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.

Actually herbex I'm just surprised that we've gotten to four pages without someone blaming it all on the evil rise of feminism. I'm sure it's our fault somehow!

It's the evil rise of feminism that has led to all those lovelylovely menz leaving their awful, harridan equality-demanding wives after the babies are born. The offspring are then raised as feckless and feral - what other future for the progeny of a feminist-thinking dragon? That's why we're in this godawful mess.

Here endeth my thesis.

Good work speedy. You're ready for your daily mail badge now

This is the proudest day of my life!

quite possibly more girls than boys pictured here

No one mentions it because it is obvious. It is nature, it is testosterone and hormones. Men are on the whole more aggressive and risk taking. It's just like the young bull elephant in the room is more likely to go wild and trample things down. It's just the law of nature.

It's the same as the bull in the china shop or the bull in the Pamplona runs.

It would be interesting to know how many women take part in the Pamplona bull runs. My guess is it will be a very small percentage.

The other interesting thing is, why are all of the protective vigilante groups mainly men? I think it's pretty obvious too. It all boils down to nature.

Yes, they are irresponsible and immoral morons. No, this isn't really a protest, but rather an underclass of thrill-seekers intent on anarchy. However, the reason this underclass exists and the reason they don't feel any responsibility is because they have no power, no future and no reason to act in accordance with the way society wants them to. To my mind this starts with education and schools have been failing young men in particular for thirty years.

Don't tell me Jenny - it's the feminization of the education system
that has led to this.

Young women are in exactly the same position as young men viz jobs, the future, poverty etc.

And with some notable exceptions, they are not rioting.

So is it really all just down to testosterone?

What about the young men who have just as much testosterone as the rioters and are in the same position viz jobs, future etc., and haven't gone rioting?

I do not buy the testosterone idea. I know that many put far more importance on hormonal differences between women and men...but I remain unconvinced.

..I think that the reason we see more (but not a majority) of girls /women is that there is a street subculture where female violence is acceptable (bit still a very small minority)..

The combination of the construction of masculinity as aggressive/ risk taking combined with rampant consumerism for me are some of the aspects that need interrogating.:.

.... and it is probably worth investigating/interviewing those in similar situations who did not riot to find out what the differentiating factors were.

If young women are leaving education with significantly higher grades (on average) then they are not in exactly the same position, are they? This seems relatively straightforward.

(I could also wonder as to the predominance of single mothers as opposed to single fathers within the average age group of the rioters. I doubt a single parent has time to riot.)

Do you disagree that education is an issue here Sal? Are you saying that our education system is perfectly adequate? Do you think that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that boys in particular are failing to achieve a grade that we, as a society, can be happy with? As you've been so kind as to honour my post, perhaps you'd be good enough to answer these questions.

I agree with Snowmama. This issues that need to be looked at are consumerism and masculinity. It is ridiculous to blame female teachers or single mothers for the way masculinity has been changing over the last 30 years. It is men who define what is masculine and what is not, and men who define ideas of power, control, leadership, force, disregard for empathy and the rights of others, individualism, violence and dominance within that idea of masculinity. Men who cannot find ways of displaying those attributes within conventional means in society will look for unconvential ways to do it. Men as a group should take responsibility for looking at what on earth is going on with how they have set up masculine behaviour, and stop suggesting that women should resolve it for them.

In your view MillyR, what has changed with masculinity in the last thirty years and what have been the drivers?

I'd also ask how men define all these things; do they issue memos? If you mean media (inc advertising), you are aware how diverse these industriues are, aren't you?

Finally, I wonder how men 'as a group' can do anything, when men 'as a group' in this country alone is an incredibly diverse bunch of 30 milllion people.

I apologise if I've misread your post, but it seems a very simplistic approach from the very basics of a 'blame men' ideology and with little regard to the realities of life..

The same way any group changes anything. The culture of the UK is very different to the culture of France; we are a diverse group of 60 million people. We do it through changing the way we interact with each other, having conversations etc. I can't imagine what kind of cultural change is organised by memo. We can also do it through changing the law - particularly around violence. To try and address this problem by looking at only the violence behaviour and dominance demonstrated by looters is absurd - they are acting withn a culture where violence and dominance by men is excused. Look at rape statistics, domestic violence, war, assaults, hate crime.

And yes, on a feminist board, we are going to blame men as a group for masculinity. We are going to hold them accountable and responsible for their behaviour, including when they loot and riot. In much the same way, I understand that as a straight person, I am part of a group who have a responsibility to deal with homophobia, by asking myself some hard and honest questions, thinking about my own behaviour and being aware of how I interact with other straight people, and whether or not I challenge their behaviour.

Well, that's all very easy to say isn't it? Firstly, 30 million men aren't a group - that was one of my points. The other was sarcasm - apologies - but what would you like men to do to change the way they interact with each other? This is not a specific deliverable is it?

Which laws would you like to change?

I also do not accept that 'rape statistics, domestic violence, war, assaults, hate crime' are incontrivertible evidence that 'culture' excuses violence. This culture is you and me and everyone else here isn't it? Where we do we excuse these things?

The one point that I do accept is that if we as individuals all think about how we behave - and demonstrate this - then this is a good thing. But you and I are not of the culture that is on the streets rioting so I doubt that we will reach them except through pressure on the education system. To randomly blame all men everywhere for this is absurd as it is a collective responsibility.

I think you are missing the point I am making Jenny. My point is that it isn't the job of women to change masculinity. It isn't my role to work out a strategy to change, to plan 'deliverables' or to implement it. It is the job of men. They have created the current version of masculinity and only they have the repsonsibility or the ability to change it.

The only male I have a responsibility to is my son. Fortunately for him, he attends a school where the headmaster sent home a letter to all parents outlining the research on the acheivement of boys, and making it clear that the school was entirely unwilling to pander to constructions of gender from male peer groups, the media, home or wider society. Boys are expected to fall in line with the standards and exepectations of the school. At his school, there is no underacheivement of boys.

The more I think about this, the more absurd it seems; men 'define' everything with regards to masculinity & power and femininity & subservience, whilst women (apart from the enlightened, of course) are 'conditioned' by this Machevellian process and have no input, power or responsibility other than for said enlightened group to 'blame men, as a group, for masculinity.

How ridiculous to suggest that the human race can be so easily divided into groups and how remarkably arrogant to believe that one possesses the sole true understanding of how society works.

Just your job to bitch from the sidelines then is it? That's handy.

I would strongly suggest that what you call male peer groups is, in fact, likely to be a throughly politically correct group of sociologists whilst he, the headmaster, is actually providing a strong role model and taking the issue in hand. Quite how you see this as a triumph against the 'patriarchy' is beyond me, when it is thinking such as yours that is probably representative of the groups trying to meddle.

I'm not saying any of those things Jenny. You seem to be taking things to an extreme. All people, no matter how negative their situation or how many cultural influences they have been exposed to, will have some capacity to form their own ideas and sense of self. If that wasn't the case, nothing would ever change. But to acknowledge that does not require throwing out the idea that we gain or lack privilege through membership of groups within society. When we gain privilege or belong to a group whose identity is damaging to the rights of others, we have a collective reponsibility to chnage that.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last post. The school has a ethos that gender constructions should be challenged and broken down and that all the staff are expected to participate in this through their lessons, planning etc. One point he made was that research has shown that the sex of a teacher has no impact on the outcomes for the pupil.

Sorry Milly, I need to disappear. I'll try and come back later.

Male peer group in the case of a child is the male children he associates with. I doubt many children have a male friendship group of sociologists. But perhaps I am missing your point.