The fact that men are mainly responsible for violent and health-harming behaviours, not only against women and children but also against each other, is so taken for granted that it slips beneath the radar of commentators and policymakers.

The authors quote numerous statistics to make their point:

In 2009-10, men were perpetrators in 91% of all violent incidents in England and Wales. The figures vary by type of incident: 81% for domestic violence, 86% for assault, 94% for wounding, 96% for mugging, 98% for robbery. [U.K. Ministry of Justice] figures for 2009 show men to be responsible for 98%, 92% and 89% of sexual offences, drug offences and criminal damage respectively. Of child sex offenders, 99% are male. The highest percentages of female offences concern fraud and forgery (30%), and theft and handling stolen goods (21% female).

Men even commit more traffic and speeding violations – 87% and 81% respectively. Men are responsible for the vast majority of dangerous driving offenses (97%) and accidents causing injury or death (94%).

On the financial side, the Cockburn and Oakley project the money saved from injuries of the crimes themselves, lost work and productivity, and the costs of trying and incarcerating criminals would be in the tens of billions of British pounds.

I don’t doubt any of these numbers. I’m sure the statistics trend similarly in the United States. Our prisoners are overwhelming male: over 90%. And I wouldn’t be surprised if prison costs in the U.S. were even more than in the U.K. given our comparatively larger prison population.

Cockburn and Oakley conclude with:

The case we are making is that certain widespread masculine traits and behaviours are dangerous and costly both to individuals and society. They are amenable to purposeful change. The culture of masculinity can be, and should be, addressed as a policy issue.

Ok, but how?

There is a discussion now about masculinity being unhealthy, men who are trapped in the Man Box and the harm caused by both. But how, as a policy issue, do we teach the next generation of men and women that the Man Box doesn’t exist, while changing the thinking of the current generation of men to live healthier and more positive lives? This new thinking must start at home, in schools, at the playground and on the athletic field, continue at work, in social life.. even in the car!

A drastic change is needed in how we think about the role of men in every aspect of society. It’s a daunting proposition, but well worth the money, and more importantly, the lives this change would save.

What are your thoughts? Where do we begin?

See also:
When Masculinity Is Unhealthy
The Man Box

Let’s connect on Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr!

Speaking in the House Of Commons on Thursday, he said:

Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media.

Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.

So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

Logistically, it may be impossible and his statement may have just been “bravado,” but it’s a bad idea to suggest that stifling or banning communication over social networks is a good tool to fight crime.

Laws over speech and expression in the UK are different than in the US. The libel laws are much stricter, and you can’t even make fun of a session of Parliament even when they’re being complimented by comedians like Jon Stewart (see below). Those differences aren’t reasons for a Western democracy to restrict free speech like a dictatorship. Fighting and preventing crime is a priority in any country, but things get tricky when you’re dealing with speech. One person’s threatening language is another’s good idea.

Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis wrote this about Cameron’s suggestion to block social media: “When anyone’s speech is not free, no one’s speech is free…Censorship is not the path to civility. Only speech is.”

A clip from The Daily Show With John Stewart.

Follow me on Twitter or connect with me on Facebook.

Sitting by the computer after making the perfect cup of English tea, I am still amazed (for lack of a better word) at the breakout of riots across the UK. Over the past few days I have been scratching my head as looters took advantage of London neighborhoods like Brixton, Hackney, and Lewisham, and other British cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Leeds. I sit back in disgust and outrage as an American viewing from overseas, but also as a person who has lived and traveled throughout the UK.

The shooting of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old father of four, is what sparked the initially peaceful protest in Tottenham, London. People in the neighborhood were protesting unlawful and aggressive acts by police.  (It is now known that Duggan did not fire a shot at police.) Somehow, on Saturday, August 6, the protest turned violent and the people protesting started to assault police on the scene. The protest went from throwing sticks and bottles to lighting vehicles on fire and smashing the windows of shops.  I do not condone violence but there was definitely tension in the neighborhood between police and residents. The police did not take the right steps to calm the crowd.

Some chatter on Twitter by bloggers, journalists, and others has said that riots could start in the United States over the current situation plaguing our country. We have gun violence in schools, millions not covered by health care, rising unemployment, and a government caught up in its own nauseating partisanship fight. The victims in all of these are the working and middle class. So, why haven’t there been riots across the United States like those over in the United Kingdom? There are several reasons.

1. The United States has a history of civil rights and social movements.
There are still problems in this country, yes, but we have gone through the civil rights movement, gay rights, workers rights, rights for those who are disabled and disadvantaged, and all (for the most part) have been peaceful movements. We are constantly having dialogues in this country between the haves and those who don’t have. There are many outlets to voice your opinion in the US and if there is no outlet for your voice you can gain supporters and create one. Dialogues about race, immigration, youth, and poverty have not happened at all levels of society in the UK.

I remember living in London and bringing up a certain race struggle going on in the US and every one of the people in my presence ignored the conversation or said, “I am not going to get involved in that.” London has a culture of “let’s just get on with it” without getting at the root of the problem. I get the feeling that there is a sense in the UK that if you address a problem or controversial issue you can offend someone or be considered rude. So the conversation does not happen. Full Stop.

2. The police and authorities missed the ball.
It seems at this stage that authorities had no idea that these indiscriminate riots were being planned. I do give credit to the police in London for monitoring potential terrorists activities, and their extensive CCTV system (which no doubt will come in very handy to help identify looters and those who committed arson). But perhaps the Metropolitan Police Department is so caught up in catching terrorists that they have dropped the ball on domestic crimes and plots. The police did not have a full grasp of the situation and the Prime Minister and Home minister had to be called back from holiday to take control of the situation.

The United States has forces (local and federal) monitoring web traffic for terrorists, and domestic crimes. The authorities in the US are monitoring and taking down plots to disturb or disrupt, and they work together to make sure these crimes are not brought to fruition. The police did not have an understanding of the media used to spread information. Twitter, Facebook, and Blackberry Messenger were the top three ways the youth in the UK riots communicated which places there were no police presence. It took the London police three days to bring their force from 6000 to 16,000.

3. US police carry guns.
I really didn’t want to write this point, but I think it significantly contributes to why the UK riots won’t happen in the US.  Majority of UK police do not carry guns. Only under special circumstances or police in specially trained units carry guns. Youth are less likely to run amuck, looting, and setting fire to other people’s property when a person is running behind you with a gun. In the United Sates police have guns, shop owners have guns, and ordinary people on the street have guns. If people started to randomly attack stores because they could, there would be mini blood baths in the streets.

4. Lack of respect: Because they could.
There are pockets of youth all around the world who are rowdy, act up, and start trouble. But what happened across the UK is different. These youth, teenagers, and young adults didn’t attack police departments, government buildings, or symbols of oppression in society. They attacked local neighborhoods and shops. They attacked stores owned by their parents’ friends, owned by immigrants, minorities, and people just trying to make a living just like they are. A friend of mine who is a blogger in London went down to one of the areas while looting was going on and spoke with some people on the ground. Some people were saying they were attacking anything because the “cops taking the piss,” (because there was opportunity). Others said they did it because it was fun and they were trying to get ‘new clothes and kit’ for themselves, others said they were out there because their friend messaged them and said no police were there. Sounds like a mental breakdown in society, especially a society hosting the world for the 2012 Olympics next year.

As a result there is no more trust between a shop owner and his neighbor, police and pedestrian. The working class neighbors these kids came from are now worse off then they were before the riots. Absolutely nothing was accomplished. There were no rules, no set agenda, and no rallying voice. Just teens with nothing to do, and the opportunity to waste.

I don’t think the last point is specific to British youth. Or maybe it is. I’ve heard some “experts” describe what happened as a “new expression of anger.” Perhaps these youth are so angry that the only things they can lash out at are their own communities. Unfortunately three days into the riots and three men were killed in Birmingham in a hit-and-run while they were trying to protect their property. As of this writing 820 people have been arrested and NOTHING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

Furthermore, I didn’t hear the name of Mark Duggan mentioned the news today. I had to dig deep into the papers to find an article on him. Day four and the original spark has been forgotten.

Kameko Jones is completing her MS in Global Affairs with a focus on transnational security. You can follow Kameko on her blog and on Twitter.

It probably would be.

If the genders were reversed, would it still be offensive?

Check out TubeCrush.net to find out. It’s a UK site in which pictures are taken of men – without their knowledge - on the London Underground. The photos are submitted to the site and then the folks at TubeCrush write captions like this:

Let’s play a game shall we? It’s similar to Simon Says, but this one is called Jack Will. Basically you stay stuff that you think he should do, and he’ll do it. I’ll go first…

Jack will…make my jaw hit the floor because he’s so hot.

Next up…

Jack will…take his top off….(well, we can dream can’t we?)

Kind of cute? Kind of cheesy? Yes. Offensive? Not to me. None of the pictures I’ve seen go down shirts or up shorts. They don’t show anything explicit.

The viewing and consuming a male body by a woman is different than a man looking at a woman’s body. The nature of what makes a man physically attractive is easier to talk about in polite conversation. “Take off his top” from the caption above, is a lot different than “Take off her top.” Men are generally more sexually aggressive and perceived as more sexually threatening than women. And a man gawking at a woman – especially without her knowledge or consent – can be threatening.

We’ve reached the point where if you’re in public, anything you do is up for grabs by a camera. (So, be aware what you’re doing.) When non-consensual photographs are taken for sexual titillation, though, and regardless of the shooter, viewer or subject, the whole endeavor still gives off a whiff of creepiness.

But it matters who the shooters, viewers and subjects are, I wouldn’t say there’s a double-standard when it comes to TubeCrush. A website with pictures of women for a male audience wouldn’t be the same situation.

What do you think?

H/t: Salon. See also: Good Men Project

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

I bring up my moderate interest in the wedding because of the very extreme ways people are reacting to the wedding. There is the news media who are going over the top with coverage. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ll feel it was worth the expense and effort when it’s all over.

But then there are the folks at the other end of the interest spectrum. Not the people who shrug off this real-life over-the-top reality show like they would shrug off a made-for-TV over-the-top reality show. This is anger. Check out Lawrence O’Donnell on “The Last Word:”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First: The TV networks “obviously would have been on the side of the British” in the Revolutionary War. Huh? And second: The “British Crown has spilled more blood around the world and caused more oppression and suffering in the world than any other regime still standing”? History should never be forgotten, but why is O’Donnell still fighting a war we won over two centuries ago against a country that is one of America’s closest allies?

Yes, the British Empire was involved in the slave trade and the oppression of Indians, and the conflict in Northern Ireland is still unsettled. But every country, including the U.S., has done bad things as a matter of policy. Every country is a glass house. O’Donnell shouldn’t throw stones.

And then there’s Mark Oppenheimer flexing his “American-ness” in Slate. He says one reason for American Anglophilia is the theory that people who are oppressed by a country “internalize the message of the oppressor” and end up loving it. “The child who rejects his mother often loves her more than the child who simply drifts away.” Then he says:

If American royal-worship were confined to this twisted pathology of self-loathing, or to buying newsstand copies of People magazine every time Princess Diana is exhumed for another cover story, it would not be such a problem. But instead we forget our American-ness. We shuck and jive—I mean bow and curtsy—for the royal box at Wimbledon’s Center Court. We call them “the Queen Mother,” “Prince Charles,” or “Your Highness,” instead of the more American, and more dignified, “Mrs. Windsor” or “Charles.” We accept their worthless titles. We forget ourselves.

Not really. Americans love titles. We love a good Doctor, Senator, Madam Secretary or Mr. President. (The seemingly obligatory Mister in “Mr. Trump” has implied reverence, but I hope after this week everyone will go back to calling him “Donald” with the appropriately worthless title The.) While a doctor, cabinet member, and president have actually done something to earn their title other than just being born to a certain family, a title still adds an air of nobility to the person using it.

So, the aristocracy and nobility in a country reflect some of its values: Birthright and money in countries that still value royal families; achievement and money in America.

I can see why a lot of Americans don’t care about the wedding. The Windsors have no direct ties to America and there are a lot of bigger things going on in the world. Wills and Kate’s big day is just as much a celebrity wedding and soap opera as it is history and tradition. But why are some people getting their knickers in a twist? Watch the wedding, or just.. don’t. Taking a stand against the nuptials between a royal groom, who had a famous mother, and his “commoner” bride isn’t much of a stand to take.