'But what was she doing outside the safety zone after dark? She'd been told it was dangerous. I'm not condoning the pervert who assaulted/raped/murdered her, but if she'd had a bit of common sense and followed the rules she wouldn't have been attacked."

I have a horrible suspicion that these are the type of questions some people will be asking in Melbourne soon if Lord Mayor Robert Doyle's plan of "safety zones" for women is put into place.

Doyle spoke on Irish radio last Wednesday, and while there's no doubting the sincerity of his compassion for the family and friends of Jill Meagher, the Drogheda woman raped and murdered by Adrian Bayley after she left a Melbourne bar at about 1.30am last September (he said that "though the murder of Irish woman Jill Meagher in Melbourne didn't precipitate the move . . . her untimely death touched us all very deeply"), his proposals take the completely wrong approach, in my opinion, to acts of violence against women.

While Doyle admits that this is only a "step in the right direction", he explained: "We are looking at creating a safe space where women [and men] know they can go out late at night, which they know is welcoming and which is safe for them." There would be "patrolling" of these areas and, Doyle said, "CCTV footage would be subject to real-time surveillance by police and council officers".

This is all very well and good. But first we must ask the reason why women need special "places of safety"; why women have to have protection, "patrols", extra surveillance in areas that they frequent, and constant monitoring of their movements? The reason, to be blunt, is because of men. Yet time and again the focus is on "protecting" the woman – this can range from the well-meaning "safety areas" suggested by Robert Doyle, to a complete denial of a woman's right to self-autonomy – rather than preventing the male from acting in a violent manner.

Expecting women to change their habits when men threaten them is so much part of our culture that many of us don't even notice it. And those who do and dare to comment on it are labelled militant feminists – or worse. Much worse. Particularly now that craven, cowardly sexist bastards feel free to spout hate-speech in anonymity on social media.

We may try to deny it, but not very deep down it is tacitly believed that just by putting herself "out there", as it were, a woman is threatening the security of the male. He may react badly. In order to be "protected" she needs to be controlled and restrained.

We see this attitude frequently in what we consider "less liberal" societies than our own; for instance, Egypt, where many women who dare to protest out of doors are experiencing violent sexual assaults. The official response? A spokesman for the Shura Council said that "by getting herself involved in such circumstances, the woman has 100 per cent responsibility". And before we start feeling culturally superior, remember that much of the West's media response to the news that CBS's "blonde reporter" Lara Logan with her "model good looks" was sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square last year was pretty much in the same vein. What was a "pretty young thing" doing out in a war zone? Tempting men, it seems.

As Mariam's mother warned in Khaled Hosseini's A Thousand Splendid Suns: "Learn this now and learn it well, my daughter: Like a compass needle that points north, a man's accusing finger always finds a woman. Always."

The only person of authority I can recall who has ever queried the status quo (why is it, if men are committing crimes against women, it's women's freedoms that are limited in consequence?) was Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. After a series of rapes and violence against women in Israel, she was asked to introduce a curfew for women to protect them from potential rapists – much in the same vein as the "safety zones" proposed by Doyle.

Her answer?

"But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."

But what if we extended this idea – that men and not women should have freedoms restricted when men cannot control their aggressive hormones? Where would we start? And where would it lead?

What if we began with the fact that most rapes and violent crimes (excepting domestic violence, a whole other chapter) are carried out by men at night. Surely it would only make sense that a curfew be imposed preventing men from walking the streets after dark?

But, say the women who like to have a night out with their husbands or partners, that discriminates against us also. When they are with us our men are good, well-behaved, non-violent blokes. Well, in that case, I propose that men only be allowed to leave the home after dark in the company of a female relative. And I think I'm being very lenient here. I mean, look at all the countries where women are not allowed to leave the home during daylight hours unless they are with a male relative – and it's not as if they are the aggressive gender.

Next up, how do we deal with the fact that some men seem unable to control themselves when faced with a pretty woman, or a woman who is displaying some bare flesh, or a woman who has had a drink, or, well, a woman who happens to be a woman?

What shall we do? I have heard suggestions that men should not be allowed to leave home unless blindfolded, but I think that may be unnecessarily restrictive. Instead, I think all men should walk behind their women, head bowed at all times, staring at the ground, thus ensuring that they do not see anything that may tempt their uncontrollable urges in any way.

Recently in Ireland, we have been shocked at the revelations that (mainly) male clerics were not just able to assault and sexually abuse children at will, but were also protected and enabled by other male religious comrades. Currently, an investigation into the BBC in the UK shows that some men working in media were so tempted by the exalted powers their job bestowed on them that they were unable to stop themselves from indulging in serious sexual crimes – again against minors.

The solution is blindingly obvious, isn't it? Instead of a ban on female priests and clerics, there should be a ban on males. Time for the women to take over. It's what Jesus would want. The same goes for working in the media. Why take the risk of putting minors at risk of being assaulted by males when there are so many women who can do the job equally well?

And of course, it goes without saying – after all, evidence shows that increased levels of testosterone in risk-taking males caused the banking crash – that no man should ever be allowed to work in finance again. Better to curtail male career prospects a little than risk the destruction of the world economy. And to be on the safe side, that should go for politics too – far less risk of corruption and old boys networks.

Lastly, in light of the recent debates about "legislating for women's bodies", I wondered (on Twitter) what the attitude to pregnancy and abortion would be if men got pregnant?

Damien Mulley suggested that: "Women [would] be given a mandatory snip. Reversal only after 4 doctors agree." Peter Ferguson quoted Rose Kennedy: "If men could get pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament." Pamela Weaver suggested that men wouldn't need abortions as "they'd have invented brain-controlled contraception 30 years ago". And Kevin Denny noted sagely that: "It would be an ecumenical matter."

One decided by our new female clerics?

Why not?

Sunday Independent