Why don’t women riot?

[SixtySevenLabubus]

Not looking for a specific discussion on this week’s events, but a broader one.

Basically, why do so few women riot? Arguably, they have far more to be angry about than men do!

The actual reading of the riot act hasn’t been necessary for over 100 years and the Riot Act is no longer law. It’s the Public Order Act now that applies.

Women DO riot en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_led_uprisings,

This. Testosterone makes people more aggressive.

Men just absolutely love to smash things up. They just do. And women don't.

Woman have previously I remember reading as a child re the protests in the 70s, you have the recent marches in March but now they are much more peaceful akin to the suffragists rather than suffragettes.

Because women are generally smarter than men.

Or actually include any of the women involved in the riot in the report. Apparently 79 women rioted but the reporter couldn’t find 1 to talk to.

Because intersectional feminism still has a way to go.

Black women or working class women etc historically have not had enough common cause with white, middle class women who often assume leadership or define the movement.

https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters-right-now

Personally I probably have more 'reason' to organise according to geographical region right now.

There is also the issue, which Gerda Lerner describes in her book "The creation of Patriarchy" where women are the only oppressed group "distributed amongst our oppressors". This, she explains, creates a divide between women, not only practically and physically, which impedes our ability to engage deeply and organise, but also psychologically and materially, where we are dependant (to varying degrees) on representatives of the oppressor class (partners) making it personally dangerous or risky to openly fight against them. I think this concept is a solid one, as it also goes some way to explaining the Haidmaiden effect, where some women, and most to some degree (owning up to thismyself here) accept/concede patriarchal rules because the alternative is frightening, unknown, potentially dangerous to us, and probably our children.

The fact that there is one specific wiki page for this shows how very rare they are across history - they are the exception rather than the rule. Can you imagine the entry for ‘male lead uprisings’?

N.b.- the link above doesn’t work, it’s got an extraneous comma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_led_uprisings

We're generally busy with everyone else.

I can’t see the logic of destroying other people’s property when something totally unrelated has happened. I don’t see the appeal of breaking the law or being associated with violent people. Most of the people rioting are just using the excuse of recent events to riot, they don’t actually care about the people impacted in the event or the people harmed/impacted by the riots.

I think Intersectional Feminism is more of a social justice project than actual feminism. It does speak to how issues impact women in unique ways, but it asks women to solve problems that are beyond the remit of women-centred feminism, which depletes our resources, and diverts our attention. Environmental issues and racism are real and significant problems, but the reason they impact women uniquely is because all women are treated as second class citizens globally, and resolving that is the project for feminism, not fixing the planet, or solving racism more broadly, if you get what I mean. Of course we must personally call out racism and not participate in it, and take other actions, but racism as a whole subject area is seperate to feminism. I have found that difficult to articulate, so I hope my opposition to racism, and my recognition of it as an evil societal ill is apparent. Also, intersectionl feminism includes men pretending to be women, so, not feminist in my humble opinion.

I respect that opinion but can't really agree.

"Black women’s experience of racism, sexism, and classism are inseparable.
Their needs and worldviews are distinct from those of black men and white women.
There is no contradiction between the struggle against racism, sexism, and all other-isms. All must be addressed simultaneously."

nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/revolutionary-practice-black-feminisms

Because it doesn't actually achieve anything. It is just typical brain dead male logic. How does burning down the homes of your neighbours help your cause.

Nor does "having a go" at the police achieve anything.

More interestingly is why do men riot.

9 times out of 10, it is no different from those who go to football matches with the intention of getting drunk and picking a fight.

We should protest to the media and say stop calling male hooliganism "rioting".

It isn't it is just a mass expression of men who think violence will win their point, assuming they even have one.

A riot as a political act is more likely to be when a political protest or march is suppressed by which ever regime the protest is being held against.

However I think in France (and maybe Italy) riots have a rather different history.

Not sure the UK has had a "riot" since the campaign against the poll tax.

Not always acknowledged, or encouraged, is the role women have played in resolving conflict. eg the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, and of course Mo Moland.

Perhaps not surprisingly as it is more likely than not that women have helped build communities.

Thank you, and I fully respect your opinion and right to disagree :)

Because they are looking after the children the men claim they are rioting for?

Exactly. I mean I imagine a lot
of men rioting have kids at home. They just as usual rely on a woman to be doing everything. I mean they’re clearly not worried about getting them ready for bed and school the next day! And yes worrying about being locked up.

The only women I’ve really seen rioting in recent years in large numbers was the student riots over tuition fees. And they obviously didn’t have kids.

Traditionally in historical protests which can turn into riots women have played significant roles.

There have been lots of food revolts in the past with women being key. One example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_housewives#

Look what has happened in Iran recently. It was about women's rights BUT food shortages were also very important.

Women take to the streets when things get really serious and families are in danger. In European society they have been key instigators because if a woman calls on men to step up in a traditional society it is a powerful moment.

Contrast to other rioting triggered by men getting into fights with each other or police. Even there though women can be a factor they might not be on the streets, but defending women is often claimed as a motivation.

If you look into accounts of popular discontent you find unnamed women often being involved. Every revolution has a female element. Authoritarian societies can spend a lot of time repressing women, because if you can keep them quiet then men are more likely to be docile too.

Women are dangerous. They can say things. They don't have to riot to prove this, but they can.

Does a campaign of bombing and arson count? It is not a riot but causes property damage, loss of life and disorder and so the outcome is similar.

I'm sorry to say but the Suffragette tactics were more like what happened in Ireland over the last few nights:

Southampton riots in the wake of Henry Novak's death

• The rioters confronted the police, they wore no masks, speeches by activists throughout the day and live streaming of the event across multiple platforms took place

Appeal to the police to kneel, as they had done for George Floyd. . Some haphazard disorder towards the end directed at the police.(not condoning this) Ireland riots No media allowed near protest on threat of violence, men were masked, avoided the police, went for set targets on a list they had created, much more ruthless approach.

Suffragettes in Great Britain and Ireland orchestrated a bombing and arson campaign between the years 1912 and 1914. The campaign was instigated by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), and was a part of their wider campaign for women's suffrage. The campaign, led by key WSPU figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst, targeted infrastructure, government, churches and the general public, and saw the use of improvised explosive devices, arson, letter bombs, assassination attempts and other forms of direct action and violence.
At least four people were killed in the attacks, and at least 24 were injured (including two suffragettes).[1] The campaign was halted at the outbreak of war in August 1914 without having brought about votes for women, as suffragettes pledged to pause the campaign to aid the war effort.

suffragette burned down tunbridge wells cricket ground

Kind of makes a mockery of the phrase "giving women the vote" doesn't it? Women had to go that level of extremity for that most basic level of equality. I ❤️ the suffragettes.

Nowhere near as often or as violently.

We do, but rarely. Part socialisation, part physical composition. We are not as strong, we have more oxytocin designed to keep us kind and tender for childrearing, and less testosterone, designed for fighting off predators.

Testosterone is a powerful substance that can impel men towards risk taking, aggression and overt violence.

And far less prone to risk taking. Pregnancy and nest building instincts make females more conservative and cautious, though the aggressive instinct kicks in when there is a risk of predation or harm.

There is a reason why it is overwhelmingly males throughout history that have gone to war with each other.

The stakes are higher for us. Not only are we going to be more harshly judged than men ever are for the same actions but we know the response to female resistance is that we get raped, beaten and killed. The vast majority of males aged between 14 and 65 can overpower me with ease and that is the truth for most of us.