The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

Jenny, 25% of women experience DV. 1 in 9 women are raped. If you care to extrapolate and include psychological violence and emotional abuse you could argue that nearly a third of men are abusive to a greater or lesser degree, but
even if you only include physical forms of violence the figures are a significant minority, not a small one. And it actually seems to be on the increase.

We have violence against women glamourised in pop music, women routinely referred to as bitches.

I think that's a problem.

I think violence begets violence, and right now the construction of masculinity is very tied up with violence... just think about the assumptions being made on this thread about the physical prowress of the 'missing' fathers. (Absent father does not mean imaginary btw..many people in this situation know who their father is and have some sort of relationship with them - it is just that often it is a very piece-meal relationship).

There is a is an assumption here about a particular type of masculinity that the 'present' fathers would have adhere to, to enforce this type of physical discipline... many fathers would be physically overpowered by their sons if this was truly required... speak to many male victims of DV, and they often talk about the turning point being when they realised they could overpower their (male) abuser)... but I digress...

There are many families that can enforce discipline without physical violence. The gangs are tapping into a violent variation of masculinity, sold by many parts by society... and this has to change. There are many reasons why we need to look at groups being disenfranchised by society.. but we must also reflect on why predominantly...boys/men feel entitled to protest this point violently (and again I reject the 'it's natural' pov)...

The reason why teenage boys feel then can beat up their mothers is because they are being taught to fundamentally disrespect their mother's situations.

Jenny, interesting point about female soldiers being killed in the line of duty - I have always seen these also as cautionary tales as to why women should not do violent jobs, such as being in the army (particularly when they are mothers). ... it returns to the 'its just not natural' point of view.

Agree with organicgardener, well said.

Jenny, I really cannot follow your argument. You have said that you don't believe men and women are social groups. But then you have said that something should be done about the underachievement of boys (so you are treating boys as a social group) and that consumerism is more of an issue for young women (so you are treating young women as a social group).

I have never said that consumerism has more of an impact on men than on women. What I am saying is that part of the reason for the riots is the way that masculinity and consumerism are interacting. There are also ways that femininity and consumerism can interact negatively, but that is not really related to the riots, which is the subject of this thread.

Violence by authority is and always has been a tool to control Adults/Children/People that "Don't behave".

One of the reasons why these riots took place is because these youngsters are immune from punishment.

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.

The general problem of male violence towards women is rife throughout all sectors of society? Rife? I'm not sure I agree Sunshine - can you elaborate?

They are spending something like 9 billion on teh Olympics. Can you imagine what a paradise they could create across all of England if they spent that money on regeneration and jobs and followed the correct policies instead of their past progressive ones?

Surely good parenting is teaching children to control their most base instincts - one of those being violence.

It doesn't have to be the father of the child dishing out violence. It's a more general problem of male violence towards women. It's rife throughout all sectors of society, not just impoverished, gang-ridden cultures. But when you have the two factors running concurrently, that's when you have a hotbed of unrest combined with lack of controls and street violence erupts.

And yes, it's a minority. No one is saying all the men in these communities are violent. The rioters are a minority in their own communities, too. Doesn't stop them having a massive effect on the rest of their law-abiding communities though.

And I fundamentally disagree that violence is the way to control children organicgardener

Milly I'm fine with that. I'd restate, though, that I'm not sure how this relates to your principles in this argument. The people that seem to have the most problems with consumerism are women - something that doesn't seem to tally with what you've been saying.

NB I'm basing this on the many stories of young women, credit card debt and personal bankruptcy.

We're not affected now. There is no looting here yet. But in 20 years time, it will be just around the corner. It's so obvious, that you have to wonder if it isn't being allowed to happen deliberately. You have to wonder if the wrong policies are carried out deliberately.

agree organicgardener, this is society's problem and it will affect all of our lives eventually as it spreads and spreads if unchecked. It's not just about men.

Physical force is needed to control at times I would have thought that was an obvious conclusion.

And if the Father isn't actually in the house and is absent? Why is this imaginary Father being blamed for teaching his male child violence in order to control his Mother?

It's the blame game again isn't it, we should move on from this and treat the problem as societies problem.

Well being a consumer or being responsible for some consumption is essential to an individual's survival unless you live entirely outside of the market. Being driven or heavily influenced by the ideology of consumerism is not essential, but is increasingly problematic for many people in our society.

'I think maybe these gang members don't fear their mothers because they have seen men using physical force to control their mothers and therefore think they can do so as well.'

I doubt that the fathers stayed around after birth for most of the gang members. Some men beat their wives, but not all of them. We can't tar all of the men in that community with the same brush.

'claig but would he? Wouldn't that only apply if the father was prepared to use physical force to control his son? Is that actually desirable? Are we saying that respect is based on fear, which is based on physical force? I don't think that's a good role model at all.'

Yes, I disagree with you. I think that for these boys respect is based on fear, which is why they respect the biggest, baddest, toughest gang leader. Progressives have removed the element of fear and removed the rights of parents and the rights of homeowners to defend their properties. I think they did it deliberately, fully understanding the consequences. I think they helped create the problems that we see today with widespread disrespect for law and order and laughing at authority since the element of fear has been removed. 11 year olds laughingly said that they were looting "because the police can't do anything about it".

If you think authority is based on physical force Sunshine, you never met my Nan !!

That's a very diplomatic answer Milly, thank you. Regardless of the concept, the reason I feel strongly about this is that I believe the spectrum of personalities within a single gender far exceeds the differences between the two genders. For example, a women can expect to have far more in common with a great many men than with some women.

As to consumption and being a consumer - consumption is the act of consuming. My MBA, which includes economics and marketing, hasn't prepared me for a difference between the two I'm afraid; you'll have to enlighten me.

In other words, what is at fault here is not the absence of a father figure but the fact that authority is based on physical force.

Agree MillyR. It's a separate subject but I think the greens are just a tool of the elites, intended to prevent people flourishing. The elite wants us crammed in to ever smaller houses, ever poorer and ever at each other's throats. They could solve the problems of Tottenham 100 times over if they wanted to.

Something like 1000 families in the UK own 90% of the land. There is lots of land available for people to create new thriving communities.

claig but would he? Wouldn't that only apply if the father was prepared to use physical force to control his son? Is that actually desirable? Are we saying that respect is based on fear, which is based on physical force? I don't think that's a good role model at all.

I think maybe these gang members don't fear their mothers because they have seen men using physical force to control their mothers and therefore think they can do so as well.

snowmama, the gang members love their mothers, but they often don't obey them as they get older. They don't fear their mothers, because they are stronger than them, and that 13 year old kid thumped his mother in the face when she told him to get out of bed and go to school. Young boys like that respect those they fear. They respect authority if it has the means of disciplining them. I doubt that boy would have thumped his adult male father in the face. If his father was there, he may have got up and gone to school.

Although I am quite keen on the environment myself. But just because somewhere is outside a city, it doesn't make it devoid of brownfield sites, or that social housing can't be built in a way that has minimal environmental impact and be economical for the inhabitants.

Claig - yes, it is obvious to me that the village where I live, the nearest villages and my nearest town have both the infrastructure and the social capacity to cope with more social housing. The lack of it at the moment is bad for poorer local young people and for a social mix as people have to have money to move into the area because of the rise in house prices.

Jenny, I don't see a point in debating with me your idea that men are not a social group. Obviously, being a feminist, I believe that men and women are social groups. The idea that men are not a social group is a novel one to me. I've never heard it said or written by anyone before, so you perhaps need to argue about it with somebody who is familiar with the concept, or perhaps share a few links to research into this kind of thinking for others who may be interested. But I confess I've no experience of it myself.

As for your point about household consumption - consumption and consumerism are not the same things.