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!

An example of the stupidity of the male brain in repeating an act that never achieves anything. But then of course that assumes that had even thought it through, rather than it just being an opportunity for men to be violent. Someone needs to find out what these men actually think they have gained.

When violence is a rite of passage and thuggery a currency, when even the police know better than to try and stop you, you can feel untouchable. You can convince yourself you’re throwing petrol bombs for the cause, your elders encouraging you to join the frontline of the threat.

The only thing these men and boys are loyal to is violence: Protecting, maintaining, innovating and reappropriating violence for the next generation of boys, who will lose their lives to a culture that requires them to hate everyone who isn’t them.

Full article https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41860155.html

Some responses seeming to suggest that rioting is the most natural human behaviour and women have somehow been tricked out of doing it. I'm not sure that's the case. Very "men are the default humans".

Most men don't tend to riot either, certainly not in the 21st century west. It's very much a product of a particular subculture.

Police data shows 1 in 5 men arrested during 2024 riots have since been reported for domestic abuse
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/police-data-shows-1-in-5-men-arrested-during-2024-riots-have-since-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse/

I also do think we are socially conditioned to rebuke female violence moreso than male violence. Male violence is almost accepted as the norm even though we know its harmful. Whereas female violence stands out, I read something a while back (no idea where to link it) but it was suggesting that female prisoners tended to get harsher sentencing than male prisoners for certain types of crimes as we find it more shocking when it's a female perpetrator. So I think women are maybe subconsciously aware on some level that the consequences for them may be higher if they engage in violent behaviour like rioting.

I don't think it's the most natural human behaviour for most groups, but how can I put it? Each person / group of people is dealt a certain set of cards. For example, are you well-connected within political circles or not? Are you physically able to knock someone to the ground or not? Are you living in a community with a critical mass of other people who also are physically capable of knocking people to the ground? Are those other people well-organised and able to coordinate all going out together so you are more powerful as a mob rather than being a lone ranger, or not? Is that option better for you than trying to use politics, petitions, organised/peaceful protests, essays, speeches at Speakers' Corner etc to get your way, or not?

The "riot" option is almost never the rational choice for women. It sometimes is the rational choice for some men in particular circumstances. I don't think we should conclude that women "should" riot more, or even that rioting is morally good overall - even if you believe as I do that it can sometimes be effective, if you have the right set of "cards". If we don't acknowledge the effectiveness then we'll keep being confused about why it's happening.

Thye've just sentencted the Ely riotors (cardiff three years ago) - reporting is saying of the 30 sentenced 5 were women.

Sadly with modern reporting not completly sure what that means - but pictures do suggest some were actually women.

So women do riot - even in modern times though doubtless there will be a long list of reasons why this doesn't count either.

There is an interesting 1 in 20 figure that has been used to enforce control over large numbers of people for ages.

Basically if you can identify the remarkably static 5% trouble makers in a population and remove them, the remaining 95% are much easier to manage.

I find myself idly wondering whether this is mirrored across sexes ? (Because most research obviously only focused on men ....)

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion about what is considered a "riot". So (via AI - sorry!) I never realised that it is the number of people perceived to be involved that determines whether something is a riot as opposed to a disorder:

1. Riot (Section 1, Public Order Act 1986)
A riot is the most severe public order offence in the UK and has strict statutory criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• Numbers: Exactly 12 or more people must be present together. 1, 2]
• Common Purpose: The group must be acting together for a shared, unified purpose (e.g., attacking a specific building or forcing entry somewhere). 1, 2]
• The "Acid Test": Their combined conduct must be so severe that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their personal safety. 1, 2]
• Consequences: It is an indictable-only offence tried exclusively in the Crown Court, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Charges can only be brought with the direct consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. 1, 2]

2. A Protest That Turns Violent (Section 2, Violent Disorder) 1, 2, 3, 4]
When an originally peaceful demonstration breaks down into localized clashes or property damage, UK law generally categorises this as violent disorder rather than a riot: 1, 2]

• Numbers: It requires 3 or more people to be present together.
• No Common Purpose: Unlike a riot, the prosecution does not need to prove a common purpose. If several individual factions within a protest start throwing missiles or attacking property independently, it is violent disorder.
• Consequences: It carries a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and can be tried in either the Magistrates' or Crown Court. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

3. Breakdown in Public Order
"Breakdown in public order" is an umbrella operational term used by the police, government, and emergency planners rather than a specific criminal charge. 1, 2]

• Scope: It refers to any situation where normal societal functions, safety, and laws are disrupted by a crowd.
• Legal Application: It encompasses a wide hierarchy of offences defined by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This ranges from minor offences like Affray (2+ people fighting) and Drunk & Disorderly up to major disruptions like unlawful blockades under the newer Public Order Act laws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

So in relation to the posting about 3 women being convicted, this implies they were seen to be actively part rather than "caught up in the moment".

I think the instances where women are motivated to campaign, demonstrate or even "riot" in relation to what they see as police violence against children / young people is not that uncommon. As in demonstrations against food shortages etc..

But doubt, and am willling to be corrected, that this lead to burning down neighbours houses etc..

Sorry left this off the AI quote:

Across the 1,876 total arrests and more than 1,110 subsequent charges, over 95% of those prosecuted were male. While a small handful of women were arrested for specific offences—such as inciting racial hatred online or localized looting—they were rare exceptions to the norm.

(Not saying this applies to Ely riots.)

Hmm my sister went to the ‘No kings’ demonstrations in the US. Plenty of women there.
I suppose depending on cause the fear it might get nasty.

Of course some women have rioted and protested but I think they are more rational thinkers than men,they are less impulsive and able to weigh up the pros and cons men tend to be more erratic thinkers and when emotional some have poor self control.

So 1 in 20 were women ....

I don't think women are more rational thinkers than men at all - 51% of the population very unlikely to have same personality traits. Though I think labeling of women as sex overly emotional in modern histroy is very unfair.

I do think you get more men at either end of extremes more so than women for IQ and personalities traits. Women violence tends to have more external stessor than male violence though there are likely exceptions some of that likely biology but some like PP have said is likely due to social conditioning finding it unfeminine and coming down harder on it.

The thread header says women don't riot - historically and modern times they do - it's often not a desirable thing but they do for their own reasons.

Well-behaved women seldom make history - so I'm very suspicious of all the women are some variation too "nice" - tropes (too busy, too rational) being trotted out.

Though I do think male violence is a massive societey problem in it's many forms though it's a small group perpetrating - it could and should be condemn more by all society and more done about it.

I would be intersted in seeing if is 1 in 20 for women holds as well for women though it may look different to mens non conformation/rebellion at times dependent on the society.

I would be intersted in seeing if is 1 in 20 for women holds as well for women though it may look different to mens non conformation/rebellion at times dependent on the society.

I suspect there is a vague hand of evolution there.

Well, men are much stronger and full of testosterone. They've been conditioned to be the ones that 'take a stand'.

Might be or might not, because if you read what you quoted you will see that they switch between 2 groupings, so not clear what the 1 in 20 applies to.

ie for all we know the 700 or so not charged might all have been women!

Too busy putting other people's needs before their own wants. What will happen to my children if I get injured? How will I pay the bills if I get criminal record and lose my job? Who would collect the kids if they needed to be sent home ill from school? And so on...

I do think that over all, unless reporting is totally wrong, we do not see groups of women arriving in cars, wearing masks, carry weapons as for instance happened recently in Belfast.

And as has happened at some of the events supposedly about protecting women from sexual violence.

Rioting with the intent of attacking people and destroying property of people who are innocent of the issue supposedly being demonstrated about.

It may happen under the guise of some political motive but in practice is little different than men who get drunk and act violently or even male foot ball protestors. (Which as a "tradition" seems to have become rarer in the UK).

Exactly. Many men that the privilege of leading a life when to begin with their mum, gran or auntie allows them to not think about having to do boring domestic issues.

And this still happens (sadly) that later on a wife or girlfriend takes on the role of being the main "carer" for a man.

If you get trapped in a burning building who will rescue you? Probs not another woman.

What about if an axe wielding maniac turns up at your door at 2am?

Or terrorists attack the theatre you're in?

Men save a lot more female lives than they take but oddly it's rarely mentioned on here.

How many of these axe wielding maniacs and terrorists are female in these scenarios?

I knew somebody would say that. 😂 It's an illogical argument that gets parroted around here as some kind of gotcha.

If the victims of 'male on male' crime don't matter then why should we be worried about, for example, the victims of black on black crime? Young women from Sudan suffering FGM/child marriage/etc. Who's the perpetrator? It's certainly not a white person.

And the women in Afghanistan? Shouldn't we be pointing out that it's their fellow Muslims oppressing them?

Your argument only works when viewing everything as male/female, which is what most feminists do. Real life is far more nuanced. In racist or homophobic attacks, for example, the key driver isn't sex/gender and it would be wrong to dismiss the victim just because he shares his sex with the person stamping on his head.

And you think a female Arab strongly advocating to 'free Palestine' would stand with a Jewish woman over an Arab male? Modern feminism is too blinkered to deal with much of the modern world, which is probs why it's statistically so unpopular with women.

If I find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack I'll be extremely grateful to the men that rescue me. I won't tut and reproach them for the actions of their 'fellow men'.

If I find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack I'll be extremely grateful to the men that rescue me. I won't tut and reproach them for the actions of their 'fellow men'.

What a load of gobbledegook

This convoluted nonsense is saying we should allowed men to be violent brain dead human beings, because once in a while they might be needed to carry out what in fact is a paid job. And also carried out by women.

The real problem is, as the numerous stories about male police officers, is that men who should just be doing a job see it as another way to manipulate women and abuse them.

This type of stereotyping nonsense is what the male establishment was trying to tell women this was why women should go back to the kitchen post WWII. Despite the fact that during WWII many women had been doing the jobs that society had previously said were "men's jobs".

Presumably you are happily living a trad wife life!

(I sometimes wonder when FWR gets posts like this that they aren't from some FWRer who is posting in jest. This one ticks all the boxes, sex stereotypes, racism, cultural superiority ... )

In 1980s London, when there were quite a few riots, I passed through one while walking home. The police hadn't arrived yet, shop windows were being smashed and a few cars vandalised. It was mostly a mass smash 'n' grab, hordes of young black men running around with loot. An electrical goods store had just been broken into, and some of the lads robbing it yelled "Go in there, get a new TV!"

You know, I couldn't. I've protested, broken laws to make a point, and would've been up for some suffragette action back in the day. Just stealing a TV wasn't making a point, though, so I didn't. My boyfriend was quite annoyed when I told him.

I think the purpose of damaging property is that it's supposed to be so widespread and intensive that people will eventually press the authorities to hear the rioters' complaints. It rarely works out that way - the IRA just pissed everyone off, they didn't bring English cities to a standstill - and most seem to be more about angry men letting off steam than whatever the initiial trigger may have been.

I'd have nicked a TV if I was protesting about Big Electricals doing something egregious, though ...