer... but what do you think? Is it a ludicrous suggestion? And if so, what do you think we should do instead?

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyVineOn5/photos/a.343689200421/10165362928410422/

I think I may watch this. I think such a curfew is unenforceable and indefensible.

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/1370072178213990406 https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/1370085483003404292

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/1370072933683585029

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/1369781660401758209

---

Okay so there's context for this, give me a few minutes and I'll explain.

Edit: Done some reading.

Okay.

Recently there has been a string of murders of women in the United Kingdom, the latest big one being Sarah Everard, who was brutally murdered with the main suspect being a male police officer.

In response to these murders, the police have put out a statement essentially telling women to not go out after a certain time by themselves, which essentially feels victim blamey and puts the onus on women, despite them being the victims, not the perpetrators.

This is especially relevant in the United Kingdom because it mirrors another highly infamous string of murders that happened in the UK in the 70s, i.e, the Yorkshire Ripper.

Those cases back then weren't taken particularly serious for ages because most of the women killed were women who were on nights out, drunk, or sex workers. The advice the police gave back then of "stay indoors after dark" was essentially the same as it is in this case.

At the time in the 70s this was very important and was discussed by second-wave feminists. Why should women be punished because of the actions of misogynistic men? Why are women the ones constantly having to change and modify their behaviour and the ones who must suffer?

It is absurd and despicable victim blaming to put this onus on women. What this MP was doing was pointing out the absurdity of this attitude. Men are the main perpetrators of these horrific crimes, so why aren't they locked down? That's the idea. Its not a serious suggestion though, but the outrage response people are having towards this MP only proves the point further and the absurdity of women being told to stay indoors

Historical context:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/13/it-was-toxic-how-sexism-threw-police-off-the-trail-of-the-yorkshire-ripper
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/yorkshire-ripper-guidance-echoed-sarah-20068016

Bass_X0 posted...

Is it a ludicrous suggestion?

Yes.

---

Some people work later than 6pm. This is ridiculous.

---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

Some people work later than 6pm. This is ridiculous.

Generally curfews make exceptions for moving to and from work, but still stupid.

---

i have a hard time believing this is serious, that's how ludicrous it is

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i have a hard time believing this is serious, that's how ludicrous it is

its intentionally absurd to make a point

read the thing I posted above for context :)

daddychomsky posted...

its intentionally absurd to make a point

read the thing I posted above for context :)

I just read it, great research and I hope everyone reads it. I had no idea about the historical context, it's fascinating!

---

kirbyakaZ posted...

I just read it, great research and I hope everyone reads it. I had no idea about the historical context, it's fascinating!

These institutional mindsets haven't changed a whole lot. There's just a bit more British "politeness" about it.

I don't think a murderer cares about a curfew.

In fact this curfew would probably make them feel like a kid in a candy store.

Men shouldn't be out of their house past 5:30 pm anyways.

---

Cool_new_name posted...

I don't think a murderer cares about a curfew.

In fact this curfew would probably make them feel like a kid in a candy store.

But the females cops will be suspicious if they find a man breaking curfew.
The males cops would be at home since they could be the murderer.

If you support banning trans women from competing against cis women because of safety and fairness concerns, you shouldn't have any problem with this. Being out past 6 pm isn't a right. This protects women and ensures that they're empowered without fear that people with literal male bodies might harm them.

And if you don't see how they're the same thing, you're hopeless.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Being out past 6 pm isn't a right.

So why not just impose the curfew on everyone?

Also, if the freedom to live outside your house isn't a right, I fail to see why feeling empowered and safe is a right as well.
I think women should feel empowered and safe, but talking like you can just jail people when you want, no big deal, is dangerous.

shockthemonkey posted...

How many people ITT think A Modest Proposal was a serious policy proposal?

This is what came to mind too lol.

Post 2 is a good post that people may just be tl;dr-ing.
---

It's a fair point that women shouldn't be punished for men's misogyny, but if the perpetrator is a police officer as suspected then a curfew that makes exceptions for work would have no effect! The issue is less about men and more about the police, if that's the case.

daddychomsky posted...

Okay so there's context for this, give me a few minutes and I'll explain.

The context doesn't make it better.

It's pretty silly, and the type of conversation that might ensue in a high school classroom, rather than public policy.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Being out past 6 pm isn't a right.

it absolutely is. everyone is afforded the right to exist in public spaces -- that's the very definition of "public".

---

Southernfatman posted...

Yes.

no more than telling women they shouldn't go out at night

---

thronedfire2 posted...

no more than telling women they shouldn't go out at night

women should go out with the great equalizer in their purse or holster

---

WingsOfGood posted...

So why not just impose the curfew on everyone?

Also, if the freedom to live outside your house isn't a right, I fail to see why feeling empowered and safe is a right as well.
I think women should feel empowered and safe, but talking like you can just jail people when you want, no big deal, is dangerous.

It does apply to everyone though. Flowchart time:
Are you a man?
Yes-no going out at night
No-yes going out at night

It's fair to everyone because it protects women. Why should women lose out just because a few men want to feel special like they deserve to be wherever whenever? Men still have the morning and day to be out, and men make up a minority of the population, women make up 51% of the population throughout Great Britain and Wales. Why should the majority curtail their rights for the minority?

---

Jenny Jones should target muslims next just to be even more in the spotlight.

sounds like it is protecting everyone

make it happen, Boris

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

it absolutely is. everyone is afforded the right to exist in public spaces -- that's the very definition of "public".

Most public spaces actually are city or state property. Not actually public. They can still be in their own homes.

---

COVxy posted...

The context doesn't make it better.

It's pretty silly, and the type of conversation that might ensue in a high school classroom, rather than public policy.

lol have u seen british politics

gunplagirl posted...

It does apply to everyone though. Flowchart time:
Are you a man?
Yes-no going out at night
No-yes going out at night

It's fair to everyone because it protects women. Why should women lose out just because a few men want to feel special like they deserve to be wherever whenever? Men still have the morning and day to be out, and men make up a minority of the population, women make up 51% of the population throughout Great Britain and Wales. Why should the majority curtail their rights for the minority?

not sure if you're serious or being faceteous to make a point, like the proposal in OP is.

---

gunplagirl posted...

It does apply to everyone though. Flowchart time:
Are you a man?
Yes-no going out at night
No-yes going out at night

It's fair to everyone because it protects women. Why should women lose out just because a few men want to feel special like they deserve to be wherever whenever? Men still have the morning and day to be out, and men make up a minority of the population, women make up 51% of the population throughout Great Britain and Wales. Why should the majority curtail their rights for the minority?

What is this even. Women can't go out during the day now?

And if you really cared about the majority not being punished for something the minority did, you wouldn't take away the freedom of all men because of a select few scumbags.

Edit: first part I misread that men had day to themselves.

gunplagirl posted...

Most public spaces actually are city or state property. Not actually public. They can still be in their own homes.

"Ashkshully" yes, public property is technically "owned" by some government, you're correct. but access to it is permitted to all equally. not sure your point here or how it actually debates my point that everyone has a right to be out past 6:00 PM.

fwiw i understand the point made in OP. it's absurd to tell ANYONE to stay inside because someone else is crazy and may hurt them.

---

6 PM is too late, move it to 3 PM. And not just men but all males regardless of age.

---

Conflict posted...

And of course, nobody ITT read this post

They did but some actually seem to like they hyperbole policy.

oi m8, show me yer night time outey loicense

---

Were_Wyrm posted...

6 PM is too late, move it to 3 PM. And not just men but all males regardless of age.

Fuck 3pm. Make it noon.

---

Conflict posted...

And of course, nobody ITT read this post

tbf when a lot of us posted that post wasn't finished yet.

---

I'd volunteer to stay home 24/7 if someone wants to pay me to do so.
I've a Gamepass sub and a series S... I'm good..

---

It would probably improve society somewhat if men were under curfew, but it's a sexist policy that would never stand.

It's not a good retort against police advising women to stay inside before nightfall anyway since it's not a policy or a law, it's just good advice with the unfortunate political side effect of conditioning the public to assign blame to victims. Your safety is very much under your own control, and no one else's, because trying to get safety by giving control of it to strangers, hoping they will follow the law, will end in disappointment.

I think as a political stunt, this kind of works, but this person needs to take this controversy and make something productive out of it.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

I'd volunteer to stay home 24/7 if someone wants to pay me to do so.
I've a Gamepass sub and a series S... I'm good..

Stimmy curfew ubi

Neets everywhere rejoice

untrustful posted...

It would probably improve society somewhat if men were under curfew,

How so?

daddychomsky posted...

Okay so there's context for this, give me a few minutes and I'll explain.

Edit: Done some reading.

Okay.

Recently there has been a string of murders of women in the United Kingdom, the latest big one being Sarah Everard, who was brutally murdered with the main suspect being a male police officer.

In response to these murders, the police have put out a statement essentially telling women to not go out after a certain time by themselves, which essentially feels victim blamey and puts the onus on women, despite them being the victims, not the perpetrators.

This is especially relevant in the United Kingdom because it mirrors another highly infamous string of murders that happened in the UK in the 70s, i.e, the Yorkshire Ripper.

Those cases back then weren't taken particularly serious for ages because most of the women killed were women who were on nights out, drunk, or sex workers. The advice the police gave back then of "stay indoors after dark" was essentially the same as it is in this case.

At the time in the 70s this was very important and was discussed by second-wave feminists. Why should women be punished because of the actions of misogynistic men? Why are women the ones constantly having to change and modify their behaviour and the ones who must suffer?

It is absurd and despicable victim blaming to put this onus on women. What this MP was doing was pointing out the absurdity of this attitude. Men are the main perpetrators of these horrific crimes, so why aren't they locked down? That's the idea. Its not a serious suggestion though, but the outrage response people are having towards this MP only proves the point further and the absurdity of women being told to stay indoors

Historical context:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/13/it-was-toxic-how-sexism-threw-police-off-the-trail-of-the-yorkshire-ripper
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/yorkshire-ripper-guidance-echoed-sarah-20068016

this

WingsOfGood posted...

Stimmy curfew ubi

Neets everywhere rejoice

Er? Again in English?

---

I'm not staying at home just because some asshole decides to be an asshole wtf

---

WingsOfGood posted...

How so?

By assuming many things go the right way, which why I said probably and somewhat.

---

Post #2 is pretty spot on - this is an intentionally farcical suggestion to highlight how absurd and disgusting the all-pervasive notion that the way to stop violence against women is for the women to "be more careful" is.

---

AvlButtslam posted...

This is what came to mind too lol.

Post 2 is a good post that people may just be tl;dr-ing.

I made this thread because I happened to see a post on facebook. I found that second post to be quite informative too.

---

daddychomsky posted...

Okay so there's context for this, give me a few minutes and I'll explain.

You the MVP. Thanks


---

untrustful posted...

By assuming many things go the right way, which why I said probably and somewhat.

But how?

1. Almost no officers on duty as most officers are men. (Ok someone might rejoice because police brutality but it means real criminals know this and will exploit it)

2. Businesses closed. If you thought it would be nice going to the grocer with only women, think again since much of their staff is men, they will be closed.
Same for clubs, bars or whatever else.

3. Less women will go out. Not all women go out to meet men, sure, but many do. But with closed businesses and no police around, even those not going out to meet men won't have much to do.

So, if you want empty streets I guess that is "good for society"

So, for anyone who is actually in support of this/opposing women staying inside for their safety, let's go over the facts:

According to just the info provided here, there is a string of murders happening to only women. There is a suspect but there is no idea of what gender the serial killer is.

So, clearly, women are being targeted by this psychopath.

Meaning that, if we have women stay inside until the psychopath is caught, they'll be safe.

"Working at night" is a good counterpoint to this, but this seems to force the serial killer to go indoors to get a target.

Meanwhile, putting a curfew on men won't do anything because there is no way to enforce this curfew(?), we don't know if the serial killer is actually a man, and then there's the fact that, if the serial killer is a man, there's nothing stopping them from going out at night.

---