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.

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....

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))

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.

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!

. 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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

Did anyone hear PM this evening? Of those who have been charged (only 30 or so out of the hundreds arrested, so not representative) all were male, most were black, and many were educated with good - even professional jobs.

It will be interesting to see the makeup of the rest of the thugs, but based on this motley sample the OP has so far been supported.

Also, to tackle another elephant in this overcrowded room I echo the sentiment of that black woman in Hackney who was filmed shouting at the thugs: (some) black people need to get a grip of themselves, take responsibility for their lives and stop fulfilling the stereotype that blacks are violent criminals. Like it or not (and I do not like it, but it is a fact), when an ethnic group is in the minority, individuals are judged to be representative of the whole.

As for the educated people with good jobs, wtf? Morons.

Issy, I am so for you wrt your story about being attacked. What a horrible, shameful thing to do to somebody. Were any of them ever caught?

Some interesting comments in here from a psychologist about what can lead people to do this stuff (including some bits about gender).

BBC website also said the people in court today had all been males and mostly in their 20s.

There was also another quote I saw somewhere on their site earlier, I think it was another psychologist (or same one perhaps, but in a different article) who mentioned something about (aggressive?) masculinity but I can't find the quote now!

After8 - yes, testosterone increases by about 400% in 14 yo boys.

That's a helluva hormonal change. Boys without solid male guidance are going to find male role models somewhere - either from a good father or a bad gang.

Has anyone read Raising Boys? Remember that story of the guy who hitched a lift with male youth gang-types in LA?

Another one who got beaten up by a girl gang here (20 years ago, nothing to do with the current situation), so I have no illusions about it being only men who are violent.
But I do think that in some ways this fucking mess is a gift to the powerful (whether or not there has been some secret agenda-pushing behind the scenes) in terms of it being a great excuse to crack down harder on the poor, the disadvantaged and the marginalised.

I'm not going to directly engage with IM22 either because he's an anti-feminist poster who I don't feel like bothering with, but for any lurkers out there, what is never counted in the official figures, are the numbers of women who become SAHMs because of the recession, but who would like to work but are not counted as unemployed as they are deemed "economically inactive", seeing as how raising children and enabling other adults to work instead of doing their own childcare, is economically worthless...

I also wondered whether men are more likely to get into a "pack" mentality than women/girls? I suppose boys are more likely than girls to play team sports, particularly the more active ones (football, rugby) and perhaps more likely to be tribal in things like football supporting too? As well as gangs obviously, which are still more common among men even if some girl gangs do exist.

Whereas maybe women are on average less likely to "run with a pack", maybe spending more time with smaller numbers of close friends or family and doing different types of activities (and less physical group activities in particular?); so they may not be so used to enjoying that feeling, because they haven't experienced it so much (or just don't enjoy it as much)? This reminds me of when I went biking a few times with a group of male friends, the feeling of whooshing along together in a gang was quite exciting (like in ET!) but I can't remember ever experiencing anything similar in a group of women.

In which case, it might be that men are more likely to have a "posse mentality" and to get exhilarated by the thrill of running with a mob, and end up egging each other on and getting carried away through their numbers into doing things they would never have done on their own?

Just a thought...

Lucrezia, those feckless single mothers also raised daughters so why do you think it is more likely that their sons will be rioting on the streets, rather than their daughters?

It's amazing that a discussion about the riots and how much more likely it is that men will riot than women will, has been seen by some as an opportunity to attack single mothers, isn't it?

If I start a thread about Verdi's contribution to Italian nationalism, or the Ancient Egyptian religious worship of the sun-god, will someone be able to see a getting-a-dig-at-single-mothers-angle?

It was definitely Mrs Verdi's fault. No question.

The gang culture is renouned for wide spread misogonising of woman so it surprises me so many young girls where involved, more so in london than Manchester I must admit, but the trouble makers in manchester seem to be older anyway in london the over all age of trouble makers seems much younger and the age that seems to be represented of young girls seems to be very much young teen girls. I dont honestly think it is the elephant in the room, I think its a relevent observation and discussion point and dont think you have over used the term. It is important to open the lines of discussion on what is happening and provoke thought proccess away from "ferrol Rats" as a social and political debate must be encouraged.