The London Riots: The Elephant in the Room

[smugaboo]

I am probably being too quick off the mark in posting this as people are still digesting what is happening in London and Birmingham. I have seen references on here to police "shutting down the internet" and "shooting protesters" (rubber bullets, so that's okay). Let's hope that's the shock talking. But when the dust settles and people start analysing the root causes of the riots (i.e. social problems, poverty, unemployment, cultural concerns) one thing that will inevitably be overlooked, or at least not given enough attention, is the fact that this is gendered violence. It hardly needs to be said that very few women are involved in the actual rioting although I don't doubt that there are quite a number involved in looting. The same can be said in most similar situations anywhere in the world.

So I guess what I'm interested in exploring is whether or not this is actually gendered violence as such. Are the wives, mothers and sisters of the protestors sitting at home cheering them on? Is the only reason they don't join in fear for personal safety? Or do they feel fundamentally differently? I mean, would they ever be the ones to precipitate the violence? Do the males feel more disaffected - or are they actually more disaffected (I hardly think so!). Or, controversially, does this opportunity stir up some innate desire in males to simply be violent?

I've got to disappear but I'd love to hear what you think.

'But Palin is as thick as two short planks and loopy to boot - even worse than dubya. Surely you wouldn't want her finger on the trigger!!'

She is not thick. She was governor of Alaska and is a very clever politician who plays an act. The left wing comedians on the Daily Show portray her as thick, just as the left wing comedians poked fun at Widdecombe based on her looks etc. Those politically correct left wingers use every sexist trick in the book against Palin because they fear her and her popular appeal. Palin is popular, in tune with the public, someone who often gets the highest ratings of politicians when she is interviewed on TV, that's why they want to stop her.

id like to say though that-i dont agree with whats happened this week with the looting/and wrongness.
id just like to make this clear.

Here's a different view on the feminisation/masulinisation crap

sparky680, why do you think it happened? Do you agree with Livingstone that it was because of government cuts, or do you agree with the position of the right, that it was essentially opportunistic looting and criminal behaviour rather than political?

Dubya wasn't thick either. He was an actor, and the public preferred him and his jokey acting behaviour to pompous Al Gore and John Kerry.

Yes Sparky, it is patronising bullshit. I'm afraid it is what Liberals do to make themselves feel better and assuage their guilt at being educated (beyond their intelligence) and privileged and not part of the "masses" they pretend to support although they know fuck all about being poor. Don't forget that to them "the arts" are sacrosanct and beer and skittles are shit and people who like beer and skittles need to be educated or "helped to see the error of their ways" as they prefer to put it. What people need are real opportunities not a hug. I've been poor for most of my life and then had a decent amount of cash through hard work etc. However being poor or well off made no difference at all to my well being or how I saw myself. It is just in your attitude. Everybody has shit in their lives. I hope things get better for you.
If you lived near me I could give you a part time job tomorrow.

Although as a male I suppose I am part of the patriarchy, so maybe you wouldn't accept it. Fair enough.
If you live in a city try and get out soon. When oil hits $400 a barrel, euro, sterling and dollar race to the bottom after QE3 and 4, there is no credit, a housing crash, mass unemployment and then food riots, it will be far worse in the city.

Sorry Claig playing dumb for votes doesn't particularly smack of integrity to me.

No I agree, it's not integrity, it's politics. It's a game to fool the voters. As you said yourself, if someone has integrity they won't make it. Widdecombe had integrity and that ruined her chances. Someone who has integrity won't follow orders, but 'cabs for hire' will. That's why the smart ones hide their intent by playing dumb.

Yes that is a very good point. When faced with utter stupidity, a useful weapon is to undercut that by playing dumb until they are hoist on their own petard. Still don't have respect for any politicians of today however. As a Libertarian, I simply can't.

archieleach, you're not alone. That is the tragedy of modern society. People have lost faith in politicians and the corruption. It is only integrity that can change that.

I've been thinking about what can be done for 20 years. I can't face, "if you can't beat them, join them (too much honesty and integrity), I can't face, "change it from the inside" (the insufferable people one would have to interact with) so the default option is live apart (lonely at times but at least you can hold your head high) Is there another option in your opinion?

Yes, living apart will lead to doom. Separatism doesn't work, because it is withdrawing from society and eventually you will be affected by what happens in society. Malcolm X was originally a black separatist until he went to Mecca and saw all the world there and realised that people needed to unite. It's a slow process, but you have to take part in order to change society for yourself, your family, your neighbours and future generations. There is no other way.

None of us agree with everything the parties say. But we have to compromise and choose the ones that we think are best, even though we may disagree with many of their policies.

If we aren't seeing integrity from the privileged, how we can expect the under privileged to demonstrate any?

And saf and sparky are right. All this blaming on mothers and single mothers on particular is a direct attack on women and will come to affect all of us.

One of my friends is a single parent with a son who at only just past 18 already has a criminal record. Shall we blame her for inadequate parenting? Or shall we take a look at the other factors involved - the fact he had a father who slashed his mother with a stanley knife, threw chip fat at her and beat her up in front of him. The fact that even after becoming a single mother instead of being supported she has had to suffer social stigma and spend years living on the poverty line in a succession of dead-end jobs and benefits. She's done the right thing and been judged and punished for it.

A lot of you applauding yourselves for your fabulous parenting would have buckled under half of what my friend has been through and yet she never gives up. She has never broken the law and has more integrity than any of our politicians. She is one of the most beautiful women I know in spirit. But many will consider her scum and hold her son up as proof. She has done the best she can under circumstances that many people would have found impossible to deal with. Her daughter BTW is a credit to her.

And the news flash here for women is that take away your family support and any money you have, make a bad relationship choice and you too could end up in this position. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it will never happen to you because you're too clever/too well educated/too good a judge of character. Even good judges of character can be fooled into having a child with the wrong man, though they may posses the ability to see it more quickly and go it alone sooner. Sadly, most men with bad characters don't tend to let it show until the relationship is well under way.

Start blaming single mothers for badly behaved children and ALL women will suffer because you are automatically agreeing that ONLY mothers are the arbiters of their children's behaviour.

And like Truck pointed out earlier, history is littered with riots - in periods where single mothers were definitely not a big social phenomenon.

Claig[22.29 post]
well-i dont understand what these goverment people say-i dont understand polotics-i just know what i see and feel.
i think theres lots of reasons why this happened.
some was greed and oppitunist looting ect-
some was young men[and not so young]flexing theyre muscles
some was anger.
some was a kick back at the police.
some was bravado from boys in front of theyre mates
some just didnt think.
some was exitement.
some did it cos they knew they could.
i dont think that they really knew why they was doing it Claig-but i can see why.[and im not making no exuses]
i myself was sitting here waiting for a mob to come on the estate and at the same time praying that none of my children [adult]got involved.
luckily enough my children were discusted-but i do know that they are angry and this worried me.

sparky680, I think we agree that it was not political. I think most got involved opportunistically and if the police would have been present in greater numbers, then the opportunity would not have arisen. It is a tragedy all round.

ill also add-it cant just be about theft and things can it?
there was people going about in cars attacking random people!

Hmm, Well I tried that and it didn't work. The brainwashing today is astonishing and I'd rather be apart than a pariah of the deluded. Still got a couple of novels to finish so it suits us. My wife has suddenly decided she would like to be a sahm so it suits her too. Our house should, "fingers crossed" be sold next week, into rented accommodation money into arable land for food before inflation explodes and wipes out our savings.

I shall also have another look at Palin. If it is true what you say, then I have been well and truly taken in, or perhaps not, I am convinced she knows nothing of geopolitics, to take an example. Mind you that's not saying much for an American is it.
Nice to speak to you. I'm off to my Patriarch's slumbers now (if I can get away before that Alice person stabs me)

OK archieleach. But be sceptical about Palin too. All of these politicians are susceptible to being influenced by rich powerful forces. It's all a game, none of them are perfect, we just have to choose the best of a bad lot.

I think once a riot has started it has a snowball effect and can rapidly evolve into something entirely different to what started it.

What started it was a small outcry about the shooting of a man. People who never knew him then got angry because they identified with the feeling of anger surrounding it even though their own anger was much more personal and had nothing to do with the initial victim - feelings of being ignored, prejudiced against, being blamed unfairly, having no hope and being written off.

I think we ignore the degree of social unrest at our peril. Yes it was sabotaged by a small percentage who used it to cause violence, fear and to loot as much as possible, but they capitalised on a situation that erupted due to genuine anger that should not be ignored.

sunshineandbooks - spot on with your 23.06 post above.

Alice Twirled - thanks for the link to the Tony Porter speech. Fantastic stuff. His "manhood box" reminds me of John Stoltenberg's "manhood cliff."

'there was people going about in cars attacking random people!'

yes, you're right. It was also about random violence and theft, like that poor Malaysian boy whose jaw was broken and whose bike was robbed, followed by a pack of thieves robbing from his rucksack. Fortunately it has all died down, but it had the potential to get much nastier and to divide communities with the rise of vigilante groups etc.

yep-i tottally agree Claig.
i have a thought-which is-in the past whenever the country has gone wrong theres been a war-pheraps this is whats happening now in a way-
the country has gone wrong[and has been for a long time]so instead of a all out war-[with another counntry]we have our own inhouse war-with everyone being pitted against each other-courtisy of the goverment?
and of course-while people are looking one way-the real baddies are getting way with allsorts!

Yes, I agree. Many things are not what they seem and as MillyR said may in fact happen deliberately. Someone always suffers and someone always gains.