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!

You see the physiological differences from an early age - when distressed or angry, boys are physical - they kick off or use outlets like sport. Girls either internalise, talk it through or use passive aggression.

Looks like a book to me.

Here's a play

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

Too busy sorting the shit men cause.

IMO organised protests are more like a physical petition - they are saying "look, there are a lot of us who feel strongly about it, and we might decide to vote based on this or to make some annoying noise outside your office"

It's not the same as "we might destroy your property or delegitimise the state by demonstrating it doesn't have a monopoly on violence"

That’s nice but are you saying women aren’t more empathetic than men is that the point you’re making?

I can really only speak to NI but there would have been quite clear gender roles within the troubles and that legacy has been handed down in some ways to the current generation and also to parts of England and Scotland as many people emigrated during the troubles.

Many women did a huge amount in the background (and some in the forefront) but going out to 'defend' a community was very much seen as a male role. In the aftermath more women went into community voluntary roles often motivated by grief and loss or fear for their children and many young men coming up migrated so we ended up with a bit of a void where positive male role models within many communities were lacking and men very involved in community violence filled that gap. It's even quite relevant now with big discrepancies between male and female children in educational outcomes, firstly split by gender and secondly by religious background a lot of young men are extremely disillusioned which is where extremism in any form thrives.

Rioting is a dangerous thing to be involved in and gives loads of adrenaline to people participating. It appeals directly to any young person (the majority of participants are young people) with experience of trauma because of brain chemistry and adrenaline. Women in general tend to be more inclined to find more vocal outlets for stress and trauma whereas men tend to find this difficult and will lean towards more physical outlets and violence and rioting is a very physical thing. Young men are also the demographic predominately targeted by organised crime groups who will actively encourage them to riot to detract police attention from other things happening which is child criminal exploitation. There are also consequences for them if they leave a riot or don't participate that can leave them vulnerable within their community so often rioters are also driven by fear of consequence. Then you've the added element of brain development not being fully formed until age 25 particularly the elements that deal with risk, consequence and impulse. It's a combination of factors. Plus troubles legacy of conflict with police and collective community trauma.

Women and men will protest over frustrations and concerns but rioting is generally more bourne out of disillusionment and exploitation and a drive for adrenaline and aggression. Its also due to wanting to feel part of a collective, feeling like you have purpose and feeling that you're united with your peers against a common enemy. People love that and the feeling of connection it provides is really powerful, it's why we really enjoy team sports from a psychological perspective. And again it's why it's so attractive to teenagers who really want to fit in.

If you think people are rioting simply because of what's happened recently they really aren't. It just looks that way on the surface but the under belly is a different animal altogether which is why a lot of the rhetoric around it is so dangerous. People protesting just provides an excuse that is readily manipulated.

Sorry, I was leaving folk to make their own minds up. Then I remembered this is FWR.

Down with Men !

We are more likely to talk, discuss and debate problems then organise ourselves to promote solutions.
(edited to add . . .) We are more likely to organise community lunches to ease tensions in our neighbourhoods than smash someones windows.

Hence mumsnet being so popular.

There is no male equivalent of mumsnet and there never will be because men are just way to egotistical to listen to each others differing views without resorting to insults, threats, then, ultimately, violence.

At home caring for their children and smaller world. At work bringing in money and creating a career.
Taught to internalise our suffering not come to blows or confront.
The Patriarchy?!
Any one of those I suppose.

If I get arrested rioting, I’ll end up with social service involvement with my kids. I’d do an awful lot to avoid that given I already home educate.

If I got injured in a riot, who is looking after my kids? Who deals with the emotional fallout? Who would deal with all the wife work whilst I’m out of commission?

Plus I am responsible for reaching my children morals. I think some if that incessant “gentle hands” and “use your words” sinks in.

Historically a lot of protests were turned into riots often by how they were handled or been invaded by groups wanting violence or wanting to discredit their cause.

I do think women protesting in 20th century century were often using different technquies - perhaps becasue of vunerablity like in pervious centuries Peterloo Massacre where women were disproportionately injured. I saw a Lucy Worsley documenatary on suffragettes and on one of their marches sexual assult by police seem to being used as a statergy at least once.

@bathofbeans
There is no male equivalent of mumsnet and there never will be because men are just way to egotistical to listen to each others differing views without resorting to insults, threats, then, ultimately, violence.

I don't think that's true. Firstly there are lots of online discussion boards that are male-dominated. Some are conformist and intolerant (bits of Reddit), others are very free. But on the general point about men, I don't think it's true in real life either. Male pub conversations, etc. are full of disagreement, often tenaciously argued then happily dropped when the next subject comes up. The disagreeing is the fun of it. Similar results when men and women are polled about platforming/no-platforming on campus: men are far more tolerant of differing views. And women more likely to say they fear reputational damage for expressing the wrong opinions.

(I think women don't usually riot because: lower testosterone, better things to do, more vulnerable in violent situations).

I had a conversation about this with an American friend of mine. Why aren’t American women rising up about their reproductive rights being systematically stripped away?

We are too busy!

Also I like to get my vengeance in more subtle ways.

Males are encouraged to be violent from a young age whereas females are not.
Aggression, assertion, dominance, rage, these are all attributed to males. Caring, kindness, selflessness, compassion, are all attributed to females.
Females are also conditioned to internalise anger whereas males are conditioned to take it out on others.
It doesn’t matter who the others are either.
So you are angry with your boss- go home and beat your wife.
You are angry that another driver cut you up- go home and hit your children.
You are angry that you didn’t get a date with the woman you fancy - go out and rape a random woman.
Women who behave violently or in fact in any way deemed inappropriate are always punished more than men. Court records prove this.
Lots of males are brought up by fathers who cannot, or don’t know how to, show certain emotions. The only emotions they show are anger and aggression. So fathers are to blame, they are the role models.
It really is not surprising that a huge portion of those rioting and ‘protesting’ are guilty of domestic violence amongst other things. The decent men I know would never dream of rioting.

Why aren’t American women rising up about their reproductive rights being systematically stripped away?

There have been women marches in USA and there have been No kings Marches and protests about ICE. So they do protest.

There apparently some data that younger sections of the population are moving away from areas with really strict abortion laws. Also evidence that medical professionals are as well - which is affecting wider services. Voting with their feet in practise.

I think the two party system in US and the fact many of the poltcians come from same social economic class means protesting has less effect - everything so polarsies it's dismissed if it not your sides line.

I also think the feminist movement in US has oftne been slower - the maternoity rights are still very poor - and in recent years has been much more hampered by pseudo feminism - like sex work being empoyering and widening who is covered by term woman/female.

I also think the population is kept away from news and information and kept down by the daily grind to point protests being too much bother and lack of community connetion also helps stop protests forming - I think how big some protests have been since Trump shows just how disturbed many are but they often feel powerless even when they do take to the streets.

Just because women are less likely to riot does not mean they aren't capable of "doing stuff".

The majority of the various resistances against the Nazis in Europe were women. (Because men were conscripted or confined). And during (and after) slavery in the US, the underground railroads were organised and run by women.

Even our own islands poor history throws up Boudica - who would surely have been manwashed out of history had she been a lesser mortal ?

What everyone else has said, plus we’re more law-abiding. Women might worry more than men about getting in trouble with the police.

I’m busy looking after my kids. Don’t get the chance. We’re also physically weaker

I would argue those examples are useful stuff though with specific aims. Whereas rioting is either mindless anger or anger directed by a small number of people with a particular aim.
Even the riots that turned into a real movement (eg American independence) would have included many people whose grievances were much less defined or completely different to the leaders aims

Even the riots that turned into a real movement (eg American independence) would have included many people whose grievances were much less defined or completely different to the leaders aims

Their only aim was to not pay taxes,

Some of them were mad because they thought George the third was a secret Catholic. I think it seems like everything today is complicated and the past less confusing but that's only because of distance.

Not riot, but I remember the clashes at Greenham Common. They were female led.

Oh there were lots of people who the tax dodgers were able to co-opt into the narrative to make it sound noble.

Unfortunately 250 years of history don't lie.

I’m not saying all women are more empathetic than men, you can get women psychopaths. It’s just studies show that women score higher on empathy questionnaires