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 also don't think women making men taking responsibility for their own behaviour is 'bitching from the sidelines.' It is about us freeing up our energy to use on other issues that we think are important and valuable in society.

MillyR I agree with everything you've said. Bravo.

I also agree with MillyR, and just to add to her points...

The scary thing about the riots is that is not a simple 'rioters are in a seperate culture to us' analysis, it has happened within our society. What I say next does not excuse rioters, I think they have behaved inexcusably and have to face the consequences of their actions.

They come from our society that has promoted and celebrated consumerism and materialism as not really seen before in the last 15 years. As the credit driven boom crashes around our ears...we start to see consequences .

It is the same society that has allowed bankers (predominately men), to take aggressive risks with our money, for their own material gain. The cost of these failures have been borne by the public sector ( and thus impacting disproportionately on the poor)...a society where MPs (mostly men), casually ripped us off to the tune of thousands via the expenses claim scandal...

It is the same society that excuses (and via film, music , porn - celebrates) violence (against women or each other)by men as 'natural', testosterone driven, high jinks, the result of bad childhoods etc..) and many other excuses..

It appears with all that is happening, this us a good time to review gender constructions....in this case masculinity and ask is this really what we want ? ...And in terms if masculinity...actually men need to lead on this,women can't and shouldn't do it for them.

I think I may be full circle now.

In these posts you are correct with your assertions that many of these groups (MPs, bankers etc) are predominantly men. However, you go no further than this. I would argue that they are a predominent type of man - perhaps even a predominent type of person. The fact that these people are over-represented by one gender is a red-herring. It is the characteristics that are important and not the gender. Where the lack of diversity exists is in their attitude to risk, to ambition, to results and their ability to empathise. It's not that it is easier for men to reach positions of power, but rather that it is easier to reach a position of power if you are highly driven and single-minded. Now, before you condemn these people, remember that it is also them that are responsible for most of the advances of civilisation... Also remember that putting a women into a powerful position does not ensure these traits are mitigated; see Rebekah Brooks for an example.

So, I do not agree that the underlying problem is one of masculinity or that power is the preserve of 'all' men (because you exclude all those women also in power and those men who are not)). As I originally posted, I believe it is a problem of responsibility and this stems from an increasingly individualistic society. An individualism, I would argue, that has increased because of the increasing amount of liberty that British (and US/EU etc) citizens have been afforded without due regard to the responsibility to exercise it that must accompany it. Yes, Milly, we are all capable of this and it is of benefit - but it does not come naturally to all of us and needs to be taught. Might I suggest that as someone who has probably been brought up to believe that feminism is important and that, as a woman, you should be able to accomplish all that you wish - regardless of the men who will try and stop you - you have been put on this road? The evidence from schools is that girls are performing better than boys across the board - so this message is working for them isn't it?

This same message, however, is possibly focussed on telling boys what they shouldn't be.

I wonder what the consequence would be if you were to raise two children and say to one that they should be good and the other that they should not be bad?

Sorry Jenny, I don't understand your post and don't see what it has to do with the points I have raised. I think we perhaps are talking at cross purposes.

I don't think that people should be able to accomplish all that they wish and certainly was not brought up to believe that (although I wasn't brought up as a feminist either). I don't see what being able to get whatever you want out of life has to do with feminism, or indeed any activism which has social justice as a goal.

Maybe on some points... I have, however, plainly stated why it is wrong to categorise men as a social group or, indeed, expect them to act as a group.

I think the link between feminism, social justice and opportunity is surely clear as well, isn't it? I would describe opportunity as being permitted to achieve one's goals, so long as it does not impinge on anyone else's goals.

To come back to the riots, what are the achievable goals for an under-educated and unemployed teenage lad from the poorest areas of the main cities? Who cares about empowering these people? Who cares about social justice for them?

Festi, I read an article some years ago in which they profiled female members of gangs. I can't find it, which is a shame, and I do think it was about the US, but the responses were mainly along the lines of: we have to live with these male gang members, they're in our schools and neighbourhoods, we can either be their property (the phrase 'gangbanger' was used which makes me think it was the US) or we can define ourselves as not being sexually available by fighting and stealing just they do.

Was someone looking for the argument that it was all the fault of feminism? This one comes close.

www.nationalreview.com/articles/274268/england-used-be-country-men-frank-miniter?page=1

He seems to think "English Men" are too feminised, need to be armed, need to man up and lie down passively as they did during the riots.

But, his command of geography is pretty crap as he seems to think the violence used by the Englishmen in Tottenham last Saturday night was "unmanly?"

Perhaps his definition of an "Englishmen" is, shall we say, somewhat narrow.

What an absolute 24 carat dick.

This time with new and improve links!

Was someone looking for the argument that it was all the fault of feminism? This one comes close.?

www.nationalreview.com/articles/274268/england-used-be-country-men-frank-miniter?page=1

He seems to think "English Men" are too feminised, need to be armed, need to man up and lie down passively as they did during the riots.

But, his command of geography is pretty crap as he seems to think the violence used by the Englishmen in Tottenham last Saturday night was "unmanly?"

Perhaps his definition of an "Englishmen" is, shall we say, somewhat narrow.

What an absolute 24 carat dick.

I am sure there is a testosterone/ male aggression link to the rioting/looting which is not so much 'elephant in the room' as it goes without saying.

But I also think there is a link young men whose traditional role in society, and means of gaining respect has gone - blue collar jobs in industry, skilled trades that could support a family just don't exist anymore, especially not in London once you take into account housing costs. So they turn to a toxic street culture to get respect.

Anyone who advocates the right to bear arms is a 24 carat dick... I didn't need to read any further!

I think testosterone is a red herring tbh. Everyone has testosterone. Not everyone is violent. Linking testosterone to violence is way too simplistic (and not necessarily correct - certainly open for debate although maybe not on this thread). Blaming someone's hormones takes away the responsibility for themselves and implies that they haven't got any higher cognitive processes that would override any agressive tendencies. As feminists we challenge the assumptions that women's behaviour can be inaccurately accounted for by hormones, I don't see why men's behaviour should be dismissed as hormonal either.

sprogger - I saw that data that you put on one of the other threads. Very interesting.

I agree that the testosterone argument is way overplayed. If one's hormones were driving their violence, surely they would be randomly violent to anyone and anything crossing their path during a hormone "surge." Domestic Abuse perpetrators focus their violence on their partners and children, but seem able to engage with other people without use of violence. Similarly, I would wager that most of the people who get convicted for crimes related to the recent rioting and looting will not have a previous history of violence. Unless there was some bizarre surge of testosterone amongst select males in specific parts of England during early August of this year, that argument just holds no water.

IMHO, except in very rare circumstances (i.e. mental illness, brain injury, etc.) violent behaviour is chosen. It may not be a process that involves a long period of consideration. It could be a split-second decision, but it is still a choice. One chooses to use violence because it will get you something you want - whether it's a flat screen tv you can't afford or that your wife will stop talking to her friends.

How do you explain road rage and the larger incidence of it among men? How do you explain that the majority of football hooligans are young men as opposed to 60 year old men. I think it is hormones and testosterone. Just like those body builders who pump themselves full of steroids and then get "roid rage". The testosterone is only a factor, not the sole deteminant, but I think it is the essential determinant that explains why a higher percentage of men carry out these acts than women.

'One chooses to use violence because it will get you something you want - whether it's a flat screen tv you can't afford or that your wife will stop talking to her friends.'

If that were the overriding reason, then why don't more women choose that path too? On the whole women choose less violent, less risky ways such as shoplifting. Men are much more likely than women to be involved in violent and more risky activity.

I think the Chinese knew all this centuries ago. It's just yin and yang. That explains the greater aggression in men.

Some interesting articles on the effects of injecting androgenic steroids containing testosterone in female bodybuilders

www.roidreport.com/steroids/side-effects-of-anabolic-steroids/

www.elitefitness.com/forum/womens-fitness-female-bodybuilding-training/female-roid-rage-150482.html

'Roid Rage
Most steroids are made of testosterone and a good number of them have been the cause of negative aggressiveness among its users. Most of them are based on testosterone although they perform differently in the body depending on how much of this male hormone has been used to make the steroids. This is a male hormone that is responsible for the masculinity in a man and the main reason men are stronger than women. However, a lot of it causes aggression. It is for this reason many people are involved in activities that are antisocial and for reasons that are obvious, most of them are men. This is the situation because most steroid users are men.'

While steroids are meant to cause some form of aggression by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain, it is the overuse of steroids for a long period of time that will make dangerous for a patient. There are some negative effects of using a lot of steroids for a long time, and one of them is extreme aggression that can lead to a person hurting himself and other people as well. There have been causes of murders, murder-suicides, and general misdemeanor that have been blamed on this extreme aggressiveness. The prevention of roid rage comes down to one thing; using steroids as has been directed and directing rage to a positive side.

www.oralsteroids.com/Roid-Rage_a/285.htm

Listening to BBC news and David Cameron this morning, I am more incensed than ever about the gender issue surrounding these riots.

95% of the rioters were men. Yet Cameron is laying the blame squarely at the fault of parenting with an emphasis on the absence of male role models for single parents (so implying it is women's fault then).

I'd have some sympathy if he was really interested in tackling social issues and improving outcomes for single parent families, but he's all about blame (having a poke at the police, despite the fact he's cut their budget and therefore recruitment, is another example). It will become another stick to beat women with and to punish single mothers in particular.

What no one ever seems to take into account is that in the case of single parent families quite often the absence of a father figure is an improvement on what might have been had that particular father been around. Maybe the 'damage' was done before the father disappeared and during the breakup. My kids, for example, would be quite likely to grow up thinking it's acceptable to fiddle state benefits, to beat up someone who disagrees with you and to basically lie and cheat your way through life if I was still with their father. By leaving when I did I have removed them from that role model and improved their chances of becoming productive, law-abiding citizens.

Only 9% of single parents have children outside a live-in relationship, and of those only 2% are teens, contrary to Cameron's implication that those doing the rioting are all chavs brought up by women who had children aged 12 and have 20 more by different fathers by the time they're 25.

ONe of the things I've noticed anecodotally about SOME single parents who've become so because of DV is that the mothers are often reluctant to impose any sort of discipline or boundaries on their child because they feel the child has already suffered enough (either directly or by seeing their mother abused). There is some grounds for trying to overcome this by introducing parenting classes I agree, but surely the main emphasis has to be on stopping men committing DV anyway. Since DV is massively over-represented in single parent families than in families generally, there seems to be a link between DV and poor outcomes (including criminality) for children. Let's focus the solution on the cause (violent men), not the women trying to pick up the pieces.

The solution is not stoping family breakdown (which is, in many cases, a good thing, like in mine), it is in improving social conscience and personal responsibility. This applies to both genders, but as most violence is carried out by men and as 95% of the rioters were men, surely this overwhelmingly suggests that men need to work more at this than women. So why are we blaming 'parents' (i.e. mothers, single ones in particular)

He is not blaming the single mothers, he is saying that they can't control their young sons. Everybody has known this for years. Listen to the excellent young black ex-gang members on TV, who are now youth workers, trying to prevent young people joining gangs. These youth workers grew up in these environments and were gang members. They know how it works and they are saying what the Tories have always said, that this is a breakdown of the family, a breakdown in respect and discipline. It has been going on for generations. Unless it is turned round, it will only get worse. The youth worker said that society's rules had been turned upside down and now parents couldn't discipline their children. He gave the example of a 13 year old boy he works with, who thumped his mother in the face when she told him to go to school. He said if she had clumped him one, he would have gone to social services and had his mother sorted out by them.

These gangs are becoming the male parental figures and role models for these young boys. They don't listen to their mothers, they want the respect that they gain by being part of a gang, a family , a crime family and they look up to the older male gang members as in the past they may have looked up to male parents.

I think steroids by pumping additional hormones in the system, cause problems.....much as hormonal contraceptives do.

Why are men more aggressive and violent than women, I just think it is as simple they are taught to be in the way women are not.

Returning to Sproggers statistics, it is interesting to note that whilst only 5% of the rioters were female, we have seen a larger percentage of female rioters shown in the media, in fact the tabloids today have a lot of headlines around the olympics girl and the millionaire daughter......this is how girls/women are punished more than boys/men for the same behaviour.

BTW started this post hours ago, so have prob. Xposted with loads.

It's got nothing to do with "men need to work more at this". Society better start working at this, otherwise the rage and alienation will be felt by all of society's children who may become innocent victims of crime carried out by these gangs. Society has turned a blind eye to these problems, and has even increased the problem by following the softly, softly progressive approach that the youth workers describe. Society therefore reaps what it sows and pretends it is outraged by the looting and violence. But everybody in authority always knew this would be the outcome. They didn't care, they turned the other way and let these communities deteriorate.

There is a difference though in saying "most gang members have no male authority figures when growing up" from saying "if you grow up without a male authority figure you will end up in a gang".

Claig I both agree and disagree with you at the same time.

While I think you make good points about the gang culture, I disagree that family breakdown is the cause. In many cases these disaffected youths who end up in gangs would be 10x worse had their mothers stayed with their fathers. The fact that their behaviour is still so bad speaks more about our society in general than it does about the state of the institution of the family in general IMO.

The evidence suggests quite strongly that parental education and money have far more to do with the outcomes for any child than the relationship (or lack of) between parents - be they married, co-habiting or separated. There is a very big strong case for saying a lot of the poor behaviour associated with children from single parent families is caused by poverty, and if you removed this the outcomes would be no different than for those of children brought up in stable coupled relationships.

In which case, the main cause of bad behaviour is not parental relationship status but rather lack of money and educational attainment.

Yet our schools are a postcode lottery, universities are out of the reach of many, and the gap between rich and poor is widening (thanks to governments of all colours).

There are many, many people out there who are finding that hard work does NOT result in financial and social gain. They can work a 60-hour week and still be in poverty. They cannot afford to get out of it. Meanwhile, politicians fiddle their expenses and bankers continue to take huge bonuses and both get a slap on the wrist. I am not excusing the rioters/looters behaviour and I think they should all be punished with the full strength of the law, but like I said on another post, if playing by the rules gets you nowhere it is not surprising that some people choose not to bother and to play by their own rules. That's what needs addressing.

But of course, let's say it;s all about parenting and say if single mothers could control their children there wouldn't be any riots.

There are clearly areas where all of society needs to work at solving problems - consumerism, the clustering of deprivation in certain areas, overcrowding in cities and the South East, lack of social housing that is mixed in with standard housing, pockets of middle class people within catchments of certain schools and so on.

But it is just crazy to look at masculine violence and lawlessness and make out that it has nothing to do with the current version of masculinity, and not think about how that can be changed. I just do not understand how anybody can defend that view. It is like looking at egg production without looking at eggs.