The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

I agree that the testosterone argument is way overplayed. If one's hormones were driving their violence, surely they would be randomly violent to anyone and anything crossing their path during a hormone "surge." Domestic Abuse perpetrators focus their violence on their partners and children, but seem able to engage with other people without use of violence. Similarly, I would wager that most of the people who get convicted for crimes related to the recent rioting and looting will not have a previous history of violence. Unless there was some bizarre surge of testosterone amongst select males in specific parts of England during early August of this year, that argument just holds no water.

IMHO, except in very rare circumstances (i.e. mental illness, brain injury, etc.) violent behaviour is chosen. It may not be a process that involves a long period of consideration. It could be a split-second decision, but it is still a choice. 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.

I think testosterone is a red herring tbh. Everyone has testosterone. Not everyone is violent. Linking testosterone to violence is way too simplistic (and not necessarily correct - certainly open for debate although maybe not on this thread). Blaming someone's hormones takes away the responsibility for themselves and implies that they haven't got any higher cognitive processes that would override any agressive tendencies. As feminists we challenge the assumptions that women's behaviour can be inaccurately accounted for by hormones, I don't see why men's behaviour should be dismissed as hormonal either.

sprogger - I saw that data that you put on one of the other threads. Very interesting.

Anyone who advocates the right to bear arms is a 24 carat dick... I didn't need to read any further!

I am sure there is a testosterone/ male aggression link to the rioting/looting which is not so much 'elephant in the room' as it goes without saying.

But I also think there is a link young men whose traditional role in society, and means of gaining respect has gone - blue collar jobs in industry, skilled trades that could support a family just don't exist anymore, especially not in London once you take into account housing costs. So they turn to a toxic street culture to get respect.

This time with new and improve links!

Was someone looking for the argument that it was all the fault of feminism? This one comes close.?

www.nationalreview.com/articles/274268/england-used-be-country-men-frank-miniter?page=1

He seems to think "English Men" are too feminised, need to be armed, need to man up and lie down passively as they did during the riots.

But, his command of geography is pretty crap as he seems to think the violence used by the Englishmen in Tottenham last Saturday night was "unmanly?"

Perhaps his definition of an "Englishmen" is, shall we say, somewhat narrow.

What an absolute 24 carat dick.

Was someone looking for the argument that it was all the fault of feminism? This one comes close.

www.nationalreview.com/articles/274268/england-used-be-country-men-frank-miniter?page=1

He seems to think "English Men" are too feminised, need to be armed, need to man up and lie down passively as they did during the riots.

But, his command of geography is pretty crap as he seems to think the violence used by the Englishmen in Tottenham last Saturday night was "unmanly?"

Perhaps his definition of an "Englishmen" is, shall we say, somewhat narrow.

What an absolute 24 carat dick.

Festi, I read an article some years ago in which they profiled female members of gangs. I can't find it, which is a shame, and I do think it was about the US, but the responses were mainly along the lines of: we have to live with these male gang members, they're in our schools and neighbourhoods, we can either be their property (the phrase 'gangbanger' was used which makes me think it was the US) or we can define ourselves as not being sexually available by fighting and stealing just they do.

Maybe on some points... I have, however, plainly stated why it is wrong to categorise men as a social group or, indeed, expect them to act as a group.

I think the link between feminism, social justice and opportunity is surely clear as well, isn't it? I would describe opportunity as being permitted to achieve one's goals, so long as it does not impinge on anyone else's goals.

To come back to the riots, what are the achievable goals for an under-educated and unemployed teenage lad from the poorest areas of the main cities? Who cares about empowering these people? Who cares about social justice for them?

Sorry Jenny, I don't understand your post and don't see what it has to do with the points I have raised. I think we perhaps are talking at cross purposes.

I don't think that people should be able to accomplish all that they wish and certainly was not brought up to believe that (although I wasn't brought up as a feminist either). I don't see what being able to get whatever you want out of life has to do with feminism, or indeed any activism which has social justice as a goal.

I think I may be full circle now.

In these posts you are correct with your assertions that many of these groups (MPs, bankers etc) are predominantly men. However, you go no further than this. I would argue that they are a predominent type of man - perhaps even a predominent type of person. The fact that these people are over-represented by one gender is a red-herring. It is the characteristics that are important and not the gender. Where the lack of diversity exists is in their attitude to risk, to ambition, to results and their ability to empathise. It's not that it is easier for men to reach positions of power, but rather that it is easier to reach a position of power if you are highly driven and single-minded. Now, before you condemn these people, remember that it is also them that are responsible for most of the advances of civilisation... Also remember that putting a women into a powerful position does not ensure these traits are mitigated; see Rebekah Brooks for an example.

So, I do not agree that the underlying problem is one of masculinity or that power is the preserve of 'all' men (because you exclude all those women also in power and those men who are not)). As I originally posted, I believe it is a problem of responsibility and this stems from an increasingly individualistic society. An individualism, I would argue, that has increased because of the increasing amount of liberty that British (and US/EU etc) citizens have been afforded without due regard to the responsibility to exercise it that must accompany it. Yes, Milly, we are all capable of this and it is of benefit - but it does not come naturally to all of us and needs to be taught. Might I suggest that as someone who has probably been brought up to believe that feminism is important and that, as a woman, you should be able to accomplish all that you wish - regardless of the men who will try and stop you - you have been put on this road? The evidence from schools is that girls are performing better than boys across the board - so this message is working for them isn't it?

This same message, however, is possibly focussed on telling boys what they shouldn't be.

I wonder what the consequence would be if you were to raise two children and say to one that they should be good and the other that they should not be bad?

I also agree with MillyR, and just to add to her points...

The scary thing about the riots is that is not a simple 'rioters are in a seperate culture to us' analysis, it has happened within our society. What I say next does not excuse rioters, I think they have behaved inexcusably and have to face the consequences of their actions.

They come from our society that has promoted and celebrated consumerism and materialism as not really seen before in the last 15 years. As the credit driven boom crashes around our ears...we start to see consequences .

It is the same society that has allowed bankers (predominately men), to take aggressive risks with our money, for their own material gain. The cost of these failures have been borne by the public sector ( and thus impacting disproportionately on the poor)...a society where MPs (mostly men), casually ripped us off to the tune of thousands via the expenses claim scandal...

It is the same society that excuses (and via film, music , porn - celebrates) violence (against women or each other)by men as 'natural', testosterone driven, high jinks, the result of bad childhoods etc..) and many other excuses..

It appears with all that is happening, this us a good time to review gender constructions....in this case masculinity and ask is this really what we want ? ...And in terms if masculinity...actually men need to lead on this,women can't and shouldn't do it for them.

MillyR I agree with everything you've said. Bravo.

I also don't think women making men taking responsibility for their own behaviour is 'bitching from the sidelines.' It is about us freeing up our energy to use on other issues that we think are important and valuable in society.

Male peer group in the case of a child is the male children he associates with. I doubt many children have a male friendship group of sociologists. But perhaps I am missing your point.

Sorry Milly, I need to disappear. I'll try and come back later.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last post. The school has a ethos that gender constructions should be challenged and broken down and that all the staff are expected to participate in this through their lessons, planning etc. One point he made was that research has shown that the sex of a teacher has no impact on the outcomes for the pupil.

I'm not saying any of those things Jenny. You seem to be taking things to an extreme. All people, no matter how negative their situation or how many cultural influences they have been exposed to, will have some capacity to form their own ideas and sense of self. If that wasn't the case, nothing would ever change. But to acknowledge that does not require throwing out the idea that we gain or lack privilege through membership of groups within society. When we gain privilege or belong to a group whose identity is damaging to the rights of others, we have a collective reponsibility to chnage that.

Just your job to bitch from the sidelines then is it? That's handy.

I would strongly suggest that what you call male peer groups is, in fact, likely to be a throughly politically correct group of sociologists whilst he, the headmaster, is actually providing a strong role model and taking the issue in hand. Quite how you see this as a triumph against the 'patriarchy' is beyond me, when it is thinking such as yours that is probably representative of the groups trying to meddle.

The more I think about this, the more absurd it seems; men 'define' everything with regards to masculinity & power and femininity & subservience, whilst women (apart from the enlightened, of course) are 'conditioned' by this Machevellian process and have no input, power or responsibility other than for said enlightened group to 'blame men, as a group, for masculinity.

How ridiculous to suggest that the human race can be so easily divided into groups and how remarkably arrogant to believe that one possesses the sole true understanding of how society works.

I think you are missing the point I am making Jenny. My point is that it isn't the job of women to change masculinity. It isn't my role to work out a strategy to change, to plan 'deliverables' or to implement it. It is the job of men. They have created the current version of masculinity and only they have the repsonsibility or the ability to change it.

The only male I have a responsibility to is my son. Fortunately for him, he attends a school where the headmaster sent home a letter to all parents outlining the research on the acheivement of boys, and making it clear that the school was entirely unwilling to pander to constructions of gender from male peer groups, the media, home or wider society. Boys are expected to fall in line with the standards and exepectations of the school. At his school, there is no underacheivement of boys.

Well, that's all very easy to say isn't it? Firstly, 30 million men aren't a group - that was one of my points. The other was sarcasm - apologies - but what would you like men to do to change the way they interact with each other? This is not a specific deliverable is it?

Which laws would you like to change?

I also do not accept that 'rape statistics, domestic violence, war, assaults, hate crime' are incontrivertible evidence that 'culture' excuses violence. This culture is you and me and everyone else here isn't it? Where we do we excuse these things?

The one point that I do accept is that if we as individuals all think about how we behave - and demonstrate this - then this is a good thing. But you and I are not of the culture that is on the streets rioting so I doubt that we will reach them except through pressure on the education system. To randomly blame all men everywhere for this is absurd as it is a collective responsibility.

The same way any group changes anything. The culture of the UK is very different to the culture of France; we are a diverse group of 60 million people. We do it through changing the way we interact with each other, having conversations etc. I can't imagine what kind of cultural change is organised by memo. We can also do it through changing the law - particularly around violence. To try and address this problem by looking at only the violence behaviour and dominance demonstrated by looters is absurd - they are acting withn a culture where violence and dominance by men is excused. Look at rape statistics, domestic violence, war, assaults, hate crime.

And yes, on a feminist board, we are going to blame men as a group for masculinity. We are going to hold them accountable and responsible for their behaviour, including when they loot and riot. In much the same way, I understand that as a straight person, I am part of a group who have a responsibility to deal with homophobia, by asking myself some hard and honest questions, thinking about my own behaviour and being aware of how I interact with other straight people, and whether or not I challenge their behaviour.

In your view MillyR, what has changed with masculinity in the last thirty years and what have been the drivers?

I'd also ask how men define all these things; do they issue memos? If you mean media (inc advertising), you are aware how diverse these industriues are, aren't you?

Finally, I wonder how men 'as a group' can do anything, when men 'as a group' in this country alone is an incredibly diverse bunch of 30 milllion people.

I apologise if I've misread your post, but it seems a very simplistic approach from the very basics of a 'blame men' ideology and with little regard to the realities of life..

I agree with Snowmama. This issues that need to be looked at are consumerism and masculinity. It is ridiculous to blame female teachers or single mothers for the way masculinity has been changing over the last 30 years. It is men who define what is masculine and what is not, and men who define ideas of power, control, leadership, force, disregard for empathy and the rights of others, individualism, violence and dominance within that idea of masculinity. Men who cannot find ways of displaying those attributes within conventional means in society will look for unconvential ways to do it. Men as a group should take responsibility for looking at what on earth is going on with how they have set up masculine behaviour, and stop suggesting that women should resolve it for them.