Women in Sweden warned not to go out after dark

Who has said they aren't allowed to go out after hours?

Tell someone to not go out after hours then. It's still exactly the same principle. Telling someone to not go out after dark is a lot more extreme and affects quality of life a lot more than telling someone to lock their door at night.

Would you rather they had not said anything?

I don't go out of my way to pick apart your posts, you aren't that special. If they were unnoticeable then how did I notice them?

I just disagree with your opinions, I would take a guess that you are left leaning verging on tumblr feminism, but I may be wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah and by that logic you are a red pill menimist (Y)

Would you rather they had not said anything?

You see the part where I said it was a guess and I could be wrong?

You. Are. Detracting. From. The. Point.

For obvious reasons, you know I am right.

I would rather they took proactive measures that affected the perpetrators livelihoods, not the potential victims. Saying "would you rather x" is a very poor excuse to justify a behaviour.

I stole your cash mate, would you rather I have stolen your phone and wallet?

Lets be clear, its not the government giving advice, it is local authorities

I don't think the government has realised that there is a problem yet - or if they do, the last thing the government will do is to link it to [strikethrough]immigrants[/strikethrough] refugees

The fact you said "could" suggests you believe it to some extent though.

So are you telling me that not locking your door, and not going out at night, are on exactly the same level in terms of extremeness?

Locking your door at night, is a very easy, low effort cautionary behaviour, that would not infringe on a persons life in anyway. Telling someone that they aren't allowed to leave their house after hours, would not infringe another persons life in any way either? Do you actually think that?

A more suitable example, would be telling someone not to buy nice things, because it invites burglars. That is a more fair comparison.
Telling someone to not leave their doors unlocked at night is much more common sense, and would be on the same level as telling a woman not to dance around naked at night.

Do you see the difference? Telling someone to lock their doors is reasonable. Telling someone to not venture out after hours is not reasonable, and is oppressive.


You need to solve the source of the problem, not change the victims behaviour to an extent where it affects their quality of life.

So yes, use some logic.

How absurd. It's a conventional, intuitive safety advice that we all follow to some extent. But given that women are more vulnerable to sexual assault, it makes sense for the police to specifically warn women following the series of sex attacks. If there had been a series of sex attacks in your city, would you not give the same advice to the women in your family? If you want to go out late at night, then you're free to do so. It's not a curfew; quit your hysterical whining about "oppression". Caring about others' safety and welfare is seen as oppression now? Lol

Yes, the source of the problem - namely, harmful attitudes towards women and sex need to be changed, but it's not going to eradicate sexual violence in the short-term. I don't see why we can't deal with the source/cause and the symptoms thereof at the same time.

You seem to be struggling with forming a sentence.

Who says they aren't taking provocative measures to curb the recent spate of crime?

They had two options; not tell anyone about the recent crime surge and risk more women to become unknowing victims or give women the knowledge that there is currently a serious issue that they should be aware of. Which would you rather have done?

You aren't right.

Why is it a case of either telling women not to go out at night, or to not at all tell them about the rise in crime? Is it not an option to just inform people, and tell them to be cautious?

Although, it may be a better option to tell men not to go out at night, no men out, no problem, tell me I'm wrong.

I stopped reading after "hysterical", if you want to make an argument, please try and present one without resorting to sexist language.

If you can't see anything wrong with an entire gender in a first world country being unable to do something as simple as walk their dog after dark, then feel free to jog on.

If it is a serious problem which they obviously believe it is, then it requires a serious advisory message. Nothing is stopping women from going out, they are not forced to stay indoors. But at least they are aware of the dangers they may face.

Do you really think advising men not to go out would work?

I'm sorry you are unable to address the content of my argument and instead proceeded to poison the well by implying my use of the word "hysterical" was an example of sexist language. Now THAT is hysterical.

Depending on the area, I wouldn't walk my (hypothetical) dog after dark. But like I said, you're free to do so.

Only the non-criminals would stay indoors then... or do you think the sort of man who heeds advice to stay indoors in case he rapes someone, is actually someone to be afraid of?

If we are going down the root of blaming subsets of the population, it would become politically wrong, if we looked too closely...

If you don't know that "hysterical" is a sexist term, then I am actually pretty shocked, I thought that was common knowledge.

In places such as Sweden where darkness currently falls just after 5, then your hypothetical dog will never be walked on a weekday, that's hypothetical neglect.

Having checked the origin of the word, its etymology is arguably sexist but language evolves; today, it's a gender-neutral word that can be used in any context.

Don't know much about dogs, but again that's for you to decide. The police have done their bit to warn, but if you feel that walking your dog after dark is a necessity of some sort, then sure, go ahead