There's more to the UK riots than class vs. criminality

Protesters at Tahrir Square

When they were first released, images of women participants in the Arab Spring, particularly in Tahrir Square, were eagerly seized upon in the UK. We wanted to hold onto the idea that Middle Eastern feminisms were beginning to sow results recognizable in the language of Western democracy. We wanted to identify the uprisings with the values of the so-called liberal West - democracy, freedom of speech, and the right for women to participate.

But to participate only, and when the cameras were turned away from the Middle East, it was clear that those who had quickly heralded feminist revolution had delivered little more than overblown rhetoric. The rapes and virginity tests that shortly followed - designed to put women back in their place - were an unwelcome reminder that it takes more than a few women's faces on the streets to signify anything more than incremental progress.

Where riots are, mostly, women are. Yet when women riot, it is something that is focused on. It has been pointed out that women, as well as men, have been participating in the looting and rioting of the last few days. As I went to sleep in San Francisco last night, the most watched item on BBC news was this video: Riot Girls Brag About Violence. Women's participation in the public sphere, such as it is, is much greater in Britain than Egypt, and still it is notable, surprising even, when women take to the streets.

The empty pronouncements of our political leaders about 'criminality' are so devoid of critical engagement as to be self-parodies. But neither are these riots just about an underprivileged class reacting violently to deprivation, or even alienation. Nor is it just today's youth taking a culture of conspicuous acquisition to its logical conclusion. It is that, but that's not enough to explain it.

Aside from everything else, the UK riots are also what happens when a form of masculinity reacts when its sense of entitlement is confounded. I'm not 'blaming' masculinity. I don't think attributing blame willy-nilly is helpful here. I think, also, that it's a rightful sense of entitlement; we should all have access to jobs and housing (at the very least). It is, however, a particular cultural masculinity that allows for structureless violent disorder as a tenable response. This needs to be spoken about.

That men are allowed to react violently when threatened is a message taught and then reinforced. The cultural message that boys will be boys, that boys can't verbalise feelings, that an intimidating physical presence is sexually desirable, and so on, is everywhere to the point of nausea. Just yesterday on the bus, I listened in on the conversation of three teenagers; two boys and a girl. One boy was annoying the other boy, who quickly responded with, 'how about I smack you in the face?' The girl just laughed appreciatively.

Which is not to say that women aren't violent. Masculinity is not only (or always) found in men. But when we see women displaying the wanton violence that we associate with masculinity we find it shocking, and the exceptionalising and patronising media coverage often reflects this sense of shock. Violent women rioters are acting outside of their prescribed gender role. 'What are these girls doing on the streets rioting? Can we get a shot of some girls gone wild at the riots to symbolise the utter degeneration of our society's youth? You know, instead of tit-flashing we can have looting and destruction? Great.'

Even this, however, is better than its reinforcing counter-narrative, in which women and girls are represented as pretty, lovely peace-keepers. Remember this image from the student protests? Yawn. Tell me more about the looting yobettes.