UK Green party peer suggests 6 pm curfew for men

Great Debates
201

I recognize that.

I think it’s because I like and generally respect Mangetout (even if he no longer likes me, it seems), so think he’s worth the effort of explaining? That if he has this hole in his social knowledge, maybe he can do the work himself for some other possible holes, before someone has to do it for him?

And also because again, the conversation is about molly-coddling men and their feelings and their responses. That needs pointing out.

Whereas I do not give a toss for a generic Mr #NotAllMen poster.

202

I’m not sure it’s helpful to beat up someone who is genuinely willing to reconsider their position.

Admittedly it’s a little weird to have missed the whole #MeToo thing, given its prominence, but let’s work on moving things and people forward.

203

Absolutely none of this came across, and it did not read like you were “explaining” anything.

And at the point where you came in studs-up, Mangetout’s feelings were that he had misjudged the issue, and his response was that he needed to learn. Good feelings, good response. There’s a difference between not mollycoddling* ignorant and complacent people who are standing in the way, and raking people over the coals for having the temerity to do the thing you want them to do and change their mind.

*Is this phrase cool? It feels like given its derivation it might not be anymore. Not trying to be a dick, it just struck me as I typed it out.

204

Nobody’s beating anyone up. If I wanted to do that, I know where the Pit is.

I initially expressed surprise that an educated adult Western male doper needed to be “led by the hand” to realize women have it extra-shitty in a particular way in our society . It snowballed from there, but still not to the point of “beating up”. I never got abusive, or called Mangetout names, or questioned his sincerity in changing his belief. I expressed incredulity at that level of out-of-touchness, and asserted that it wasn’t something praiseworthy. And questioned whether entering these conversations in a combative fashion from a position of ignorance was not counterproductive. But that’s not beating up.

208

Modnote: Thread closed for 15 minutes.

This thread is out of control at this point. Culminating in @MrDibble taunting Mangetout and @Mangetout telling him to F-Off instead of reporting it.

I reviews the thread, it looks like it is mostly standard Great Debates people arguing past each other. I will leave it open after a short cool off.

Everyone, remember, debate the content of posts and not the poster.

213

This topic was automatically opened after 9 minutes.

214

I’m sorry for my shameful outburst.

I would like to continue discussing this if possible, if it can be done civilly.

My ignorance may be astonishing, but I am not lying about it. Please consider that a yawning gulf in someone else’s knowledge may appear more obvious from the outside than the inside.

215

I didn’t think you were lying about it (that was not my intent in bringing up that other post). I’m sorry if that was the impression you got, or if you perceived any of my posts as an attack on you personally. I meant what I said about liking and respecting you, both here and on youtube. I do not want to drive you out of the thread, and I will stop making meta-comments like my first post.

216

It might not be, it’s so rare that I don’t think it’s come up before. But you’re right about the derivation, and I’ll not be using it anymore.

217

Thanks, and I apologise for reacting in the way I did - it was not productive.

I think there probably is an interesting discussion here about how an adult western human can remain ignorant on a very prominent topic, and I am conscious that any explanation I might give on that may appear to be an excuse.
I think it’s actually quite easy to live in a bubble - pursuing one’s own interests in a hopefully generally harmless way, but tending to only consume information on topics of pre-existing interest, and neither seeing a way in - nor a reason to go in - to other areas. For a completely tangential and trivial example: I am aware of a group of people who are called ‘The Kardashians’; I am aware that people have discussed them a LOT. I don’t really know who they are, how many of them there are, what they do, why they might be interesting to people and I wouldn’t recognise any of them if you showed me a picture or if they passed me in the street. The internet may be the greatest repository of information humans have ever assembled, but we’re quite good at tailoring it to show us only what we already knew we wanted to see.

Of course, the topic of the thread is clearly not trivial like that (or like I assume the Kardashians are), but it still represents something that was at best, on the periphery of my awareness - of course, all of that time, I was aware there was a problem being discussed, but I suppose I told myself that I wasn’t part of it - you know - I rationalised my own behaviours as being sufficiently neutral and benign to people regardless of their sex, and that, together with a noisy and repellent blame game, was enough to prevent me from feeling the need or inclination to investigate any further.
They say the first step in fixing any problem is to admit the problem exists - and there’s the issue - faced with the (very prominent) characterisation of the problem being ‘men are to blame’, my earnest, yet, as we now discover, ignorant reaction was ‘no I’m not’, and that’s too simple a way to close the issue from further investigation.

I mean, even last night, I watched the whole of the 10 o clock news (I often only watch the headlines) and there was an article about the protests currently going on in the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder, but again, the whole article presented the message very superficially - the takeaway was pretty much that a bunch of upset people were saying men need to sort their shit out.

For context, I spend probably half of my waking hours online, but probably only in about 4 or 5 places (and this board is one of them) - I am aware of hashtags, and indeed I add them to some of the content I post, but I don’t think I’ve ever used them even once in the sense of consuming content. I am middle aged, and every day I become more aware that my ageing brain is becoming less pliable, and that sometimes, the best and only way I can support change might be to get out of the way.

218

Thanks for the apology, and the informative post.

I think it comes back to what I said earlier - women are trying to talk. Getting out of the way is one way of responding, but it’s the listening after that, which helps more. I’m glad you didn’t check out, and I’m glad you see some of the problem now.

Do you think, if you went through this thread and re-read it, you might see other men’s posts in a different light? And next time, maybe object?

Although, having said that, I am going to shut up now, and hopefully we’ll hear more female voices instead.

219

Perhaps, and maybe also my own. I promise I’ll do that.

220

While the headlines and news reports concentrate on the human interest stories and the emotional response, there is another response to this that is happening in the background which is important.

That is the passing of legislation that affords greater protection from violence within domestic relationships. There is a Domestic Violence Bill that is at a late stage of the legislative process that addresses some of the important issues in what is a complicated area. It covers coercive control, stalking and number of other areas. There will also be changes to police reporting procedures with respect to hate crimes. It has been proposed to include hate against women in the classification of these incidents as they are dealt with by the police. There have already been trials in parts of the UK.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2021/january/lords-debates-domestic-abuse-bill2/

These developments are important social reforms and incidents like this awful murder give weight to the need for change.

There are obviously some very shrill voices that seize on this opportunity to thump the drum for their particular angle. But that is to be expected. This is a big media story and there is an appetite and articles that paint society as dysfunctional and in very simple stark terms. There seems to be no shortage of journalists who are keen to write about their own big City experiences.

I think these subjective, emotional accounts often cloud the important social issues that lie beneath, which are never simple. They involve families, relationships, mental heath, law, society and culture and it is all connected. Bad people and violent incidents do not come out of nowhere. A rational examination of the ills of society is needed in a calm, methodical manner. Absurd over-reaction is quickly forgotten.

When the case comes to trial, we might learn that the accused was going through some kind of mental breakdown and, given his trusted position and responsibilities as police officer, why this was not managed.

So that is another issue to unpack. Mental health, another one of societies ills that is really hard to cure, and we only give it attention when something really bad happens. Then we go into a moral panic, and look for an instant solution.

‘6pm curfew for men’ falls into that category.

We can do better.