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.

I saw a video of that. She was awesome. Reminding them how they were destroying their own communities.

I remember thinking exactly this thing 10 years ago when the Bradford riots happened. There was much speculation and hand wringing about the ethnicity and religious affiliation of those involved (remember, this was months before the 11th September attacks,) comparing and contrasting with the Brixton and Toxteth riots 20 years or so before, stuff about disaffected youth, etc. But, I don't recall there ever being discussion about the obvious common denominator between 99% of those involved then - they were blokes. There were examples of Asian and white women coming together in women's centres during and afterwards, trying to build bridges between communities, but still, zilch mention of the gender dimension. That was in much earlier days of the internet, so there wasn't the instant 24/7 news or twitter or anything, but there were plenty of discussion boards and nada on this.

Maybe it's too early to draw any useful conclusions just yet, but I hope this will be discussed further down the line. I don't think "elephant in the living room" is too strong a term, personally.

Yeah, OK, I withdraw "elephant in the room" as it implies that gender is the fundamental issue here, when it clearly isn't. But it is a contributing factor (I believe) and I am still interested in why the gender thing takes a back seat to other issues.

PS - just saw the Hackney woman in the video. She made me cry a bit.

I often wonder, like with the prison population, it's ignored because it's men who are in power and they aren't willing to see or look at the gender dimension. Well, apart from a cursory, let's blame female single parents, men of course having no responsibility for birth control or not fucking off and having little or nothing to do with their offspring.

Well most physically aggressive behaviour is male biased. Lots and lots of evidence to show this experimentally, cross-culturally, observationally. Literature on the riots in the 80s actually includes having women/families in crowds as a factor which reduces the chance of violence.

I don't think Elephant in the Room is an overstatement at all.

Given that the massive majority of this violence will be perpetrated by males and given that hardly anyone in the media will discuss that, what's so OTT about the expression? That's what Elephant in the Room means - a massive important fact which everyone ignores.

I must confess I did wonder last night if women went merrily rioting down the street every now and then, how that would affect our status in society.

I know it's very serious and bad, but I couldn't help sniggering at the thought of girl gangs making off with handbags. I had visions of the Sex and the City women looting shoe-shops. Sorry.

Oh god did anyone see that wanker Ken Livingstone on the TV last night? What a dinosaur. He was going on about hwo these young men need jobs so that they can support families.

On one level I don't disagree that young men - and young women - need a living wage. But the dinosaur element of KL just screamed at me - women are far more likely to be hit by unemployment in this recession than men, and apart from Handbag-Yobette-Gang, they aren't generally rioting. His idea of larvely 1950s family, with Dad going to work and Mum being "supported" by Dad's living wage, made me heave. (Not literally)

Ken Livingstone did sound very old fashioned and Darcus Howe!!! So far behind the times, wittering on about his grandson being stopped and searched.

I was attacked by a girl gang in Finsbury Park in 1984 - it's not new. They were nothing like the women from Sex and the City, they were violent and armed. I was 14 and out with a few friends. I was punched unconscious, as was another friend, I have had back problems all my life as a result of the kicking along my spine. Someone's mum was with us and dragged us into a car which was turned over while we were in it. Police, once called, were too busy to come and took statements later. This was 1984, all involved were female. There was no robbery, just violence. They were out for trouble and they had fun. No men were involved. Usually it's male, but very naive to think groups of women/young girls are not attracted to this kind of mob adrenaline.

Ken Livingston's electioneering was disgusting. Smug, smug, while businesses were burning.

HerB, that made me squirm too, but I think he was just trying to get the youth worker on side, which worked.

issy, perhaps they're just not reproting it then? Because it doesn't fit into the stereotype of the rioting gangs?

For me, it is along the continuum of masculinity of the construction of masculinity in general, with this hyper masculinity and violence being an extreme representation.

Women are capable of extreme violence, as seen in.girl gangs and wars...but generally it is socialized out of us.

The good side, we don't generally rush about starting riots...the bad side we are taught to be passive, compliant and 'good'.

For me these riots are another demonstration of how problematic constructions of gendered behaviours are.

I had thought it was an elephant in the room too. I did see women as well as men involved/onlooking the looting but it was clear that the overwhelming majority were men. I didn't see ANY all-girl groups (and i have watched a lot of coverage over the 3 days).

It shows that most crime whether directed at women, men or property is committed by men. I'm sure there aren't many 'meterosexuals' amongst their numbers so therefore i think we have to look at the cult of masculinity to really get to the root cause of these problems. Poverty hits men and women (disproportionatly women) but joblessness cuts to the very essence of masculinity the way it doesnt to femininity IYKWIM.

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

Fawcett Society and Institute for Fiscal Studies report

That wasn't hard now was it?

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)

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.

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?