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.

Why are we excusing DV on this thread?

Ok - the majority of those whom the education system fails are men. The majority of those whom engage in excessive and irresponsible spending are women. That's not to say that either is an applicable case across either gender.

So, whilst vanity and the desire for a 'mask' might be equal across the sexes, for example, the use of cosmetics is a practice that is tolerated mainly only in women. We do, therefore, treat the sexes with greater difference than difference actually exists. This is true of most of us and is certainly true of mainstream feminism isn't it?

I think my point is that life, society and personalities are so damned complicated, diverse and contrary that any attempt to group men, for example, cannot possibly be correct. I also think that divisions are maintained by doing so and that a more holistic approach is the best bet for gaining genuine equality of opportunity.

I asked a question S&B.

Jenny hasn't excused anything from what i've read.

sunshineandbooks, the natural order is that the strongest have the most authority. That is why we have created societies where the state has the strongest authority rather than any individual. We have created a system of law where we are in theory all equal before the law, we are not at the mercy of the strongest individual. But it only exists because of the state's authority which has created forces like the police force and the armed forces. Without them, we would be at the mercy of the looters, muggers and gangsters. Without society's force of the law, we would be back with the laws of the jungle and survival of the fittest.

Jenny most certainly did not deny that DV was a problem. Jenny queried the bandying around of a figure like 25% with no real knowledge of how that figure is formed. It was certainly used to back up a claim that violence was rife throughout society and my point is that it does not support that claim in the least.

I have an expremely good friend who suffered years of abuse and will brook no lectures from anyone on my intolerance for shoddy argument and arbitary statistics in some way excusing or denying DV.

Too angry now. Out.

That is the problem organicgardner and claig. We have the police and armies with the intention that they can used violence (in a controlled manner generally - not always) to control. The problem here is that the gangs (and even people who were not gang members) have decided to play to a different set of rules (within which transgressions are punished by more violence than the police would enforce with, as sunshine said.).... I would not argue that the police should escalate the violence of their reaction to solve the problem though. Nor would I argue that additional violence/physical at discipline at home solves the problem.

I would argue that we get to get to the bottom of why this situation has occurred and address root causes....and that is about building a collaborative society, with yes moral responsibilities (but not a reactionary 1 size fits all type 'morality')

... the problem with violence, is not as simplistic as violence being perpetuated by rap (but actually any action movie, some comedy movies, porn, soaps such as eastenders, 'fly on the wall' documentaries, magazines, rock music - and a substantial majority of media output).

Why are stats now being quoted, because people are denying the context of the society we live in and level of violence accepted from men.

Greed does not exist in a vacuum... why do boys exposed to the same factors, decide that it is ok to disengage in a violent manner, when girls in the main are not? What gives them that sense of entitlement?

Snowmama

I can somewhat see where your standpoint opinion is coming from and it would be unreasonable to dismiss it out of hand, it demands some sort of discussion.

But I still say that gang members should and will play by our rules when it comes to crime and it's effects.

The fact that the vigilantes were mostly male could expose a behaviour that the same gender/sex differences were at play although one faction used that "Urge??" for bad rather than good?

snowmama, the law is much stronger than any gang. The gang can be broken up within days. The gang does mete out harsher punishments than the law, but the law is also there to protect gang members being killed by other gang members. The law is stronger than the gang, because the law has the full force of the state behind it, and that dwarfs the force of the gang. The state has a duty to protect all of its citizens, even the law breakers, and it should do this by increasing the use of its force to vanquish the gangs. It should not stand back and watch looting and allow it to go unchecked for hours. It has the means to put down any disturbance. The residents of Tottenham are on the whole demanding tougher action against the gangs and peopel are forming their own protection forces, apart from some deluded youth worker on TV who said we needed more "love, compassion and care".

'The fact that the vigilantes were mostly male could expose a behaviour that the same gender/sex differences were at play although one faction used that "Urge??" for bad rather than good?'

agree with organicgardener. The reason the behaviour is the same is because it is just nature's law. Unless we understand the real reasons behind behaviour, then we have no chance of implementing policies that can change it.

deluded youth worker on TV who said we needed more "love, compassion and care".

If that was the same Woman on Question Time last night she admitted she didn't live in the areas where the looting/violence took place.

Hug a hoody has gone too far methinks.

No organicgardner, it was a youth worker who lives in Tottenham and who had gone to Oxford University, which may explain why he was so far out from the wisdom of the many excellent youth workers I have seen on TV recently who all take the line that the Tories take in understanding the true reasons for these events.

Yes, Cameron's spin doctors tried to emulate the progressives, like Tony Blair, and told Cameron to use the "hug a hoody" line. The public laughed at this at the time. Those progressive days are gone. There will be no more hugging of hoodies.

Unless it is bear hugging, wrestling to the ground, and dragging before the bench. The hoody knows that force will from now on be applied.

I'm still very sceptical about the higher use of violence by males as due to "nature's law." If that were the case, surely we would expect those men who choose not to use violence or controlling behaviour to have lower than normal levels of testosterone. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of this. Similarly, we would expect women who are violent to have abnormally high levels of the hormone, but again, I don't think there is consistent evidence of this.

IMHO, the largest component is learned, socialised behaviour. Men are still asked to "man up" and demonstrate their masculine identity through assertiveness, aggression and force. Young boys increasingly are encouraged to be "hypermasculinised" by the toys and products marketed to them which also promote these characteristics. Boys and men are "rewarded" for conforming to a certain model of masculinity and derided if they don't (e.g. boys don't cry, you're a pussy, big girls blouse, etc.)

Although it's not a scientific sample, the blokes I've known who have not demonstrated violence or aggression tended to be raised within families and communities that did NOT reinforce a violent, aggressive model maleness. Conversely, many of the guys I've known who display abusive, controlling, aggressive behaviour have been raised to believe that you have to be this way to be a proper man.

The other problem is if it's all just down to nature, there really isn't much hope. It's inevitable that most men will turn to violence some times and it's not their fault because it's just genetic.

I am not saying that testosterone is the only factor, however, I do believe that it is most probably the major factor in explaining why men are more likely to be violent and risk taking than women. My guess is that the female boxers on TV have a higher level of testosterone than average.

I believe some of it is genetic and therefore talk of fault is not always right. They should still be banged up to protect society even if it is in some cases genetic. They say that alcoholism is sometimes genetic and runs in families. Some dogs are naturally more aggressive than others due to their genes. If injected with steroids people often become more aggressive due to testosterone and exhibit "roid rage". I don't believe that everyone's actions are the result of clear logical reasoning and choice. Some people are on the edge and more violent than others due to their genetic makeup. I don't blame all of the looters and rioters and say it was all their fault. I believe that some people are swept up in events due to crowd behaviour, adrenalin and excitement and their clear logical thinking and choices are impaired. If the police had been there in force, they would never have committed the looting and would never have ended up in prison.

I agree that with respect to looters and rioters, many will have got caught up in the perverse excitement of it all, as with football related violence. I think that's more to do with "group think," than anything that's biologically determined. Both men and women can be affected by "group think," but their responses to it may be different, depending on how they've been socialised to behave in a group. However, ultimately, the individual IS responsible for their actions, even if they insist they were caught up in the crowd, were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc. Act in haste. Repent at leisure!

I understand what you are saying about a genetic influence and accept that it can play a part, but I'm not convinced that it is the main reason for male violence. Yes, it's true that some dog breeds are "known" for aggression, but this is present in both males and females of the breed. If it were a gender linked issue, you would expect that to be only or at least more the case in males. In some species, like many birds of prey, it is the female of the species that is larger and more aggressive (e.g. kestrel, common buzzard, etc.) It's thought this is so they can defend their chicks if the male bird decides they would make a nice snack.

Back to dogs though, I think it's pretty well understood that effective training and socialising can make positive changes for the behaviour of all but the very most aggressive dogs. Likewise, a representative of a more "passive" breed can become vicious through neglect and mistreatment.

Fortunately for dog owners, they can make positive changes in their pets through the right techniques, persistence and patience. Parents of human children can take the same approach, but they also have to content with the plethora of other social influences that can undermine their efforts - things like the media, marketing of goods and services, celebrity culture, the media, popular music and peers.

Urgh - "contend" not "content" in the final paragraph.

Whether there is an influence of testosterone or not, it is clear that there are social aspects that increase the likelihood of people wanting to behave in certain ways, and we can change those social aspects. There are also reasons why it happened that were in that moment of rioting. It is clear that lawlessness leads to more lawlessness. I do not believe the police failed to act because of public worries about harsh policing. The worries about policing were present after G8, but the police were still harsh during the student demonstrations. There is also a difference between minimum force policing and failing to turn at all to a riot for two hours. I do think the lack of effective police response in London was deliberate, but am waiting for the reasons why they chose to do this to become clear.

KRIKRI, I agree with you, all animals are different. In some birds the females are bigger and more aggressive. But for humans, it is usually the other way around. In fact, bodybuilders, both male and female, take steroids containing testosterone in order to bulk up and get bigger.

Yes dogs can be trained and socialised and so can humans and it is important to teach humans the correct things in order to socialise them. I believe that many of these looters have been partly created as a result of incorrect teaching by the policies that politicians have implemented. I also agree with you that the messages that children are receiving from the media, movies and computer games are also leading to the moral breakdown that we are witnessing.

MillyR, I tend to agree with you. I think a lot of things are deliberate, from the policies of the greens, to progressive policies doomed to failure and many other things, which all serve the purposes and plans of the truly powerful.

It is so sad to hear the stories of so many opportunistic looters who would never have been tempted to carry out these actions if the police would have instilled fear in them by being present. Someone, with no previous offences, was jailed for 6 months for stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. It is a human tragedy and many people commit far more serious offences and get lesser punishments. Thousands of otherwise good people will have their futures blighted for a few hours of madness when they were tempted due to lack of fear of the consequences. Obviously others deserve everything they get.

In fact I believe that the messages in the movies, pop videos and computer games are also deliberate and that someone knows exactly why they are promoting those messages.

From jenny

Rife? I'm not sure I agree.

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.

From organicgardener

*Why has this thread been usurped by stats ?

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?

Maybe I've misunderstood but these all seem to downplay DV, saying a woman who's been punched once doesn't count in comparison to a woman who's suffered sustained abuse. (Mild aggression doesn't count? Seriously?) And in the case of the husband being 'forced' to leave suggest that women who stand up to it are just as guilty of aggression. As I say, maybe I've misunderstood, but that's how it reads to me.

And jenny you can keep your faux anger. I have been a victim of DV, as have all three of my closest friends. This is a topic close to my heart, an issue I am regularly involved in campaigning for, and one I have spent a great deal of time researching. I gave you the stats, told you where they came from and explained that they factored in repeat offenders. On an earlier thread there was a poster who made similar arguments to yours where I explained this in great detail with a lot of number crunching over the statistics. Maybe you could look it up. The statistics bear out. And surely, in any decent person's mind, 25% of women affected by DV is a problem.

Riots have been happening in this country for 100s of years, so I'm not convinced about computer games etc.

They tended to happen in times of economic decline, and when the weather was nice or foreigners were a problem (1517)

I think some people just aren't very nice and others are easily led, put all the conditions together and there is a chance of a riot.

The riot act (where 'read the riot act' phrase comes from) was introduced in 1714. Just thought I'd do some Mansplaining.

good point, riots have been going on for years and there have always been large amounts of immoral behaviour. I do think that these gangsta rap videos, violent horror films etc. are fuelling the problem and are officially sanctioned by the system since they are widely distributed and on sale and promoted by legitimate record companies and Hollywood studios. This is different from the past. Just 100 years ago, we had all sorts of publishing laws which forbade the promulgation of materials that are now legitimately distributed and promoted to children even on daytime TV. No wonder so many 9 year olds are now jumping on the looting bandwagon, despite all of the "citizenship" training.

and I'm not talking about Sesame Street. That is a force for good.