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.

Well being a consumer or being responsible for some consumption is essential to an individual's survival unless you live entirely outside of the market. Being driven or heavily influenced by the ideology of consumerism is not essential, but is increasingly problematic for many people in our society.

Physical force is needed to control at times I would have thought that was an obvious conclusion.

And if the Father isn't actually in the house and is absent? Why is this imaginary Father being blamed for teaching his male child violence in order to control his Mother?

It's the blame game again isn't it, we should move on from this and treat the problem as societies problem.

agree organicgardener, this is society's problem and it will affect all of our lives eventually as it spreads and spreads if unchecked. It's not just about men.

We're not affected now. There is no looting here yet. But in 20 years time, it will be just around the corner. It's so obvious, that you have to wonder if it isn't being allowed to happen deliberately. You have to wonder if the wrong policies are carried out deliberately.

Milly I'm fine with that. I'd restate, though, that I'm not sure how this relates to your principles in this argument. The people that seem to have the most problems with consumerism are women - something that doesn't seem to tally with what you've been saying.

NB I'm basing this on the many stories of young women, credit card debt and personal bankruptcy.

It doesn't have to be the father of the child dishing out violence. It's a more general problem of male violence towards women. It's rife throughout all sectors of society, not just impoverished, gang-ridden cultures. But when you have the two factors running concurrently, that's when you have a hotbed of unrest combined with lack of controls and street violence erupts.

And yes, it's a minority. No one is saying all the men in these communities are violent. The rioters are a minority in their own communities, too. Doesn't stop them having a massive effect on the rest of their law-abiding communities though.

And I fundamentally disagree that violence is the way to control children organicgardener

Surely good parenting is teaching children to control their most base instincts - one of those being violence.

They are spending something like 9 billion on teh Olympics. Can you imagine what a paradise they could create across all of England if they spent that money on regeneration and jobs and followed the correct policies instead of their past progressive ones?

The general problem of male violence towards women is rife throughout all sectors of society? Rife? I'm not sure I agree Sunshine - can you elaborate?

Violence by authority is and always has been a tool to control Adults/Children/People that "Don't behave".

One of the reasons why these riots took place is because these youngsters are immune from punishment.

I disagree with your view concerning Male on Female violence as an excuse for a reason why Males from single parent backgrounds commit violence, there's nothing "General" about it other than the fact less generalisation.

Jenny, I really cannot follow your argument. You have said that you don't believe men and women are social groups. But then you have said that something should be done about the underachievement of boys (so you are treating boys as a social group) and that consumerism is more of an issue for young women (so you are treating young women as a social group).

I have never said that consumerism has more of an impact on men than on women. What I am saying is that part of the reason for the riots is the way that masculinity and consumerism are interacting. There are also ways that femininity and consumerism can interact negatively, but that is not really related to the riots, which is the subject of this thread.

Agree with organicgardener, well said.

I think violence begets violence, and right now the construction of masculinity is very tied up with violence... just think about the assumptions being made on this thread about the physical prowress of the 'missing' fathers. (Absent father does not mean imaginary btw..many people in this situation know who their father is and have some sort of relationship with them - it is just that often it is a very piece-meal relationship).

There is a is an assumption here about a particular type of masculinity that the 'present' fathers would have adhere to, to enforce this type of physical discipline... many fathers would be physically overpowered by their sons if this was truly required... speak to many male victims of DV, and they often talk about the turning point being when they realised they could overpower their (male) abuser)... but I digress...

There are many families that can enforce discipline without physical violence. The gangs are tapping into a violent variation of masculinity, sold by many parts by society... and this has to change. There are many reasons why we need to look at groups being disenfranchised by society.. but we must also reflect on why predominantly...boys/men feel entitled to protest this point violently (and again I reject the 'it's natural' pov)...

The reason why teenage boys feel then can beat up their mothers is because they are being taught to fundamentally disrespect their mother's situations.

Jenny, interesting point about female soldiers being killed in the line of duty - I have always seen these also as cautionary tales as to why women should not do violent jobs, such as being in the army (particularly when they are mothers). ... it returns to the 'its just not natural' point of view.

Jenny, 25% of women experience DV. 1 in 9 women are raped. If you care to extrapolate and include psychological violence and emotional abuse you could argue that nearly a third of men are abusive to a greater or lesser degree, but
even if you only include physical forms of violence the figures are a significant minority, not a small one. And it actually seems to be on the increase.

We have violence against women glamourised in pop music, women routinely referred to as bitches.

I think that's a problem.

Snowmama, we have to disagree. I think that using the advantage of force is natural and is a law of nature. I think it has to be countered with the threat of discipline and force. As organicgardener said, the authorities use force, they send in the police to quell disturbance, and some are even suggesting using the force of the army. Women and children are bombed in their homes in cities across the world in the force that is called war.

To play down the impact and importance of force and discipline is unnatural and leads us to the situation we have of looters running amok.

People don't have to be taught to use force, they intrinsically know when they have the advantage of force and they will then use it unless they fear the consequences. The gang member carries a gun to increase his force and he will use it if he does not fear the consequences.

Snowmama

These riots had little to do with Matriarchal/Masculine taught behaviour, it was greed, you're in danger of shoehorning a view into a problem that doesn't need it.

In a right and proper society Women should fight in the military and die if need be even if they are Mothers because they chose to be in the military.

Fathers die in the military what makes them any different?

I don't know of one person in my life who has hit their Mother male or female, whatever stats exist are abstract and vague.

organicgardner can you explain this please:

I disagree with your view concerning Male on Female violence as an excuse for a reason why Males from single parent backgrounds commit violence, there's nothing "General" about it other than the fact less generalisation.

I'm not being argumentative I just don't understand what you're saying about generalisation.

However, I disagree that the people you are talking about are immune from punishment. They are immune from our normal social conventions and therefore think they are immune from consequences, but if they are caught they are punished the same as you or I. Within their own gang culture the consequences for transgression may be far harsher, which rather backs up snowmama claims that violence begets violence. They learn that violence gets results.

We even call the police, the police force, unless we want to be progressive and call it the police service.

25%? Where does that come from? In a lifetime? Mild aggression? I think you may be doing a disservice to those who suffer genuine sustained abuse.

I would also suggets that the few cases of idiotic R&B singers referring to women as bitches is not a viable demonstration of how this attitude is generally applicable - indeed rife! - across society.

Where are the consequences for DV?

Where are the consequences for men who walk out on their children and pay no maintenance?

Where are the consequences for rapists?

Who commits these crimes? Overwhelmingly men. They face little, if any consequences. Yet the consequences for women - being raped, beaten up, left literally holding the baby - cannot be ignored.

Punishment is imposed by society because their acts affect that society.

I don't care what they class as their social conventions, they should be punished by ours, obviously that isn't a debate and it's agreed on.

Violence begets compliance, that's why they employ the tactic.

Why has this thread been usurped by stats ?

Jenny, the stats are adjusted to allow for the fact that some women receive sustained abuse over a period of years. If you wish to deny DV is such a prevalent problem, please do your own research and prove it. Otherwise, please accept the figures presented by Womens Aid. One of the first ways DV is excused is by denying the figures, whereas surely a more moral response would be that any figure is unacceptable and we should work on stamping it out. And is mild aggression ok? Do you think a slap across a face is ok? Would you tolerate that off your husband?

If that husband refused to leave the house would you call the Police to talk him out of the house?

Would he if he refused be "Forced" out of the house using aggression?

organicgardener I brought in the stats because jenny chose to deny that DV was a problem. Am I not allowed to prove my argument?

Violence begets compliance - isn't that another way of saying that authority is defined by force and because it's 'natural' the natural order is the strongest have the most authority. In this case we may as well return to a situation where men control their wives since they will be, in the main, capable of greater physical force.