Just so you can be angry at me, too: in the States we have girl gangs--a
lot of them--that mostly take on each other, but they frighten the shit out
of the boy gangs because of their penchant for violence.

When I was doing psychiatric social work on Manhattan's Lower East Side I
dealt with as much girl as boy violence, and I remember asking one girl how
come she was wearing so many rings--every finger of both hands was
plastered with them. She told me she'd borrowed them in preparation for
that afternoon's impending fight. I've got a lot of stories like that.

The Weather Underground was at least half women. Most of the folks who
killed for Charles Manson were women.

In the US women have been fighting, very publicly, for the right to be
front-line soldiers and fliers, not just support--killing gets you promoted
in the US military. One of the arguments against them from the brass has
been that their presence would excite the chivalry of male soldiers, who
would put themselves at greater risk in order to protect the gentle sex.

But this is a very violent country.

The past is not much guide in this discussion. The greater empowerment of
women has and will mean power to do evil as well as good. I suspect that
the disparities in the committing of public violence (children can tell you
how violent some women can be in private) have been largely a matter of
opportunity (it's not for nothing that the list of bloody-minded female
heads of state tilts rather sharply toward the present).

Otherwise one would have to invoke biology as explanation. Which would lead
to an easy final solution. Although in each generation young men at puberty
would have to be milked before they were slaughtered.

By the way, the young men who crashed those planes into those buildings
were educated and middle class and living far from the hopeless slums of
the middle east. They had nothing if not possibilities.

I would suggest that the issue is not men, but societies. Desperate
societies produce desperate men and women in greater abundance than less
desperate societies.

Mark


At 12:26 AM 10/3/2001 +0100, Geraldine Monk wrote:
>Christopher et al,
>Late picking up email today so I've read the other
>mailings and may refer to some here but wanted
>to reply to some of Christopher's  points of disagreement.
>
>><snip>
>>terrorists are almost without exception young males with no foreseeable
>>goals [Geraldine M]
>><snip>
>
>C. wrote:
>>I don't think either characterisation is correct.
>>
>>Fusako Shigenobu (arrested November 2000), who led the Japanese Red Army
>>(aircraft hijackings, Lod airport massacre et al)? Ulrike Meinhof? The
>women
>>suicide bombers in the (Tamil) Black Tigers? Bluntly, the testosterone
>>explanation may be no more sophisticated than Mr Berlusconi's and for very
>>similar reasons.
>
>I must say I find this a trifle ingenious.  Your list proves that they
>are the exception to the rule, its like rhyming off female prime
>ministers or state leaders- there have been some but hell if you
>drew up a list of each it would be a little lop-sided to say the
>least - and yes I know I know female leaders don't equal
>sweetness and light - but that's often why they are allowed to
>rule!  Shit this is basic stuff ain't it?
>
>But the statement about young males
>forming the bulk of violent acts or 'terrorism' isn't something
>I've just made up out of some gender agenda its an
>overwhelmingly truth staring us in face and backed up by
>studies and statistical evidence (As if we really needed
>to be told).  So don't take issue with me take issue with Mr War
>Studies who said exactly that on Channel 4 news the other night.
>
>But how can any problem be tackled if people like yourself refuse
>to even acknowledge basic facts.  I'd throw in the towel in despair
>right now but as war is no longer fought on the battle field but in the
>indiscriminate market place women & children are often more prone
>to be victims than men (note the woman/child ratio of deaths in
>the Omagh bombing).  And please note I say 'often' not 'always'.
>I could well be statistically wrong on this one.  I don't care.
>I know innocent men die too - I care about that.
>
>Like it or not we are all enlisted in wars now and some of us want
>to know why and with whom and if identifying an age group and sex
>is a start then for god's sake let's start. This whole matter is
>too serious to score gender points which I certainly wasn't doing
>but to have to qualify such a simple statement of truth as this
>with the equally true statement that the overwhelming majority of
>men aren't terrorists and the world has had some spectacularly
>violent women.. well it's is depressing that your needs should
>hanker after such salve.   To have my comments aligned with
>the fatuous comments of Berlussconi's is a downright insult.
>
>
>
>>As to 'no foreseeable goals', isn't that just the 'mindless violence' topos
>>employed by successive British Home Secretaries and other minor
>>functionaries?
>
>Of course it isn't - and once again thanks for the slight - with such a
>mind like mine it's a wonder I became a poet at all when such
>a career in politics no doubt awaited me.  It is possible I didn't quite
>explain myself in my original letter.  I didn't say the 'terrorists' had
>no foreseeable goal - their goals are so foreseeable they keep us
>all awake at night wondering how and where they are going
>to try and achieve them next.
>
>My question was what do we do about disaffected young men
>who have NO goals in life?  It has always struck me as a total
>farce that the summer 'race riots' in our northern cities were
>so-called.  These are riots by disaffected young white and
>Asian males who have no prospects of good, or at least,
>satisfying jobs etc.  They are not riots by white and Asian
>shop-keepers, landlords, doctors of the male sex and they
>are not, dare I say it,  by women (oh god I'm sure one
>bloody women got in there just so you can happily throw
>this whole argument out).   But these lads aren't fighting
>about Gods (what a funny thought!) or even wealth (otherwise
>they'd be bricking the posh end of town not their own damned
>streets and shops) they're fighting for the frisson for the hell of
>it.  It's tribal. It's yer Mods and Rockers. Of course there is
>racial tension on the sink estates because when you're
>miserable its good to be able to blame somebody.  But a
>feel-good grumble is not a tribal fight on a Friday night
>and a tribal fight is not a race riot and a race riot is not
>a jihad - but people start to believe what the read and
>for all us who live in northern cities - well  - plant the jihad
>idea in their young minds and we're all up
>shit creek...the war comes home about 10 yards down
>my street.
>
>So, the violence
>emanates almost predominately from young males so
>my question was 'What do young men want?'
>When all these Rebels without a Cause or a Clue
>finally get one l'd like to know it didn't include blowing
>me to kingdom come but of course it might.
>I'm well aware of the political cess pool  which led up to
>the bombing of New York but we really do need to
>understand  the kind of psyche that can do that and
>that and that ...list of world atrocities...and... too many
>ands for a mailbase letter...but my almost final and is
>I'm seriously worried about Tony Blair who seems
>to think he is the Second Coming of Christ at the
>moment.
>
>(in Britain, at any
>>rate) still struggles with the idea that Afghanistan isn't really a nation
>>state and that one of the initial effects of the Taleban was to reduce the
>>incidence of urban rape.
>
>Reducing rape by imprisoning women! And all the Afghan women
>cried  'Gee, thanks boys'. It's like having yer fucking head cut off to
>get rid of a toothache.  Sorry but this really really narked me.
>Check out some of the excellent websites by and for Afghan
>women: their fight and their plight.  It makes for sobering and
>at times inspiring reading.
>
>
>
>>
>