British baroness suggests 6 pm curfew for men to make ‘women a lot safer

[scottbeard]

11 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

How about safer streets for everyone? Why create some artificial division to pit men and women against each other?

This is the same trap "all lives matter falls into".

Obviously all lives matter: black, white, men women etc.

The point is - some of the problems in the world at the moment happen disproportionately to people who are black rather than white, and to people who are women rather than men.  That imbalance is indicative of underlying problems that we need to solve.  No-one is saying white men don't have problems.  No-one is saying that those problems don't need to be addressed.  But it's just factual that on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women.  So it kind of makes sense to put extra focus in those areas, no?

[satsuma]

20 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

This is the same trap "all lives matter falls into".

Obviously all lives matter: black, white, men women etc.

The point is - some of the problems in the world at the moment happen disproportionately to people who are black rather than white, and to people who are women rather than men.  That imbalance is indicative of underlying problems that we need to solve.  No-one is saying white men don't have problems.  No-one is saying that those problems don't need to be addressed.  But it's just factual that on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women.  So it kind of makes sense to put extra focus in those areas, no?

Why do we assume white men dont have challenges to deal with?  They are the only group that does not have protection in law against a vindictive boss.  They are the only group that its fine to abuse and get away with it.  They are the only group not allowed to have an opinion.  

[Megadebt]

25 minutes ago, Keith Wibble said:

Also, most men who get attacked aren't randomly picked. 

🙄

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

The bottom line though is that people should not HAVE to change their appearance just to avoid illegal consequences such as being racially abused or raped.

If people want to voluntarily smarten up for a date or job interview then fine.

 I was turned down for a couple of quite well paying jobs when I was younger, on account of having long hair,  Job offers made conditional on it - I turned them down.   

 I've noticed that people who are small minded about this type of thing tend to very narrow minded on other things too.

 Back in the 90's I lived in Camden fpr a while, the council traffic warden had dreadlocks down to his wasit, with the council uniform and cap on.

Problem with this equal opportunities is everyone then starts demanding equality willy nilly.

 

 

 

  

 

[Keith Wibble]

The main point here is that women are scared and they do not know if that man walking behind her is a good guy or a bad un. 

We know certain things about sex attackers. 1) It's motivated by power and not a need or desire for sex. 2) Offenders often build up to an attack and in this case that copper had exposed himself to women a few days before (his males colleagues though appear to not have done anything about it when reported). 3) Attackers displace responsibility onto the victim in order to avoid responsibility in their own heads. 

The purveying misogynistic culture that sees football crowds of men singing 'get you t1ts out for the lads', builders wolf whistling, ogling, and shouting out sexual comments, the Sun reducing an Oxford educated women down to her new makeover and coat just before she was going to respond to Sunak's budget, newspapers spewing out story after story of women in bikinis and commenting on their 'curves', and men telling women it's their fault if they are attacked, it all feeds into the attackers narrative that women are there for their gratification and are mere objects to be used. 

It's a lot easier for a sex attacker to self justify what they are doing as the women's fault and not theirs. 

We don't know that this copper set out to kill her, he might have just been upping his behaviour and it went wrong. 

What we need is a culture that is positive about women and teaching our kids this. It doesn't have to exclude appreciating looks etc as long as that's not the dominant narrative. 

A woman on the TV said something that struck me. She said she gets comments, jeers, and people flirting with her just going to the shops. She said I'm married with kids, I just want to be able to go to the shops without getting hassled by men. 

Another talked about the comments starting when she was 11 years old and it's no surprise when we've commercially sexuslised young girls. 

The DM and Sun often comment on the looks of children, Jesus, the Sun did a topless photo shoot of Sam Fox on her 16th birthday! 

Something's got to give. 

[Megadebt]

35 minutes ago, Keith Wibble said:

Also, most men who get attacked aren't randomly picked. 

🙄

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

The bottom line though is that people should not HAVE to change their appearance just to avoid illegal consequences such as being racially abused or raped.

If people want to voluntarily smarten up for a date or job interview then fine.

 I was turned down for a couple of quite well paying jobs when I was younger, on account of having long hair,  Job offers made conditional on it - I turned them down.   

 I've noticed that people who are small minded about this type of thing tend to very narrow minded on other things too.

 Back in the 90's I lived in Camden for a while, the council traffic warden had dreadlocks down to his wasit, with the council uniform and peaked cap on.

 Problem with this equal opportunities malarky is everyone then starts demanding equality willy nilly.

 

 

 

  

 

[Keith Wibble]

7 minutes ago, satsuma said:

Why do we assume white men dont have challenges to deal with?  They are the only group that does not have protection in law against a vindictive boss.  They are the only group that its fine to abuse and get away with it.  They are the only group not allowed to have an opinion.  

We get it, in this discussion about a man kidnapping and murdering a woman, you're the real victim. 

 

Get over yourself. 

[Keith Wibble]

1 minute ago, Megadebt said:

🙄

 I was turned down for a couple of quite well paying jobs when I was younger, on account of having long hair,  Job offers made conditional on it - I turned them down.   

 I've noticed that people who are small minded about this type of thing tend to very narrow minded on other things too.

 Back in the 90's I lived in Camden for a while, the council traffic warden had dreadlocks down to his wasit, with the council uniform and peaked cap on.

 Problem with this equal opportunities malarky is everyone then starts demanding equality willy nilly.

 

 

 

  

 

There are religious exemptions across the piece. 

Most men do not get attacked randomly because they are men. 

[Megadebt]

1 minute ago, Keith Wibble said:

We get it, in this discussion about a man kidnapping and murdering a woman, you're the real victim. 

 

Get over yourself. 

 I actually suspect a lot of this vigil / protest was fuelled by a wish to 'reclaim the streets' , purposely looking to blame the police.  If not for lockdown, the police presence, and protesters would be a fraction.

 A protest about an Ant getting stepped on, in these tense times would likely result in some police enforcement too. 

 

 

 

 

[scottbeard]

43 minutes ago, satsuma said:

Why do we assume white men dont have challenges to deal with?  They are the only group that does not have protection in law against a vindictive boss.  They are the only group that its fine to abuse and get away with it.  They are the only group not allowed to have an opinion.  

My post that you replied to literally said "No-one is saying white men don't have problems."

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

The point is - some of the problems in the world at the moment happen disproportionately to people who are black rather than white, and to people who are women rather than men.  That imbalance is indicative of underlying problems that we need to solve.  No-one is saying white men don't have problems.  No-one is saying that those problems don't need to be addressed.  But it's just factual that on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women.  So it kind of makes sense to put extra focus in those areas, no?

 

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

This is the same trap "all lives matter falls into".

Obviously all lives matter: black, white, men women etc.

The point is - some of the problems in the world at the moment happen disproportionately to people who are black rather than white, and to people who are women rather than men.  That imbalance is indicative of underlying problems that we need to solve.  No-one is saying white men don't have problems.  No-one is saying that those problems don't need to be addressed.  But it's just factual that on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women.  So it kind of makes sense to put extra focus in those areas, no?

I agree with you about women but I think the Rotherham cases show that being white can be a disadvantage at times.

It is possible that if the police in the UK had tried to stop a black man from preventing his daughter from being abused it would have been world wide news.  (That didn't happen in Rotherham).

 

Quote

9 In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. 

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham

[winkie]

1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

Given men are twice as likely to be murdered as women in the UK - even more so when you are talking about young men on the streets in London - I expect a lot of men also feel nervous walking the streets of our cities too at night!

Perhaps we also want to make the streets safe for the likes of the 19 year old young man stabbed to death in N17 last week. Surely the streets need to be made equally safe for poor working class young men from Tottenham as middle class women from Clapham?

How about safer streets for everyone? Why create some artificial division to pit men and women against each other?

Yes, men also have to be wary of other men especially if walking as a group, fear of mugging or intimidation......men walking innocently in the streets at dusk can also be aware that they might be frightening women in front of them thinking that they are following them........it is reality, sign of the times. This debate can be taken further and deeper we are only talking on a surface level, so many facets to it.

[MARTINX9]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

This is the same trap "all lives matter falls into".

Obviously all lives matter: black, white, men women etc.

The point is - some of the problems in the world at the moment happen disproportionately to people who are black rather than white, and to people who are women rather than men.  That imbalance is indicative of underlying problems that we need to solve.  No-one is saying white men don't have problems.  No-one is saying that those problems don't need to be addressed.  But it's just factual that on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women.  So it kind of makes sense to put extra focus in those areas, no?

Yes - and one might suggest looking at all available statistics that young black men are far more likely to be victims of serious violent crime and murder in London than white middle class young women.  Young black/BAME men are being stabbed almost daily in London - and typically at least one is murdered a week.

Last week a 19 year old kid was murdered and a 12 year old kid was arrested for stabbing someone - isn't the latter particularly horrifying (a 12 year old barely out of primary school?). Albeit in 'less desirable' Ilford and Tottenham - places the media, middle class liberals, 'opinion formers' and polticians never venture to or care much about unlike Clapham.

I don't of course either recollect quite the same public outrage or anger when two young black women - sisters - were murdered in Wembley last summer. No marches on Westminster, no national anger from politicians, no mass national vigils - none.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teenager-murders-sisters-wembley-trial-b60111.html

What is different here to what happened to those sisters or to those young women in Rotherham or Telford - they never ever got national protests or white class middle women in London marching in their defence, holding vigils or demanding action or expressing that much equivalent outrage at the time about what happened to them.

Because of course the difference here - one might perhaps suggest - is that most of the media, opinion formers. the liberal middle classes and serial protestors identity far more with a middle class white professional woman from Clapham ('it could have been me or my daughter') than a poor working class girl who is unemployed or works in a shop and lives in Rotherham or Wembley or a poor working class black young man who lives in Tottenham or Ilford.

Sort of exposes their seeming inherent contradictions - 'black lives matter' or 'women's lives matter' but not it seems as much as specifically ''white middle class professionals who live in an expensive part of London with high house prices' lives matter' 

So it comes back to my point - how do we make the streets safer for everybody!! 

Edited March 15, 2021 by MARTINX9

[MARTINX9]

2 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

 

 

Also, most men who get attacked aren't randomly picked. 

Nor are most women - most women who are victims of violence know the perpetrator. It is often their partner.

You seem to be implying that young men murdered - because they were from the wrong gang which they probably had little choice to join or often just lived on the wrong estate (so were known but picked because of where they lived) - somehow are less deserving of recognition because they knew the person who killed them?

I doubt their mother or sisters mourning them - feel much different - women who have lost their sons and brothers?

[Keith Wibble]

53 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Yes - and one might suggest looking at all available statistics that young black men are far more likely to be victims of serious violent crime and murder in London than white middle class young women.  Young black/BAME men are being stabbed almost daily in London - and typically at least one is murdered a week.

Last week a 19 year old kid was murdered and a 12 year old kid was arrested for stabbing someone - isn't the latter particularly horrifying (a 12 year old barely out of primary school?). Albeit in 'less desirable' Ilford and Tottenham - places the media, middle class liberals, 'opinion formers' and polticians never venture to or care much about unlike Clapham.

I don't of course either recollect quite the same public outrage or anger when two young black women - sisters - were murdered in Wembley last summer. No marches on Westminster, no national anger from politicians, no mass national vigils - none.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teenager-murders-sisters-wembley-trial-b60111.html

What is different here to what happened to those sisters or to those young women in Rotherham or Telford - they never ever got national protests or white class middle women in London marching in their defence, holding vigils or demanding action or expressing that much equivalent outrage at the time about what happened to them.

Because of course the difference here - one might perhaps suggest - is that most of the media, opinion formers. the liberal middle classes and serial protestors identity far more with a middle class white professional woman from Clapham ('it could have been me or my daughter') than a poor working class girl who is unemployed or works in a shop and lives in Rotherham or Wembley or a poor working class black young man who lives in Tottenham or Ilford.

Sort of exposes their seeming inherent contradictions - 'black lives matter' or 'women's lives matter' but not it seems as much as specifically ''white middle class professionals who live in an expensive part of London with high house prices' lives matter' 

So it comes back to my point - how do we make the streets safer for everybody!! 

Your argument eats itself when you reference BLM because there was substantial involvement from white middle class women. 

I'm not sure why you keep citing reasons that sound line you object to women protesting at Clapham? 

Young Black men being assaulted by non young black men because they are young black men would be the similarity, but it isn't similar. 

There is not a unifying and historically repeated reason young black men get attacked by a group that is different anywhere on the scale men attack women. 

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

I agree with you about women but I think the Rotherham cases show that being white can be a disadvantage at times.

Sure that's why I said " on average white men have fewer challenges to overcome than black men, or women"

[Young Turk]

2 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

You still haven't got that this woman wasn't seriously suggesting a curfew for men, she was challenging the prevailing thinking and putting the focus back on men because of the trolling men have done over this murder. 

I don't think anything in my response hinged on whether I thought her suggestion was serious. 

I'm not sure what to make of her comments. If she had phrased it differently ("Imagine if men were advised not to go out alone...") then it couldn't have been taken as a serious proposal, but also probably wouldn't have gone viral.

2 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

The discourse needs to change because the narrative is the wrong way round regardless of the police's motivation, she was just making the point. 

I'm not sure what you're referring to here by the discourse or narrative. I haven't followed this case very closely, but won't we all see different facts, claims, theories and arguments depending on what media we consume?

3 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

Do the police ever advise men not to go out on their own at night because they might get beaten up? 

Yes and this isn't restricted to the advice from the police or going out at night. It is generally accepted that nobody should go to dangerous places on their own at night. In some places men and women are at similar risk (e.g. of mugging). In some places men are at more risk than women. For example, gang violence and football violence.

The Hillsborough victims were blamed. Even though it was eventually established they weren't at fault, their guilt was presumed. If men go to watch a football match and choose the wrong pub and are attacked, a lot of people will assume they started it, or asked for it or sought it out.

Men are more likely to suffer violence in prison and suffer police brutality when being arrested. I think a lot of people's first response is why would they be in prison or being beaten up by the police if they were innocent? (I think there might be more people who would take this uncharitable view towards men suffering violence than women)

3 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

Your 'leaving property' unguarded analogies are nonsense and for this reason; women going about their lives have not acted neglegently. 

Sarah Everard was not acting negligently walking along the street at 9pm at night. 

Your analogies suggest that if you have your laptop stolen or your house burgled then it's your own fault. 

Being out on your own is not a woman's fault that leads to being attacked. 

You referred to victims, which indicates a general discussion rather than of the case of Sarah Everard: " men are blaming the victims for walking on their own at night, wearing tight clothing, being drunk, etc."

I didn't mean to suggest thefts and burglaries are always the fault of the victim, but sometimes they are. 

2 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

In those analogies you are victim blaming. 

In my example, of as you put it "negligent" behaviour by the victim, would you agree the victim was partially to blame? Would it be useful for the victim to understand how they could significant reduce the probability of being a victim again? Would it be useful to others to learn from their mistakes?

My contention is that most people don't have a problem with the concept of victim blaming, but are inconsistent about it.

Of course, the first response (especially by people who are close to the victims) should obviously be compassion, and the second should be help with practical/legal/medical issues as a result of their attack/crime/abuse, but if victims were "negligent" that should be acknowledged in order to help prevent future victims.

3 hours ago, Keith Wibble said:

And yes, men have been blaming Sarah Everard without mentioning the murdering copper, just as your focus is attacking a woman for daring to suggest men are a problem but not the man who kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard. 

I wasn't attacking the Baroness. I just clarified her comments (that she was, in the words I quoted, pushing back against the police, not against trolls).

My focus is on your positions, which I find more interesting. 

I'm questioning whether this is a big problem which is part of some over-arching patriarchal system and whether it necessitates a big change in attitudes, behaviour or policy. 

[Keith Wibble]

44 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Nor are most women - most women who are victims of violence know the perpetrator. It is often their partner.

You seem to be implying that young men murdered - because they were from the wrong gang which they probably had little choice to join or often just lived on the wrong estate (so were known but picked because of where they lived) - somehow are less deserving of recognition because they knew the person who killed them?

I doubt their mother or sisters mourning them - feel much different - women who have lost their sons and brothers?

Your logic is astounding and it sounds almost as if you want to turn my defence of women as a de facto lack of defence, nay, attack on other groups. 

Somehow I don't buy your deep sense of social, class, or colour injustice. 

I think you just want to dilute women standing up for themselves. 

Oh, and for your information, I've spent most of my life working with and for those you attempt to portray me as demeaning or not recognising. 

 

So, here's a question for you: where have you supported those on the end of social injustices? 

[MARTINX9]

12 minutes ago, Keith Wibble said:

Your argument eats itself when you reference BLM because there was substantial involvement from white middle class women. 

I'm not sure why you keep citing reasons that sound line you object to women protesting at Clapham? 

Young Black men being assaulted by non young black men because they are young black men would be the similarity, but it isn't similar. 

There is not a unifying and historically repeated reason young black men get attacked by a group that is different anywhere on the scale men attack women. 

I don't object at all to any one going on public protests and wouldn't have voted (if I were an MP) for the ban on outdoor protests - as Whitty and Valence made clear last week there is zero evidence that they cause a public health risk. But the law is the law and once it is so it surely must be applied - otherwise why have laws? 

Its people who are quite happy to support such lockdown rules - and had no issue with often heavy police enforcement for other protests - who think there should be an exemption for protests they approve of who are being a tad disingenous.

In other words - people who support laws as long as they aren't applied to them! We cannot have one set of rules for one set of protests and another set of rules for others depending on which one you want to attend or endorse and which you don't?

Its arguably an academic point about being safe on the street - when MP pass regulations essentially banning most people in effect from leaving their homes for months - unless it is for a legal purpose as specified by MPs! Imagine just over a year ago anyone believing that could and would ever be allowed!

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by MARTINX9

[Keith Wibble]

7 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

I don't think anything in my response hinged on whether I thought her suggestion was serious. 

I'm not sure what to make of her comments. If she had phrased it differently ("Imagine if men were advised not to go out alone...") then it couldn't have been taken as a serious proposal, but also probably wouldn't have gone viral.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here by the discourse or narrative. I haven't followed this case very closely, but won't we all see different facts, claims, theories and arguments depending on what media we consume?

Yes and this isn't restricted to the advice from the police or going out at night. It is generally accepted that nobody should go to dangerous places on their own at night. In some places men and women are at similar risk (e.g. of mugging). In some places men are at more risk than women. For example, gang violence and football violence.

The Hillsborough victims were blamed. Even though it was eventually established they weren't at fault, their guilt was presumed. If men go to watch a football match and choose the wrong pub and are attacked, a lot of people will assume they started it, or asked for it or sought it out.

Men are more likely to suffer violence in prison and suffer police brutality when being arrested. I think a lot of people's first response is why would they be in prison or being beaten up by the police if they were innocent? (I think there might be more people who would take this uncharitable view towards men suffering violence than women)

You referred to victims, which indicates a general discussion rather than of the case of Sarah Everard: " men are blaming the victims for walking on their own at night, wearing tight clothing, being drunk, etc."

I didn't mean to suggest thefts and burglaries are always the fault of the victim, but sometimes they are. 

In my example, of as you put it "negligent" behaviour by the victim, would you agree the victim was partially to blame? Would it be useful for the victim to understand how they could significant reduce the probability of being a victim again? Would it be useful to others to learn from their mistakes?

My contention is that most people don't have a problem with the concept of victim blaming, but are inconsistent about it.

Of course, the first response (especially by people who are close to the victims) should obviously be compassion, and the second should be help with practical/legal/medical issues as a result of their attack/crime/abuse, but if victims were "negligent" that should be acknowledged in order to help prevent future victims.

I wasn't attacking the Baroness. I just clarified her comments (that she was, in the words I quoted, pushing back against the police, not against trolls).

My focus is on your positions, which I find more interesting. 

I'm questioning whether this is a big problem which is part of some over-arching patriarchal system and whether it necessitates a big change in attitudes, behaviour or policy. 

I'm wondering what you saw in Sarah Everard's behaviour that put her partly to blame for her own demise? 

What was it about her that enticed that copper to kidnap and murder her that had she done differently he would have changed his mind? 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Keith Wibble

[Keith Wibble]

1 minute ago, MARTINX9 said:

I don't object at all to any one going on public protests - as Whitty and Valence made clear last week there is zero evidence that they cause a public health risk.

Its people who are quite happy to support such lockdown rules - and had no issue with often heavy police enforcement for other protests - who think there should be an exemption for protests they approve of who are being a tad disingenous.

In other words - people who support laws as long as they aren't applied to them!

Its arguably an academic point about being safe on the street - when MP pass regulations essentially banning most people from leaving their homes for months - unless it is for a legal purpose as specified by MPs! Imagine just over a year ago anyone believing that could and would ever be allowed!

 

It was a vigil. 

I suggest you read some witness accounts of it. 

[Young Turk]

1 minute ago, Keith Wibble said:

I'm wondering what you saw in Sarah Everard's behaviour that put her partly to blame for her own demise? 

Nothing.

I did clearly distinguish between her case and the general problem of violence.

[Keith Wibble]

1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

Nor are most women - most women who are victims of violence know the perpetrator. It is often their partner.

You seem to be implying that young men murdered - because they were from the wrong gang which they probably had little choice to join or often just lived on the wrong estate (so were known but picked because of where they lived) - somehow are less deserving of recognition because they knew the person who killed them?

I doubt their mother or sisters mourning them - feel much different - women who have lost their sons and brothers?

You were talking about street attacks and so was I. 

[Keith Wibble]

2 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

Nothing.

I did clearly distinguish between her case and the general problem of violence.

You were clearly suggesting, in a discussion prompted by Sarah Everard's murder, that some women are partly to blame for men attacking them. 

Your focus on the woman's part in an attack on them and not the men's part is interesting. 

[MARTINX9]

30 minutes ago, Keith Wibble said:

Your logic is astounding and it sounds almost as if you want to turn my defence of women as a de facto lack of defence, nay, attack on other groups. 

Somehow I don't buy your deep sense of social, class, or colour injustice. 

I think you just want to dilute women standing up for themselves. 

Oh, and for your information, I've spent most of my life working with and for those you attempt to portray me as demeaning or not recognising. 

 

So, here's a question for you: where have you supported those on the end of social injustices? 

Nothing astounding at all about my views.

I consider all murders are equally appalling for the family and friends left behind. Not sure that a mother feels less about her son being murdered than her daughter. So why not lets discuss violence on our streets and how we can stop them whether the victim is male or female?

The mother of course in this case called for the protest that night to be called off - her request was ignored!  You seem to imply that people who never knew her - just because they were of the same gender - had more right to protest or get angry about her death than the male members of her family who actually knew and loved her?

So surely the answer should be what solutions do you have - is it more police, better street lighting, longer sentences for people who commit violent crimes, murder and rapes, cheaper cabs home or better public transport or more education and awareness courses for straight men? 

Cos 'going on a protest' is an act not a solution. And if protests ever much changed anything in recent UK history possibly several hundred thousand people who have died in Iraq since 2003 might still be alive. Protests didn't stop Brexit either - even though Londoners seemed to believe that their problems and concerns outweighed those of people in other parts of England and Wales who seemed to matter less to the media and others.

What are your practical solutions?

Edited March 15, 2021 by MARTINX9

[skinnylattej]

3 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

One quick question.

Would gay men be exempt from this theoretical curfew?

 

I hope so.  We put up with abuse and violence, although much reduced from times past.

I remember a series of attacks on gay men in the '90's, and no-one went to the Police.  The situation deteriorated and eventually a gay man was killed. Then Devon and Cornwall Constabulary attempted to get their act together.