The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

Oh how predictable. The riots are women's fault. Couldn't see this one coming.

The riots looked pretty fucking masculined to me.

And it's OK to use it as a stick to attack single mothers, is it? Of course that'll be it. Hang them out to dry so we don't actually need to look at the issues that might not reflect so well on all of us.

And I find it very patronising to trot out the 'black men wot said it'. What about the black women? Do we not give a shit about them now? Do we somehow forget that patriarchal ways of describing things and deciding who to blame is not the solve reserve of white people? And that heaven forbid black people might have a range of voices, what with them not all being a homogeneous mass? Of course the voices that prop up what the malestream says get heard.

'How is it not women who have made these changes?'

Because women are not in charge. Margaret Thatcher was the only woman who was in charge and she was against most of those progressive policies.

Archieleach, do you think Margaret Thatcher was a good leader?

Of course men are naturally more violent than women. To ignore that is to ignore reality. Of course it is to do with hormones. Why do you think "roid rage" exists?

Hi Claig, How is it not women who have made these changes? I wouldn't say it was either gender to be honest, people have made these changes. Why they made them is a whole different story.
Can you explain Milly, how these things are not feminisation? It seems very evident that these few examples are diametrically opposed to a very masculinised society such as Sparta, 1930's Germany etc

saf is right. This is a parenting forum and supposed to be supportive of parents, whatever form they take. This is also the feminist section where stereotypes should be challenged and all this nonsense about "it's natural" for men to be violent is just that - nonsense. These men were violent because they wanted to be not because their hormones ruled them. They are violent because they are brought up in a violent environment. They are violent because they feel they don't have to take responsiblity for their action.

Blaming this on single mothers is quite frankly shit.

And as feminisation of society - well that made me laugh at least. What a crock.

Margaret Thatcher would never have stood for those progressive policies.

AL, most of those things have nothing to do with feminisation, and the state has not 'replaced' fathers. The one about modular exams has not been borne out by research.

archieleach, I agree with some of those things. But it isn't women who have made these changes.

I don't think that anyone is saying that your son doesn't respect you and very few people are slagging off single mums. Everybody has different views about the cause of the riots. The black youth workers and ex-gang members like Shaun Bailey and others on TV believe it is essentially due to family breakdown and the loss of respect and discipline. I agree with them.

Well for example: the state replacing fathers, authority figures denigrated eg teachers unable to discipline pupils, feelings of male worthlessness/uselessness projected by the media, modular education instead of exams, lack of apprenticeships, very light punishment for crime in the name of rehabilitation etc, an equality agenda which flies in the face of reality (ie no-one loses, everyone wins, everyone can go to University - except when the real world is met massive frustration and disorientation results).
Do you do conversations swallowedafly?

In what way is the feminisation of society a cause of rioting by mainly males? Also, if there is a feminisation of society, who is doing it? It can't be women because they are not in charge.

Yes OP there is that elephant in the room, but what about the other one?
Surely a lot of the trouble can be attributed to the feminisation of society as well. Please don't get violent and abusive towards me, just think about it.
It appears to me to be a significant causative factor.

and I'm not talking about Sesame Street. That is a force for good.

good point, riots have been going on for years and there have always been large amounts of immoral behaviour. I do think that these gangsta rap videos, violent horror films etc. are fuelling the problem and are officially sanctioned by the system since they are widely distributed and on sale and promoted by legitimate record companies and Hollywood studios. This is different from the past. Just 100 years ago, we had all sorts of publishing laws which forbade the promulgation of materials that are now legitimately distributed and promoted to children even on daytime TV. No wonder so many 9 year olds are now jumping on the looting bandwagon, despite all of the "citizenship" training.

Riots have been happening in this country for 100s of years, so I'm not convinced about computer games etc.

They tended to happen in times of economic decline, and when the weather was nice or foreigners were a problem (1517)

I think some people just aren't very nice and others are easily led, put all the conditions together and there is a chance of a riot.

The riot act (where 'read the riot act' phrase comes from) was introduced in 1714. Just thought I'd do some Mansplaining.

From jenny

Rife? I'm not sure I agree.

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.

From organicgardener

*Why has this thread been usurped by stats ?

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?

Maybe I've misunderstood but these all seem to downplay DV, saying a woman who's been punched once doesn't count in comparison to a woman who's suffered sustained abuse. (Mild aggression doesn't count? Seriously?) And in the case of the husband being 'forced' to leave suggest that women who stand up to it are just as guilty of aggression. As I say, maybe I've misunderstood, but that's how it reads to me.

And jenny you can keep your faux anger. I have been a victim of DV, as have all three of my closest friends. This is a topic close to my heart, an issue I am regularly involved in campaigning for, and one I have spent a great deal of time researching. I gave you the stats, told you where they came from and explained that they factored in repeat offenders. On an earlier thread there was a poster who made similar arguments to yours where I explained this in great detail with a lot of number crunching over the statistics. Maybe you could look it up. The statistics bear out. And surely, in any decent person's mind, 25% of women affected by DV is a problem.

In fact I believe that the messages in the movies, pop videos and computer games are also deliberate and that someone knows exactly why they are promoting those messages.

KRIKRI, I agree with you, all animals are different. In some birds the females are bigger and more aggressive. But for humans, it is usually the other way around. In fact, bodybuilders, both male and female, take steroids containing testosterone in order to bulk up and get bigger.

Yes dogs can be trained and socialised and so can humans and it is important to teach humans the correct things in order to socialise them. I believe that many of these looters have been partly created as a result of incorrect teaching by the policies that politicians have implemented. I also agree with you that the messages that children are receiving from the media, movies and computer games are also leading to the moral breakdown that we are witnessing.

MillyR, I tend to agree with you. I think a lot of things are deliberate, from the policies of the greens, to progressive policies doomed to failure and many other things, which all serve the purposes and plans of the truly powerful.

It is so sad to hear the stories of so many opportunistic looters who would never have been tempted to carry out these actions if the police would have instilled fear in them by being present. Someone, with no previous offences, was jailed for 6 months for stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. It is a human tragedy and many people commit far more serious offences and get lesser punishments. Thousands of otherwise good people will have their futures blighted for a few hours of madness when they were tempted due to lack of fear of the consequences. Obviously others deserve everything they get.

Whether there is an influence of testosterone or not, it is clear that there are social aspects that increase the likelihood of people wanting to behave in certain ways, and we can change those social aspects. There are also reasons why it happened that were in that moment of rioting. It is clear that lawlessness leads to more lawlessness. I do not believe the police failed to act because of public worries about harsh policing. The worries about policing were present after G8, but the police were still harsh during the student demonstrations. There is also a difference between minimum force policing and failing to turn at all to a riot for two hours. I do think the lack of effective police response in London was deliberate, but am waiting for the reasons why they chose to do this to become clear.

Urgh - "contend" not "content" in the final paragraph.

I agree that with respect to looters and rioters, many will have got caught up in the perverse excitement of it all, as with football related violence. I think that's more to do with "group think," than anything that's biologically determined. Both men and women can be affected by "group think," but their responses to it may be different, depending on how they've been socialised to behave in a group. However, ultimately, the individual IS responsible for their actions, even if they insist they were caught up in the crowd, were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc. Act in haste. Repent at leisure!

I understand what you are saying about a genetic influence and accept that it can play a part, but I'm not convinced that it is the main reason for male violence. Yes, it's true that some dog breeds are "known" for aggression, but this is present in both males and females of the breed. If it were a gender linked issue, you would expect that to be only or at least more the case in males. In some species, like many birds of prey, it is the female of the species that is larger and more aggressive (e.g. kestrel, common buzzard, etc.) It's thought this is so they can defend their chicks if the male bird decides they would make a nice snack.

Back to dogs though, I think it's pretty well understood that effective training and socialising can make positive changes for the behaviour of all but the very most aggressive dogs. Likewise, a representative of a more "passive" breed can become vicious through neglect and mistreatment.

Fortunately for dog owners, they can make positive changes in their pets through the right techniques, persistence and patience. Parents of human children can take the same approach, but they also have to content with the plethora of other social influences that can undermine their efforts - things like the media, marketing of goods and services, celebrity culture, the media, popular music and peers.

I am not saying that testosterone is the only factor, however, I do believe that it is most probably the major factor in explaining why men are more likely to be violent and risk taking than women. My guess is that the female boxers on TV have a higher level of testosterone than average.

I believe some of it is genetic and therefore talk of fault is not always right. They should still be banged up to protect society even if it is in some cases genetic. They say that alcoholism is sometimes genetic and runs in families. Some dogs are naturally more aggressive than others due to their genes. If injected with steroids people often become more aggressive due to testosterone and exhibit "roid rage". I don't believe that everyone's actions are the result of clear logical reasoning and choice. Some people are on the edge and more violent than others due to their genetic makeup. I don't blame all of the looters and rioters and say it was all their fault. I believe that some people are swept up in events due to crowd behaviour, adrenalin and excitement and their clear logical thinking and choices are impaired. If the police had been there in force, they would never have committed the looting and would never have ended up in prison.