TL; DR: Currently, women self-impose a curfew as they fear male harassment of all forms on the streets. The debate has been sparked as to why shouldn’t the role be reversed, and men have a curfew? Of course, this extreme concept of a ‘male curfew’ is meant in the ironic sense as the hope is not for delivery, but instead for debate.

Self-imposed curfews for women have been normalised, through indirect social habituation and now direct social implementation as ‘police have advised women not to go out on their own after dark’. Caitlin Moran exposes this as an illogical plan that lacks both strategy and an exit point. Furthermore, this isn’t protection or action, but simply victim-blaming. It is ‘a silent, unwritten law for women’.

With thoughts of Sarah Everard deeply ingrained in the minds of all women, especially when walking alone in the dark, it is unsurprising that there is an instilled sense of fear that cannot be merely shaken off. This fear sculpts the lives of women as it seems easier to plan a day around the sunset than play poker with one’s own life.

After Baroness Jenny Jones, a Green Party peer and member of the House of Lords, suggested that men should adhere to a 6pm curfew, there was male uproar. Therefore, her comment (that was intentionally ironic and ‘not a serious policy proposal’) served to prove that the problem lies with the male incomprehension of women’s danger. In other words, the male’s double standard.

Caitlin Moran argues that ‘the worst thing about a legal curfew for men is that, if you break it, you would be arrested. The worst thing that happens to women when they break their informal curfew is: they die.’ Although creating a legally enforceable curfew for men would be the best practical way to keep women safe, it is more that it would be the best theoretical way to make men consider a female’s perspective.

Moran anticipates the #notallmen stance that argues against a hypothetical curfew because it is unfair to punish the men that have done no wrong, by arguing that, equally, it is unfair for women to be punished by adhering to their self-imposed curfew, or worse, breaking curfew and risking the terrors of the streets.

By stripping away a man’s freedom to roam, there is the hope that men will feel passionate to change the streets and create a safer atmosphere for women. This change comes from proactive measures that can start simply and most effectively within friendship circles by rectifying rhetoric and actions towards women. Jenny Jones reminds us that ‘all men are not abusers, that’s plainly obvious, but at the same time, all men can help’.

Therefore, legal action of creating a ‘male curfew’ is clearly not actionable, however the simple concept of a ‘male curfew’ should be wholeheartedly considered as a way to understand the existing curfew on women.

This policy would only work in an idealistic world where it could be properly enforced. If someone is willing to break the law by raping/ sexually harassing women, why would they listen to the law telling them to stay indoors.

Men could dress as women or sneak out and the only way to prevent this would be police monitoring every street in the city, and with reports that police officers are stretched like never before trying to enforce Covid-19 lockdown measures, it seems the possibility of this is unlikely.

This could encourage the normalisation of different rights for men and women, which women have fought against for most of history. Aiming to promote female emancipation and well-being by trying to control the rights of all men, due to the actions of a small male minority, could be considered hypocritical

I disagree because I think this moves into dangerous territory of creating different rights for men and women. This concept could create anger between men and women ,and lead to a build up of resentment which I think would create more issues than it would solve.

I also wouldn't like a society where I couldn't socialise with my male friends after, for example, a curfew of 9pm; this could mean men couldn't attend concerts, clubs or even late-night restaurants which I think is discriminatory.

It would be very wrong to punish an entire country's population just because some extremists committed horrendous crimes. An innocent population punished for something they haven't done could potentially only incite anger.

Therefore, I do not think this would encourage most of the male population to understand the difficulties women face when women assume a protective curfew. I think this could act instead to make people resentful, angry and unwilling to listen to these issues in the first place.

TL;DR: A good policy must obey the fundamental principles of a civil society and produce net gains. Male curfew does neither.

The questionable practicality of male curfew represents the least of its issues. No one should entertain the idea to broaden the debate or offer a perspective. Male curfew has, at just first sight, two major problems.

Male curfew represents an inexcusable infringement of civil rights. “The worst thing about a legal curfew for men is that, if you break it, you would be arrested. The worst thing that happens to women when they break their informal curfew is: they die,” said Caitlin Moran. Ms. Moran’s false comparison is shocking in scale. Let’s examine the roles and faults of the government in these two scenarios. In the latter one, the government failed to protect women from danger at night. It did not promote gender equality or public safety in a sufficient way. It served as a bystander ignorant of its responsibilities. In this case, the government failed as a protector due to its inaction. In the former case of a male curfew, the government actively infringed on the civil liberties of its citizens. It abused its power to a significant degree and departed from the principle of civil government. In this case, the government served as a perpetrator due to its abuse of power. Hence, Ms. Moran’s comparison ignores the different roles of the government in her two scenarios. In doing so, she conceals the damaging infringement of power in male curfew. The solution to a mistake by the government (its inaction to gender violence) should not be an even more outlandish mistake, particularly not one that jeopardizes civil liberty.

This argument may seem outdated with the background of all the Covid-19 restrictions. However, unlike those restrictions, male curfew would produce net negative effects as a policy. It seems difficult to envision the entertainment of the idea would bring new perspectives to men. For the sake of the argument, let’s say such benefits do exist. However, such benefits pale in comparison to the harm outlined above, especially considering all the better alternatives. A government can increase the penalty of gender-based violence. A government can have an awareness campaign on the issue. A government can invest more in public safety. Of course, one can argue none of these would produce the effect of the size of a male curfew. However, they also have far fewer detrimental side effects. When comparing the marginal gains and the marginal costs, any alternative seems more efficient than a male curfew.

For these reasons, one should not embrace or even entertain the idea of a male curfew.

"female curfew" would work much better /s

Soooo.... we're gonna have a period of time where it's just all the women on the street, and all the law abiding men are stuck at home, and this is going to...? What's the goal here again? To protect rapists or something?