The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

MillyR that is a very good point. Yes we can't just keep cramming more people into already overstretched areas. I believe in building new homes, new towns, new roads, new airports for people to live in and prosper. I am against greens and nimbies who wish to "preserve" their backyards and the environment for dung beetles rather than people, and just let people suffer in overcrowded inner city areas. People are the top priority, not the environment and some nimby's backyard.

"girls/women are punished more than boys/men for the same behaviour." I don't agree that this is the correct interpretation; if five squaddies are killed by IED in Helmand and one of them is female, the media focus on the female. In that scenario there's no blame and yet the handling is the same. It's the challenge to a stereotype that is newsworthy, not differing standards.

Sunshine makes a good point that single mothers get a hard time from Tories - they always have done - whilst no one acknowledges that the absense of the father in question may be an improvement. I always think of that old adage "Choose better men" when I hear of tales of woe, though. Bad behaviour is so often rewarded!

Milly I still get this sense that you think masculinity is a single definable suite of characteristics. I'm sure you also acknowledge that the majority of household consumption decisions are made by women although your post does not read like this.

Too many government factions are playing the blame game without focusing on the actual issues at hand.

I don't believe the public want quick summary justice, they want this sorted out once and for all, using tactics that change peoples lives in a good way.

I've seen the attack on single Mothers by the press and media and it's wrong but I think the masculinity blame is wrong too....there are too many people generalising to make a valid point.

Claig, I'm not suggesting we split the communities up. I'm suggesting we stop adding to their issues by putting additional groups of people, often vulnerable people, into those communities. That has been what has tended to happen with refugees for example. It would be more sensible in terms of community stress and overcrowding, lack of local resources etc to move them into less crowded areas with more existing infrastructure.

organicgardener, you are right. Progressive society has created the climate, where people are not often not allowed to defend themselves in their homes. Archbishop Sentamu was on Question Time last night and said he had a cricket bat at home and it would hurt if he used it on an intruder. I half expect PC forces to arrest him for having a cricket bat.

I don't want vigilantism because it is dangerous and will lead to undesirable results of mob justice being dealt out. But that is why we need a strong police force, to uphold society's laws. Drug gangs and the like should be stamped out as a matter of priority.

I think there is a major issue with pressure being put on parents and schools to change or develop the behaviour of children so that it is markedly different from the behaviour of the current generations of adults. I don't mean here extreme cases where social services are involved; I mean all parents and schools. Schools and parents cannot raise children or teens in a bubble. There have to be demands made of adults in society that they become better role models. We cannot do it all through children.

xposted... MillyR agree completely re. consumerism, masculinity and the general sense of entitlement for 'stuff'.

I don't agree with policies of moving some of these communities out of where they are into other areas. I believe in fixing the problem where it lies. That way all forces and resources can be concentrated on that area and it can be regenerated, rather than spreading the problem far and wide and failing to tackle it anywhere. Where there is a will, there is a way. The gangs can be eradicated. Poor people are not bad, not destined to riot. It is society that has allowed these conditions to thrive. Society has the resources to turn things around and help these communities. It requires a change in policy, a change in thinking.

claig Thu 11-Aug-11 10:07:22
The other interesting thing is, why are all of the protective vigilante groups mainly men? I think it's pretty obvious too. It all boils down to nature.

-----------

Great point Claig 100% agree.

These vigilante groups were chastised by authority though.

Claig, I do agree with you on many points and actually think this has been a bit of a perfect storm of causes hitting together.

I do actually agree about strong, stable family structures- what I would challenge is the assumption that a male presence is automatically a good thing.
There are many ways a strong, stable family can be constructed and maintained.

I have always felt very uncomfortable about the rhetoric about the need for ' male role models'... which creates a narrative of a mythical great male role model whilst simultaneously undermining and dis-respecting the people actually doing the raising of the children - women. And it is this narrative that the gangs plug into (combined with the glamourisation of violence/materialism/'respect' etc)...

If society actually was geared up to supporting and respecting all family models including single mother models, as well as looking why the youth are disengaged from education, feel that attainment the traditional route is not for them ( and all the other factors mentioned on this thread).. it would strengthen us as a society.

But I do agree we need look at ourselves as a society and think about what behaivours are being role modeled for the youth of today.

The two issues of consumerism and changes in masculinity seem to be linked anyway. A man who chooses to support his children, emotionally and financially, whether he lives with the mother or not, is putting time and money into his children that he could be putting in to acquiring consumer tat. I don't know how we reverse that change, but it seems to be having an impact across many cultural groups and not just those that live in big cities.

I don't think it is about throwing more money at certain communities. I think it is about creating social housing outside of these communities, so that we don't get cultures of deprivation building up. A family cannot bring their children up in a bubble - particularly in the teenage years. You need to have a community around you. So we need to have more of a social mix, by concentrating new social housing outside of areas that are currently dominated by poverty.

I cannot honestly say that my son would not be out rioting if he had been brought up in an area, and attended a school, with a gang culture. I don't know that with or without DH I could keep him away from those external influences, particularly as joining a gang may offer some temporary protection from violence.

Some families are better off without fathers, but not all of the men in those communities are bad men. They need to be encouraged to stay and support their families rather than having children with a succession of women and then abandoning their children. The government needs to start selling that message so that things will change.

Yes, you are both right. Family breakdown is just one of the causes. It depends in what environment these children grow up and depends on what their peers are doing. In a crime-ridden environment, where gangs control the streets, the situation is different to living in Chipping Norton. In a tough neighbourhood, a child needs to be tough to survive with its peers, and can easily stray from teh straight and narrow. That is where stable, strong family structures help and where male influence can prevent young males straying.

Society is in largest part at fault, not these young people thrown off the deep end and splashing around trying to keep afloat. It is tougher growing up round there and that is why society needs to do more to help those people. But it's not about money and new community centres, because they will also get burnt down. It's about moral guidance, which essentially comes from families, about discipline and respect of authority and removing the bad example of gang leaders from the streets. That is the responsibility of society.

There are clearly areas where all of society needs to work at solving problems - consumerism, the clustering of deprivation in certain areas, overcrowding in cities and the South East, lack of social housing that is mixed in with standard housing, pockets of middle class people within catchments of certain schools and so on.

But it is just crazy to look at masculine violence and lawlessness and make out that it has nothing to do with the current version of masculinity, and not think about how that can be changed. I just do not understand how anybody can defend that view. It is like looking at egg production without looking at eggs.

Claig I both agree and disagree with you at the same time.

While I think you make good points about the gang culture, I disagree that family breakdown is the cause. In many cases these disaffected youths who end up in gangs would be 10x worse had their mothers stayed with their fathers. The fact that their behaviour is still so bad speaks more about our society in general than it does about the state of the institution of the family in general IMO.

The evidence suggests quite strongly that parental education and money have far more to do with the outcomes for any child than the relationship (or lack of) between parents - be they married, co-habiting or separated. There is a very big strong case for saying a lot of the poor behaviour associated with children from single parent families is caused by poverty, and if you removed this the outcomes would be no different than for those of children brought up in stable coupled relationships.

In which case, the main cause of bad behaviour is not parental relationship status but rather lack of money and educational attainment.

Yet our schools are a postcode lottery, universities are out of the reach of many, and the gap between rich and poor is widening (thanks to governments of all colours).

There are many, many people out there who are finding that hard work does NOT result in financial and social gain. They can work a 60-hour week and still be in poverty. They cannot afford to get out of it. Meanwhile, politicians fiddle their expenses and bankers continue to take huge bonuses and both get a slap on the wrist. I am not excusing the rioters/looters behaviour and I think they should all be punished with the full strength of the law, but like I said on another post, if playing by the rules gets you nowhere it is not surprising that some people choose not to bother and to play by their own rules. That's what needs addressing.

But of course, let's say it;s all about parenting and say if single mothers could control their children there wouldn't be any riots.

There is a difference though in saying "most gang members have no male authority figures when growing up" from saying "if you grow up without a male authority figure you will end up in a gang".

It's got nothing to do with "men need to work more at this". Society better start working at this, otherwise the rage and alienation will be felt by all of society's children who may become innocent victims of crime carried out by these gangs. Society has turned a blind eye to these problems, and has even increased the problem by following the softly, softly progressive approach that the youth workers describe. Society therefore reaps what it sows and pretends it is outraged by the looting and violence. But everybody in authority always knew this would be the outcome. They didn't care, they turned the other way and let these communities deteriorate.

I think steroids by pumping additional hormones in the system, cause problems.....much as hormonal contraceptives do.

Why are men more aggressive and violent than women, I just think it is as simple they are taught to be in the way women are not.

Returning to Sproggers statistics, it is interesting to note that whilst only 5% of the rioters were female, we have seen a larger percentage of female rioters shown in the media, in fact the tabloids today have a lot of headlines around the olympics girl and the millionaire daughter......this is how girls/women are punished more than boys/men for the same behaviour.

BTW started this post hours ago, so have prob. Xposted with loads.

These gangs are becoming the male parental figures and role models for these young boys. They don't listen to their mothers, they want the respect that they gain by being part of a gang, a family , a crime family and they look up to the older male gang members as in the past they may have looked up to male parents.

He is not blaming the single mothers, he is saying that they can't control their young sons. Everybody has known this for years. Listen to the excellent young black ex-gang members on TV, who are now youth workers, trying to prevent young people joining gangs. These youth workers grew up in these environments and were gang members. They know how it works and they are saying what the Tories have always said, that this is a breakdown of the family, a breakdown in respect and discipline. It has been going on for generations. Unless it is turned round, it will only get worse. The youth worker said that society's rules had been turned upside down and now parents couldn't discipline their children. He gave the example of a 13 year old boy he works with, who thumped his mother in the face when she told him to go to school. He said if she had clumped him one, he would have gone to social services and had his mother sorted out by them.

Listening to BBC news and David Cameron this morning, I am more incensed than ever about the gender issue surrounding these riots.

95% of the rioters were men. Yet Cameron is laying the blame squarely at the fault of parenting with an emphasis on the absence of male role models for single parents (so implying it is women's fault then).

I'd have some sympathy if he was really interested in tackling social issues and improving outcomes for single parent families, but he's all about blame (having a poke at the police, despite the fact he's cut their budget and therefore recruitment, is another example). It will become another stick to beat women with and to punish single mothers in particular.

What no one ever seems to take into account is that in the case of single parent families quite often the absence of a father figure is an improvement on what might have been had that particular father been around. Maybe the 'damage' was done before the father disappeared and during the breakup. My kids, for example, would be quite likely to grow up thinking it's acceptable to fiddle state benefits, to beat up someone who disagrees with you and to basically lie and cheat your way through life if I was still with their father. By leaving when I did I have removed them from that role model and improved their chances of becoming productive, law-abiding citizens.

Only 9% of single parents have children outside a live-in relationship, and of those only 2% are teens, contrary to Cameron's implication that those doing the rioting are all chavs brought up by women who had children aged 12 and have 20 more by different fathers by the time they're 25.

ONe of the things I've noticed anecodotally about SOME single parents who've become so because of DV is that the mothers are often reluctant to impose any sort of discipline or boundaries on their child because they feel the child has already suffered enough (either directly or by seeing their mother abused). There is some grounds for trying to overcome this by introducing parenting classes I agree, but surely the main emphasis has to be on stopping men committing DV anyway. Since DV is massively over-represented in single parent families than in families generally, there seems to be a link between DV and poor outcomes (including criminality) for children. Let's focus the solution on the cause (violent men), not the women trying to pick up the pieces.

The solution is not stoping family breakdown (which is, in many cases, a good thing, like in mine), it is in improving social conscience and personal responsibility. This applies to both genders, but as most violence is carried out by men and as 95% of the rioters were men, surely this overwhelmingly suggests that men need to work more at this than women. So why are we blaming 'parents' (i.e. mothers, single ones in particular)

'Roid Rage
Most steroids are made of testosterone and a good number of them have been the cause of negative aggressiveness among its users. Most of them are based on testosterone although they perform differently in the body depending on how much of this male hormone has been used to make the steroids. This is a male hormone that is responsible for the masculinity in a man and the main reason men are stronger than women. However, a lot of it causes aggression. It is for this reason many people are involved in activities that are antisocial and for reasons that are obvious, most of them are men. This is the situation because most steroid users are men.'

While steroids are meant to cause some form of aggression by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain, it is the overuse of steroids for a long period of time that will make dangerous for a patient. There are some negative effects of using a lot of steroids for a long time, and one of them is extreme aggression that can lead to a person hurting himself and other people as well. There have been causes of murders, murder-suicides, and general misdemeanor that have been blamed on this extreme aggressiveness. The prevention of roid rage comes down to one thing; using steroids as has been directed and directing rage to a positive side.

www.oralsteroids.com/Roid-Rage_a/285.htm

Some interesting articles on the effects of injecting androgenic steroids containing testosterone in female bodybuilders

www.roidreport.com/steroids/side-effects-of-anabolic-steroids/

www.elitefitness.com/forum/womens-fitness-female-bodybuilding-training/female-roid-rage-150482.html

How do you explain road rage and the larger incidence of it among men? How do you explain that the majority of football hooligans are young men as opposed to 60 year old men. I think it is hormones and testosterone. Just like those body builders who pump themselves full of steroids and then get "roid rage". The testosterone is only a factor, not the sole deteminant, but I think it is the essential determinant that explains why a higher percentage of men carry out these acts than women.

'One chooses to use violence because it will get you something you want - whether it's a flat screen tv you can't afford or that your wife will stop talking to her friends.'

If that were the overriding reason, then why don't more women choose that path too? On the whole women choose less violent, less risky ways such as shoplifting. Men are much more likely than women to be involved in violent and more risky activity.

I think the Chinese knew all this centuries ago. It's just yin and yang. That explains the greater aggression in men.