# UK Green party peer suggests 6 pm curfew for men **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2021, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953 "2021-03-15T20:19:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/141 "2021-03-18T16:58:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > And that’s a terrible thing. I’m not sure anyone said otherwise. Has anyone said, “In fact it’s such a terrible thing that stopping it is worth me being personally inconvenienced somewhat”? or “You know what, if the most effective means of dealing with this terrible thing involves as a by product me feeling included in a sweeping generalisation then that’s worth it, on balance.”? Because if they did, that passed me by, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/142 "2021-03-18T16:59:38Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t see anywhere where I posted that women shouldn’t go outside at night, or shouldn’t dress in a certain way, Note that this thread is not about you specifically. Just because you personally may not be pushing women to restrict their behavior to guard against the risk of male violence doesn’t mean that this message isn’t being pushed on women in general in our response to the problem of male violence. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/143 "2021-03-18T17:00:25Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I understand what you’re getting at but I think you’re missing the degrees of difficulty. As a man I rarely consider my safety when going out at night. I never think about what’s best to wear. I almost never worry about where I’m going. I get into a cab with no fear (except for that time the cabby drove up on the sidewalk). But for women this is a daily occurrence. > > I don’t know what the solution is, if any, but the point of calling for the curfew is to hopefully make men aware of the process that women routinely go through. It doesn’t appear to be working for all. Some of this is also likely because men are in a non-scientific sense, more blase and frankly more stupid about adjudicating risk. Men are at more risk of violence when we go out than women are–women are much more at risk when at home than when they are out of the home. I was told when I was a teenager by one of my teachers who was in his thirties that “had he not married, he would have been dead by thirty, and lots of men are just as self destructive.” While that’s not a factual statement by him, I think what he was saying held a “kernel of truth” to it, men are much more likely if they go out during certain hours of night, to come to a violent end, than women. So just the fact that you don’t consider your safety isn’t an objective thing suggesting women face disproportionate risk at going out, it’s more that men and women probably for a complex combination of mostly cultural issues but maybe some gender based psychological ones (all of which is beyond my knowledge), assess and handle risk differently. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/144 "2021-03-18T17:02:27Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Men are at more risk of violence when we go out than women are […] men are much more likely if they go out during certain hours of night, to come to a violent end, than women. Exactly as I said: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sexism and patriarchy are bad for everybody. They lead not just to increased violence and harassment against women, and efforts to shift the responsibility for controlling that onto women’s own behavior, but also to increased violence against men and a culture of shame and silence around the issue of male victimization. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/145 "2021-03-18T17:05:17Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > How do you feel about an unqualified reference to “people”? You are after all a person. But I’ll bet you don’t, no pun intended, take it as personally as an unqualified reference to “men”. If that’s right, what’s the difference? Mostly because it seems to be an easy way to prevent anything of substance to be done. If it’s a “people” problem or a “society” problem folks generally don’t really do much about it - just in my experience anyways. If you say well, this seems to be an issue with men, or to be more specific, toxic masculinity, then folks may take more of a critical look at things - with yes, some men getting personally offended by it (though that sometimes lends other men to question, wait, why are they getting mad at that). ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/146 "2021-03-18T17:07:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > Women feel unsafe going out on their own because of societal issues, so as a thought experiment imagine if the government said men couldn’t go out after a certain hour or face arrest…what? > > That’s not the argument at all. The argument is that women are constantly “advised” not to go out on their own or do other normal activities because of the likelihood of male violence against them. So as a thought experiment, imagine if instead it was men who were constantly being “advised”, or even forced, not to go out on their own, in order to address this problem. > > Yes, that’s a logically consistent argument. I think the goal of the thought experiment as stated by you, inherently collapsed because you’re conflating some sort of “persuasion” with “government rule of law”, and anyone who sees the thought experiment as a headline will view it in that way, as a sensationalist proposal of government overreach. Any ability to reach the intended audience or have the intended affect, in my opinion, is lost. This is not a useful thought experiment as presented in a headline grabbing fashion. Maybe if it was being discussed in a small group setting like a college course or something it would be received differently, but I dump this into a bin with a long list of other progressive “just trying to stir debate” comments/ideas that just serve to muddy the waters and make people upset and focus on wholly different things than the progressives ever intended (see: Defund the Police as a phrase.) ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/147 "2021-03-18T17:26:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think the reality is that male autonomy is perceived as more important than male victims. If it were mostly women who were violently victimizing men, I think there would be a lot of societal support for the idea that women as a group needed to be more severely controlled, because female autonomy isn’t a huge societal priority. Society shows no interest at all in male autonomy. Several western nations still have compulsory military service for men, that’s not autonomy. Others have widespread use of alimony and child support. Not autonomy. Female autonomy, that’s the big thing. Right to choose, and so forth. All the things in this thread, where women are supposedly told they’d be safer at home, have one thing in common: there is no compulsion applied to those women. Protection is for women. Compulsion is for men. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Society puts more men than women in powerful political positions. Society pays men more than women. Society respects male voices over female voices. Society most definitely does not treat women as more important than men. Society puts more men than women in oppressed positions. Victims of crime and prisoners alike. The homeless. The mentally ill. Those who commit suicide. Those who don’t have access to higher education. Why does the much smaller number of men at the top outweigh them? Society pays never-married women more than never-married men. This is where the pay gap comes from, a feminist would say it is from society placing the burden of child rearing on women, but you could just as easily say that women have a choice. Most men will not have the choice to quit work or take a long period of leave to form a relationship with their children, even at the expense of future income. That’s a choice women can make. Almost like society puts more value on female autonomy. If you think people listen to men more than women, you’re wrong. If you think society listens to male victims more than female victims, you’re delusional. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/148 "2021-03-18T17:28:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think the goal of the thought experiment as stated by you, inherently collapsed because you’re conflating some sort of “persuasion” with “government rule of law”, and anyone who sees the thought experiment as a headline will view it in that way, as a sensationalist proposal of government overreach. What that suggests is that the headline needs to be rewritten for clarity, not that the argument of the thought experiment itself is invalid or inconsistent. These objections come across as more of the pressure toward “tiptoeing” that’s routinely demanded in discussions of male violence against women: Don’t say anything that could hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say anything that could be misunderstood as an accusation against all men. Don’t suggest any ideas that might be misleadingly represented in a headline. Etc., etc. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/149 "2021-03-18T17:33:17Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Society shows no interest at all in male autonomy. Several western nations still have compulsory military service for men, that’s not autonomy. Others have widespread use of alimony and child support. Not autonomy. Alimony and child support go in both directions as a male friend of mine who got alimony from his wife for several years until he remarried would be quick to point out. There are also a few nations that have compulsory military service for women, including Sweden, Norway and Israel. Perfectly fine to say these are far more common obligations for men (in the case of alimony/child support usually because they make more money which is whole other issue), but since exceptions are out there you should be cautious about how absolute you make your statements. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/150 "2021-03-18T17:39:20Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Society shows no interest at all in male autonomy. Several western nations still have compulsory military service for men, that’s not autonomy. Others have widespread use of alimony and child support. Not autonomy. This is… a pretty weak argument. Just because male autonomy isn’t unlimited in most societies doesn’t mean it’s not socially prioritized. It is certainly socially prioritized above male safety, and above female autonomy. > [@blindboyard](#): > > If you think people listen to men more than women, you’re wrong. Nonsense. Most political leaders are men, most lawmakers are men, most business leaders are men, most researchers are men, most school principals and industry association leaders and military leaders and Chamber of Commerce chairs and lawyers and judges and bankers and authors—and almost all historical authorities and influencers of any kind—are men. Of course men are listened to more than women in a historically and persistently sexist society. Men are the ones with the vast majority of the speaking parts. > [@blindboyard](#): > > If you think society listens to male victims more than female victims, you’re delusional. But I specifically agreed with you that male victims of violence are socially “erased” by a culture of shame and silence. I’ve explicitly made that point twice already in this thread, but here’s another quote for the third time: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sexism and patriarchy are bad for everybody. They lead not just to increased violence and harassment against women, and efforts to shift the responsibility for controlling that onto women’s own behavior, but also to increased violence against men and a culture of shame and silence around the issue of male victimization. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/151 "2021-03-18T17:44:22Z")
> [@](#): > > If your position is that any attempts to address the _quite considerable_ issue of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence… Whilst women are without doubt the most affected by the specific violence you have listed, in fact the thread was about all violence, and men are significantly affected, and traditionally it seems that male vulnerability to violence is not a thing. So putting a curfew on people who do not perpetrate violence is not about feelings at all, its about indentifying and isolating violent individuals. There is nothing that should prevent discussion and prevention of any sort of violence against anyone, but to lump all men into that category of violent individuals is to fall into the misandry trap that seems to inhabit a certain sector of the population which openly states every man is a potential rapist - and it simply is not true by any measure, this is unhelpful hyperbole. Its also counter productive, surely the objective is to enable men to speak out openly against violence instead of accepting it as an extreme form of ‘laddism’. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/152 "2021-03-18T17:45:23Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > 2001: Late night on a Jubilee line Tube between St John’s Wood and Kilburn. There are only 3 people in the carriage - me, another guy, a woman. He is harassing her by not taking no for an answer. “Why won’t you go for a drink with me?” “Where do you live?” “I’ll come home with you”. He’s getting in her personal space. She is monosyllabic, defensive body language, no eye contact. I try making eye contact with her and asking if she’s alright, mouthing it behind her back. She doesn’t respond to me - I suppose because she’s got no reason to trust me. Regardless, she’s obviously not alright. I should tell the guy to leave her alone, that she’s clearly not interested. But I don’t. Because I’m scared of provoking him too. Because I don’t feel he’ll accept that I have the moral authority to tell him he’s wrong. Because I know I should but I don’t feel I _have_ to. It gets to my stop and I get off, leaving her with him. No idea what happened after that. I’m interested to know what people think you could or should have done in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/153 "2021-03-18T17:48:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > I think the goal of the thought experiment as stated by you, inherently collapsed because you’re conflating some sort of “persuasion” with “government rule of law”, and anyone who sees the thought experiment as a headline will view it in that way, as a sensationalist proposal of government overreach. > > What that suggests is that the headline needs to be rewritten for clarity, not that the argument of the thought experiment itself is invalid or inconsistent. > > These objections come across as more of the pressure toward “tiptoeing” that’s routinely demanded in discussions of male violence against women: Don’t say anything that could hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say anything that could be misunderstood as an accusation against all men. Don’t suggest any ideas that might be misleadingly represented in a headline. Etc., etc. How about they’re just related to “Tucker Carlson has enough material by inventing it, so progressive should stop giving him stuff that’s super easy to cause all of his viewers to froth up without the spin.” None of this stuff advances the causes people want them to advance because they only resonate with people who already are thinking the same way you are and are comfortable using the same language you are. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/154 "2021-03-18T17:54:06Z")
But you are not talking about **Feelings** , you are talking about **Actions** , and those actions involve effectively criminalising half the population in order to justify keeping them locked up. You have effectively moved from victimising one half of the population, to victimising the other half, and yet you somehow think its about feelings, no it isn’t, not at all. If you say a number of individuals are brutes and need to be controlled, fine, you could point out they are all from one sector of the population - still fine, because it is fact, but to extend that to all members of the male population and to take what is effectively a legal restriction upon them, that isn’t feelings at all - that is an injustice. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/155 "2021-03-18T18:00:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m interested to know what people think you could or should have done in this situation. All over the internet there are descriptions of various “support actions” that bystanders can undertake when they see somebody being harassed. [Here’s one example:](https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/sexual-harassment-what-to-do-how-to-help/) > [@](#): > > 1. Assess the situation […] > > Ask yourself are you safe? Is the person being harassed at threat of physical harm? Will intervening directly make things worse? Are there other people around who can support you? […] > > 1. Direct intervention > > If you think it’s safe to do so, you can intervene in the harassment directly. That means directly addressing the person who’s doing the harassing. [It’s key to be firm](https://www.ihollaback.org/resources/bystander-resources/), don’t apologise for interrupting their behaviour. […] > > If the harasser responds, […] don’t engage in an argument. Instead, interact with the person who is being harassed. > > 1. Distraction > > If you would rather not interact with the harasser, or it feels as though the situation would escalate if you did, creating a distraction can also help put a stop to the incident […] > > 1. Find someone to support you > > If you don’t want to get personally involved, you could still help by finding [someone of authority](https://rainn.org/articles/steps-you-can-take-prevent-sexual-assault) who can resolve the situation […] some examples could include a bus driver, a teacher, a shop manager, a bouncer, or a security guard. […] > > 1. Check in with the person who’s been harassed […] > > 2. Document the incident > > If someone has already stepped in and you don’t want to overcrowd the incident, you could still help by documenting it. This of course depends on your own safety, and it’s sensible to keep your distance if you’re filming on your phone, for example. > > Sometimes just knowing that they’re being caught on camera is enough to diffuse a situation, particularly in our social media world. But having the incident on camera can also help if the person who’s been harassed wants to report it. I am certainly not trying to second-guess Stanislaus’s own particular experience by declaring that he should have done any of those specific actions in that case. But in general, yes, there are all these potential “support actions” that can be taken by bystanders in harassment situations. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/156 "2021-03-18T18:04:12Z")
Thank you. That’s genuinely useful ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/157 "2021-03-18T18:06:32Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > None of this stuff advances the causes people want them to advance Unsupported assertion. ISTM we have no real way of knowing how many people are inspired by this sort of publicity to think more deeply and empathetically about the problem, as compared to how many people are just resentfully triggered and turned off by it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/158 "2021-03-18T18:27:42Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > It’s the phrasing of that thread title which does that. Not a very good title, i will concede. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/159 "2021-03-18T18:27:51Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _Are_ there, though? Because it’s also possible all the amenable men, the ones _not_ #notallmen-ing threads about violence against women, have already been won over, and only the recalcitrant are left. I suppose it is theoretically possible that 50% of the world can be further neatly divided into people who are either fully supportive or fully opposed but I beg leave to doubt it. There are almost certainly people for whose the level of support and activity will be affected by the way in which the argument is put to them. In any case who is lost to us by using the more inclusive and careful language? Where is the downside? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953/160 "2021-03-18T18:32:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not a very good title, i will concede. Note also that this thread title is not in fact the way the OP’s linked article summarized the issue in its headline, which read: > [@](#): > > Angry at the idea of a curfew for men? Think of all the ways women are told to adapt [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-green-party-peer-suggests-6-pm-curfew-for-men/937953.md?page=9)