The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

I'm still very sceptical about the higher use of violence by males as due to "nature's law." If that were the case, surely we would expect those men who choose not to use violence or controlling behaviour to have lower than normal levels of testosterone. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of this. Similarly, we would expect women who are violent to have abnormally high levels of the hormone, but again, I don't think there is consistent evidence of this.

IMHO, the largest component is learned, socialised behaviour. Men are still asked to "man up" and demonstrate their masculine identity through assertiveness, aggression and force. Young boys increasingly are encouraged to be "hypermasculinised" by the toys and products marketed to them which also promote these characteristics. Boys and men are "rewarded" for conforming to a certain model of masculinity and derided if they don't (e.g. boys don't cry, you're a pussy, big girls blouse, etc.)

Although it's not a scientific sample, the blokes I've known who have not demonstrated violence or aggression tended to be raised within families and communities that did NOT reinforce a violent, aggressive model maleness. Conversely, many of the guys I've known who display abusive, controlling, aggressive behaviour have been raised to believe that you have to be this way to be a proper man.

The other problem is if it's all just down to nature, there really isn't much hope. It's inevitable that most men will turn to violence some times and it's not their fault because it's just genetic.

Unless it is bear hugging, wrestling to the ground, and dragging before the bench. The hoody knows that force will from now on be applied.

No organicgardner, it was a youth worker who lives in Tottenham and who had gone to Oxford University, which may explain why he was so far out from the wisdom of the many excellent youth workers I have seen on TV recently who all take the line that the Tories take in understanding the true reasons for these events.

Yes, Cameron's spin doctors tried to emulate the progressives, like Tony Blair, and told Cameron to use the "hug a hoody" line. The public laughed at this at the time. Those progressive days are gone. There will be no more hugging of hoodies.

deluded youth worker on TV who said we needed more "love, compassion and care".

If that was the same Woman on Question Time last night she admitted she didn't live in the areas where the looting/violence took place.

Hug a hoody has gone too far methinks.

'The fact that the vigilantes were mostly male could expose a behaviour that the same gender/sex differences were at play although one faction used that "Urge??" for bad rather than good?'

agree with organicgardener. The reason the behaviour is the same is because it is just nature's law. Unless we understand the real reasons behind behaviour, then we have no chance of implementing policies that can change it.

snowmama, the law is much stronger than any gang. The gang can be broken up within days. The gang does mete out harsher punishments than the law, but the law is also there to protect gang members being killed by other gang members. The law is stronger than the gang, because the law has the full force of the state behind it, and that dwarfs the force of the gang. The state has a duty to protect all of its citizens, even the law breakers, and it should do this by increasing the use of its force to vanquish the gangs. It should not stand back and watch looting and allow it to go unchecked for hours. It has the means to put down any disturbance. The residents of Tottenham are on the whole demanding tougher action against the gangs and peopel are forming their own protection forces, apart from some deluded youth worker on TV who said we needed more "love, compassion and care".

Snowmama

I can somewhat see where your standpoint opinion is coming from and it would be unreasonable to dismiss it out of hand, it demands some sort of discussion.

But I still say that gang members should and will play by our rules when it comes to crime and it's effects.

The fact that the vigilantes were mostly male could expose a behaviour that the same gender/sex differences were at play although one faction used that "Urge??" for bad rather than good?

That is the problem organicgardner and claig. We have the police and armies with the intention that they can used violence (in a controlled manner generally - not always) to control. The problem here is that the gangs (and even people who were not gang members) have decided to play to a different set of rules (within which transgressions are punished by more violence than the police would enforce with, as sunshine said.).... I would not argue that the police should escalate the violence of their reaction to solve the problem though. Nor would I argue that additional violence/physical at discipline at home solves the problem.

I would argue that we get to get to the bottom of why this situation has occurred and address root causes....and that is about building a collaborative society, with yes moral responsibilities (but not a reactionary 1 size fits all type 'morality')

... the problem with violence, is not as simplistic as violence being perpetuated by rap (but actually any action movie, some comedy movies, porn, soaps such as eastenders, 'fly on the wall' documentaries, magazines, rock music - and a substantial majority of media output).

Why are stats now being quoted, because people are denying the context of the society we live in and level of violence accepted from men.

Greed does not exist in a vacuum... why do boys exposed to the same factors, decide that it is ok to disengage in a violent manner, when girls in the main are not? What gives them that sense of entitlement?

Too angry now. Out.

Jenny most certainly did not deny that DV was a problem. Jenny queried the bandying around of a figure like 25% with no real knowledge of how that figure is formed. It was certainly used to back up a claim that violence was rife throughout society and my point is that it does not support that claim in the least.

I have an expremely good friend who suffered years of abuse and will brook no lectures from anyone on my intolerance for shoddy argument and arbitary statistics in some way excusing or denying DV.

sunshineandbooks, the natural order is that the strongest have the most authority. That is why we have created societies where the state has the strongest authority rather than any individual. We have created a system of law where we are in theory all equal before the law, we are not at the mercy of the strongest individual. But it only exists because of the state's authority which has created forces like the police force and the armed forces. Without them, we would be at the mercy of the looters, muggers and gangsters. Without society's force of the law, we would be back with the laws of the jungle and survival of the fittest.

I asked a question S&B.

Jenny hasn't excused anything from what i've read.

Ok - the majority of those whom the education system fails are men. The majority of those whom engage in excessive and irresponsible spending are women. That's not to say that either is an applicable case across either gender.

So, whilst vanity and the desire for a 'mask' might be equal across the sexes, for example, the use of cosmetics is a practice that is tolerated mainly only in women. We do, therefore, treat the sexes with greater difference than difference actually exists. This is true of most of us and is certainly true of mainstream feminism isn't it?

I think my point is that life, society and personalities are so damned complicated, diverse and contrary that any attempt to group men, for example, cannot possibly be correct. I also think that divisions are maintained by doing so and that a more holistic approach is the best bet for gaining genuine equality of opportunity.

Why are we excusing DV on this thread?

organicgardener I brought in the stats because jenny chose to deny that DV was a problem. Am I not allowed to prove my argument?

Violence begets compliance - isn't that another way of saying that authority is defined by force and because it's 'natural' the natural order is the strongest have the most authority. In this case we may as well return to a situation where men control their wives since they will be, in the main, capable of greater physical force.

If that husband refused to leave the house would you call the Police to talk him out of the house?

Would he if he refused be "Forced" out of the house using aggression?

Jenny, the stats are adjusted to allow for the fact that some women receive sustained abuse over a period of years. If you wish to deny DV is such a prevalent problem, please do your own research and prove it. Otherwise, please accept the figures presented by Womens Aid. One of the first ways DV is excused is by denying the figures, whereas surely a more moral response would be that any figure is unacceptable and we should work on stamping it out. And is mild aggression ok? Do you think a slap across a face is ok? Would you tolerate that off your husband?

Why has this thread been usurped by stats ?

Punishment is imposed by society because their acts affect that society.

I don't care what they class as their social conventions, they should be punished by ours, obviously that isn't a debate and it's agreed on.

Violence begets compliance, that's why they employ the tactic.

Where are the consequences for DV?

Where are the consequences for men who walk out on their children and pay no maintenance?

Where are the consequences for rapists?

Who commits these crimes? Overwhelmingly men. They face little, if any consequences. Yet the consequences for women - being raped, beaten up, left literally holding the baby - cannot be ignored.

25%? Where does that come from? In a lifetime? Mild aggression? I think you may be doing a disservice to those who suffer genuine sustained abuse.

I would also suggets that the few cases of idiotic R&B singers referring to women as bitches is not a viable demonstration of how this attitude is generally applicable - indeed rife! - across society.

We even call the police, the police force, unless we want to be progressive and call it the police service.

organicgardner can you explain this please:

I disagree with your view concerning Male on Female violence as an excuse for a reason why Males from single parent backgrounds commit violence, there's nothing "General" about it other than the fact less generalisation.

I'm not being argumentative I just don't understand what you're saying about generalisation.

However, I disagree that the people you are talking about are immune from punishment. They are immune from our normal social conventions and therefore think they are immune from consequences, but if they are caught they are punished the same as you or I. Within their own gang culture the consequences for transgression may be far harsher, which rather backs up snowmama claims that violence begets violence. They learn that violence gets results.

Snowmama

These riots had little to do with Matriarchal/Masculine taught behaviour, it was greed, you're in danger of shoehorning a view into a problem that doesn't need it.

In a right and proper society Women should fight in the military and die if need be even if they are Mothers because they chose to be in the military.

Fathers die in the military what makes them any different?

I don't know of one person in my life who has hit their Mother male or female, whatever stats exist are abstract and vague.

Snowmama, we have to disagree. I think that using the advantage of force is natural and is a law of nature. I think it has to be countered with the threat of discipline and force. As organicgardener said, the authorities use force, they send in the police to quell disturbance, and some are even suggesting using the force of the army. Women and children are bombed in their homes in cities across the world in the force that is called war.

To play down the impact and importance of force and discipline is unnatural and leads us to the situation we have of looters running amok.

People don't have to be taught to use force, they intrinsically know when they have the advantage of force and they will then use it unless they fear the consequences. The gang member carries a gun to increase his force and he will use it if he does not fear the consequences.