The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

Lucrezia. No one said that crap about "evil menz rioting" and "lovely women" at home. No one believes that. YOU however would love for us to believe that wouldn't you? I wonder why.

So why don't you stop putting words into people's mouths and put forward arguments that aren't just hateful conjecture about people you don't even know.

Here are some lovely young ladies....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

No you don't blame the parents Lucretia - that is definitely not what you said. You definitely blamed the mothers and the mothers alone.

And I don't think anyone is denying that there were female rioters out there (possibly more than usually seen Lynette). But the greater proportion is definitely male. I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out. Media seem to have no qualms about pointing every other element (race, class, poverty etc).

Form the footage I've seen, I've seen far more women rioting/looting than I expected.

Rioters in the past have almost almost exclusively been male, but in 2011 there seems to be a significant proportion of females out on the street.

I blame the parents both fathers and mothers.

But that means that women MUST shoulder some of the blame for raising such feral scum.

It's no good saying, " Ooh, it was Evil Menz rioting, all the lovely women were at home knititng and chanting for World Peace".

These rioters are the sons of women who should be raising decent men regardless of whether there is a father involved.

For a start, has someone actually gone around and interviewed all the looters and asked them about their family history, so that we have an accurate portrait of their homelife, whether or not they have a single or double parent family etc. etc. ? Have you? Or are you just guessing.
Secondly, assuming that these are children from single parent families - it takes two people, a man and a woman, to make a child. I doubt they're the results of mass virgin births.
Thirdly, yes. the mothers should have more control over their children BUT - all blame should not squarely rest on their shoulders if they're left holding the baby so to speak. The father who disappeared off and isn't assisting in raising his child/children (bar extreme circumstances, like death) should also be blamed.

Yes, and who taught them that they didn't have to take responsibility for anything? Their FATHERS

Who raised the looters? Who imbued them with values, self worth, morality? Hmm? Whose job is that?
Are your 15 year olds destroying and stealing at midnight?

im22 - I have encountered you an different threads before and I am not going to engage with you any longer. Believe what you like. The evidence is out there.

. I am not saying that mothers can't raise or control their children - you are. Why are you so keen to blame the mothers Lucretia rather than the rioters themselves (who are mainly adults) or the society they have been brought up in or the fathers?

Bollocks.

Are you genuinely saying that allowing children to loot and burn and riot and destroy is something women can't help??????

Jesus. My mum was a single mum of five. Millions of women raised decent children well after the war without benefits and free meals and free this and bloody that.
How does being poor prevent you from parenting decently? How fucking patronising!

Its harder though, isn't it. You don't have to be a genius to work that out.

If a single mother claims benefits she is impoverished and unable to provide many things for her DC and criticised for failing to be a good role model and show them a work ethic.

If a single mother works she has less energy and time to devote to her children and their upbringing, and will quite probably still be impoverished due to shitty wages and ridiculous rents.

Two adults have more resources (time, hands, emotional energy etc etc) to share with their DC than one does - however strong that one parent may be.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat

THe WBG link is to an analysis into one of the government budgets (I'm not sure which one since I haven't bothered to read the full report) and thus shows no data on unemployment figures. (As an aside, I would hardly have thought something called the womens budget group could be defined as non partisan, but since their report is irrelevant to our discussion I'll let it pass)

Yes, the IFS is independent but the report isn't done by them, it's done by the Fawcett Society using selected projections made by the IFS, none of which pertain to employment rates of either gender

The channel four link is the first promising one (for your argument). Although now having read it as well as the links it provides I now suggest you do the same. The article tells us that employment fell in a 3 month period faster for women than men. If you look at the first link provided to an ONS report (a non partisan one) you would see from the to side by side graphs that since February 2009 (it's earliest point) until February 2011 employment fel for males by about 2 percent and for females by about one percent. How exactly does this show that female unemployment has risen higher as a result of the recession???

Yes this has nothing to do with the OP's post and topic, I was just calling bullshit on an earlier post which contained a lie. And yes the rioters do seem to be predominantly male from the footage I have seen, they also seem to be disproportionally black, and I'm sure if we could do an analysis of their average income we would find they are disproportionally poor - so please discuss these issues then, don't make up ones (ie. that females suffered more in terms of employment rates since recession(and yes, I know it's wasn't you who first suggested this))

Lucrezia - maybe if fathers weren't fucking off left right and centre, leaving mothers to bring up their children alone with little if any financial or practical assistance....

But these women ARE raising children alone, in the most part so does that mean they abdicate all responsibility? Allow them to roam wild because the father has fucked off?
How weak are you making these women out to be, that they can't raise or control children without a bloke in attendance?

joaninha - that would definitely be a factor. It goes back to how society constructs masculinity and feminity.

Great, another thing to blame on single mothers When we as a sociaty crack down on letting fathers just bugger off without a backwards glance, then maybe you'd have a point. But no, the mothers get the blamne. I've seen community leaders and people on the streets imploring MOTHERS to keep their children inside. Why mothers? Why not PARENTS?

Maybe if the fathers of these children were around they wouldn't do this Lucretia?

Plus the idea that violence is cool is more prevalent in boy culture?

Who ( often singlehandedly in these families) raises these violent scum?

Mothers.

So where are the mothers of these lowlives when they are out destroying?
Maybe if the women in charge of raising these children did a half decent job, it wouldn't be happening.

Just a thought, eh?

Testosterone. In very high levels in teenage boys, not girls. I imagine it is a factor which overrides social issues.

It was a non-partisan source (IFS is an independent review body). But I suspect you wouldn't believe anything I linked to as you are just on the wind up.

Here are a couple more to keep you going:

Channel 4

www.wbg.org.uk/index_7_282363355.pdf

However, that isn't what this thread is about - which is the rioters seem to be predominantly male and no-one seems to mention that.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat -

The report linked to demonstrates that the impact of tax/benefit changes of current government policy. Nowhere in it does it show or even pertain to show that UNEMPLOYMENT has risen at a greater rate for women than men since recession. Please try again (and preferably from a non partisan source this time)

Fawcett Society and Institute for Fiscal Studies report

That wasn't hard now was it?

HerBex -

"women are far more likely to be hit by unemployment in this recession than men" This statement demonstrably false, try to find some statistics (instead of using your own political ideology to dictate statistics) showing this to be true and you will see this fact.

Also the fact that he said that these men need jobs has nothing to do with your proposed 1950's scenario, it is meant to show that he feels that most of the rioters are male and that if they had jobs they wouldn't be rioting.

I am ambivalent in my opinion of Ken Livingston, but if your going to attack him then please make your argument reasonable - for example the fact that his interview was complete electioneering at a time when this is so unseemly to do so