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.

Yes, you are both right. Family breakdown is just one of the causes. It depends in what environment these children grow up and depends on what their peers are doing. In a crime-ridden environment, where gangs control the streets, the situation is different to living in Chipping Norton. In a tough neighbourhood, a child needs to be tough to survive with its peers, and can easily stray from teh straight and narrow. That is where stable, strong family structures help and where male influence can prevent young males straying.

Society is in largest part at fault, not these young people thrown off the deep end and splashing around trying to keep afloat. It is tougher growing up round there and that is why society needs to do more to help those people. But it's not about money and new community centres, because they will also get burnt down. It's about moral guidance, which essentially comes from families, about discipline and respect of authority and removing the bad example of gang leaders from the streets. That is the responsibility of society.

Some families are better off without fathers, but not all of the men in those communities are bad men. They need to be encouraged to stay and support their families rather than having children with a succession of women and then abandoning their children. The government needs to start selling that message so that things will change.

I don't think it is about throwing more money at certain communities. I think it is about creating social housing outside of these communities, so that we don't get cultures of deprivation building up. A family cannot bring their children up in a bubble - particularly in the teenage years. You need to have a community around you. So we need to have more of a social mix, by concentrating new social housing outside of areas that are currently dominated by poverty.

I cannot honestly say that my son would not be out rioting if he had been brought up in an area, and attended a school, with a gang culture. I don't know that with or without DH I could keep him away from those external influences, particularly as joining a gang may offer some temporary protection from violence.

The two issues of consumerism and changes in masculinity seem to be linked anyway. A man who chooses to support his children, emotionally and financially, whether he lives with the mother or not, is putting time and money into his children that he could be putting in to acquiring consumer tat. I don't know how we reverse that change, but it seems to be having an impact across many cultural groups and not just those that live in big cities.

Claig, I do agree with you on many points and actually think this has been a bit of a perfect storm of causes hitting together.

I do actually agree about strong, stable family structures- what I would challenge is the assumption that a male presence is automatically a good thing.
There are many ways a strong, stable family can be constructed and maintained.

I have always felt very uncomfortable about the rhetoric about the need for ' male role models'... which creates a narrative of a mythical great male role model whilst simultaneously undermining and dis-respecting the people actually doing the raising of the children - women. And it is this narrative that the gangs plug into (combined with the glamourisation of violence/materialism/'respect' etc)...

If society actually was geared up to supporting and respecting all family models including single mother models, as well as looking why the youth are disengaged from education, feel that attainment the traditional route is not for them ( and all the other factors mentioned on this thread).. it would strengthen us as a society.

But I do agree we need look at ourselves as a society and think about what behaivours are being role modeled for the youth of today.

claig Thu 11-Aug-11 10:07:22
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.

-----------

Great point Claig 100% agree.

These vigilante groups were chastised by authority though.

I don't agree with policies of moving some of these communities out of where they are into other areas. I believe in fixing the problem where it lies. That way all forces and resources can be concentrated on that area and it can be regenerated, rather than spreading the problem far and wide and failing to tackle it anywhere. Where there is a will, there is a way. The gangs can be eradicated. Poor people are not bad, not destined to riot. It is society that has allowed these conditions to thrive. Society has the resources to turn things around and help these communities. It requires a change in policy, a change in thinking.

xposted... MillyR agree completely re. consumerism, masculinity and the general sense of entitlement for 'stuff'.

I think there is a major issue with pressure being put on parents and schools to change or develop the behaviour of children so that it is markedly different from the behaviour of the current generations of adults. I don't mean here extreme cases where social services are involved; I mean all parents and schools. Schools and parents cannot raise children or teens in a bubble. There have to be demands made of adults in society that they become better role models. We cannot do it all through children.

organicgardener, you are right. Progressive society has created the climate, where people are not often not allowed to defend themselves in their homes. Archbishop Sentamu was on Question Time last night and said he had a cricket bat at home and it would hurt if he used it on an intruder. I half expect PC forces to arrest him for having a cricket bat.

I don't want vigilantism because it is dangerous and will lead to undesirable results of mob justice being dealt out. But that is why we need a strong police force, to uphold society's laws. Drug gangs and the like should be stamped out as a matter of priority.

Claig, I'm not suggesting we split the communities up. I'm suggesting we stop adding to their issues by putting additional groups of people, often vulnerable people, into those communities. That has been what has tended to happen with refugees for example. It would be more sensible in terms of community stress and overcrowding, lack of local resources etc to move them into less crowded areas with more existing infrastructure.

Too many government factions are playing the blame game without focusing on the actual issues at hand.

I don't believe the public want quick summary justice, they want this sorted out once and for all, using tactics that change peoples lives in a good way.

I've seen the attack on single Mothers by the press and media and it's wrong but I think the masculinity blame is wrong too....there are too many people generalising to make a valid point.

"girls/women are punished more than boys/men for the same behaviour." I don't agree that this is the correct interpretation; if five squaddies are killed by IED in Helmand and one of them is female, the media focus on the female. In that scenario there's no blame and yet the handling is the same. It's the challenge to a stereotype that is newsworthy, not differing standards.

Sunshine makes a good point that single mothers get a hard time from Tories - they always have done - whilst no one acknowledges that the absense of the father in question may be an improvement. I always think of that old adage "Choose better men" when I hear of tales of woe, though. Bad behaviour is so often rewarded!

Milly I still get this sense that you think masculinity is a single definable suite of characteristics. I'm sure you also acknowledge that the majority of household consumption decisions are made by women although your post does not read like this.

MillyR that is a very good point. Yes we can't just keep cramming more people into already overstretched areas. I believe in building new homes, new towns, new roads, new airports for people to live in and prosper. I am against greens and nimbies who wish to "preserve" their backyards and the environment for dung beetles rather than people, and just let people suffer in overcrowded inner city areas. People are the top priority, not the environment and some nimby's backyard.

Jenny, I don't see a point in debating with me your idea that men are not a social group. Obviously, being a feminist, I believe that men and women are social groups. The idea that men are not a social group is a novel one to me. I've never heard it said or written by anyone before, so you perhaps need to argue about it with somebody who is familiar with the concept, or perhaps share a few links to research into this kind of thinking for others who may be interested. But I confess I've no experience of it myself.

As for your point about household consumption - consumption and consumerism are not the same things.

Claig - yes, it is obvious to me that the village where I live, the nearest villages and my nearest town have both the infrastructure and the social capacity to cope with more social housing. The lack of it at the moment is bad for poorer local young people and for a social mix as people have to have money to move into the area because of the rise in house prices.

Although I am quite keen on the environment myself. But just because somewhere is outside a city, it doesn't make it devoid of brownfield sites, or that social housing can't be built in a way that has minimal environmental impact and be economical for the inhabitants.

snowmama, the gang members love their mothers, but they often don't obey them as they get older. They don't fear their mothers, because they are stronger than them, and that 13 year old kid thumped his mother in the face when she told him to get out of bed and go to school. Young boys like that respect those they fear. They respect authority if it has the means of disciplining them. I doubt that boy would have thumped his adult male father in the face. If his father was there, he may have got up and gone to school.

claig but would he? Wouldn't that only apply if the father was prepared to use physical force to control his son? Is that actually desirable? Are we saying that respect is based on fear, which is based on physical force? I don't think that's a good role model at all.

I think maybe these gang members don't fear their mothers because they have seen men using physical force to control their mothers and therefore think they can do so as well.

Agree MillyR. It's a separate subject but I think the greens are just a tool of the elites, intended to prevent people flourishing. The elite wants us crammed in to ever smaller houses, ever poorer and ever at each other's throats. They could solve the problems of Tottenham 100 times over if they wanted to.

Something like 1000 families in the UK own 90% of the land. There is lots of land available for people to create new thriving communities.

In other words, what is at fault here is not the absence of a father figure but the fact that authority is based on physical force.

That's a very diplomatic answer Milly, thank you. Regardless of the concept, the reason I feel strongly about this is that I believe the spectrum of personalities within a single gender far exceeds the differences between the two genders. For example, a women can expect to have far more in common with a great many men than with some women.

As to consumption and being a consumer - consumption is the act of consuming. My MBA, which includes economics and marketing, hasn't prepared me for a difference between the two I'm afraid; you'll have to enlighten me.

If you think authority is based on physical force Sunshine, you never met my Nan !!

'claig but would he? Wouldn't that only apply if the father was prepared to use physical force to control his son? Is that actually desirable? Are we saying that respect is based on fear, which is based on physical force? I don't think that's a good role model at all.'

Yes, I disagree with you. I think that for these boys respect is based on fear, which is why they respect the biggest, baddest, toughest gang leader. Progressives have removed the element of fear and removed the rights of parents and the rights of homeowners to defend their properties. I think they did it deliberately, fully understanding the consequences. I think they helped create the problems that we see today with widespread disrespect for law and order and laughing at authority since the element of fear has been removed. 11 year olds laughingly said that they were looting "because the police can't do anything about it".

'I think maybe these gang members don't fear their mothers because they have seen men using physical force to control their mothers and therefore think they can do so as well.'

I doubt that the fathers stayed around after birth for most of the gang members. Some men beat their wives, but not all of them. We can't tar all of the men in that community with the same brush.