The civil liberties of male suspects are being discussed, and for good reason -- some sentences sound absurd. But what about the rights of women who wanted to go about their business, without ending up in a mob of angry men? The threat of male violence restricts the lives of women, but people have become so accustomed to it that it often goes unquestioned.
Concepts of masculinity play a large role. A man may get respect through violence, or with the right consumer goods. After all, marketing tells us how men should look and what stuff they need. But it does the same for women, and we're not nearly as likely to break a store window to get what we want or to gain respect. Even if genes were solely responsible for the violence gap, society could look at ways that males could be taught to be less violent.
At least some of the poor neighborhoods damaged by the UK riots will get more money. It irritates me that men get attention by violence or the threat of it, while women's rights often get written off as less important.
A 15-year-old boy has been charged with raping a 13-year-old girl in Woolwich. But the Guardian points out that it happened after the riots there, not during, as had been first reported. Now we are free to ignore it, just like most rapes, which get no political analysis.