look on the bright side. at least no one is saying that we're to blame for 9/11 this time . . .

in all seriousness, though, she seems to be severely confusing submissive behavior and nonviolent behavior. the final quote about being proper marriage material shows that pretty clearly. i do think that, theoretically, at least, we could view an increase in violence among girls as a means of lashing out against society's opression of them. if that were the case-- and i'm in no way saying that it is-- we would want to condemn the method but encourage the message, and teach girls a more effective and nonviolent means of "fighting back." trying to teach girls that boys won't want to marry them if they act this way in no way solves the problem. it only furthers their opression and encourages submissiveness-- NOT nonviolence.

Under the sub-heading "Female Offenders," which is buried in the middle of the article, they actually cite a bunch of statistics that contradict their thesis that girls and women are becoming more violent, such as the fact that "the number of girls aged 10 to 17 accused of possessing a knife or drugs fell in the last three years." I don't understand, if this is actually true, why Dr. Henry's opinions are the driving force of the article. Shouldn't the lead be something like, "Despite recent high-profile instances of female aggression, violence by women on downward trend, police say"??

"Dr Henry believes the issue runs around the meaning of female identity itself, and she points to schemes in the US which are aimed at helping girls understand that.

'You need to get to them at 10 and 11 years old to educate them about what it means to be a girl.'"

US programs that teach girls what it means to be a girl around age 10 or 11. Hmmm.... do you think she might mean the recently thoroughly debunked abstinence-only programs? Because, obviously, these programs have done WONDERS for young women. *eyeroll*

What a sensationalistic piece of crap article that was! The article bemoans the media images of female violence, and admits up front that "Statistically, an increase in numbers of offences of violence and disorder involving girls is hard to prove." And then, instead of stopping there, it goes on to linger vouyeristically on juicy episodes of female violence.

I don't know about you guys, but when I was fifteen, the Spice Girls' "kicking and lashing out" made me want to buy a gun and bring it to the next pep rally!

We can trace this back to Ms. Pac Man, naturally.

I am having difficulty believing that a female academic could spout such backwards claptrap as the 'marriage material' guff and 'learning what it is to be a girl' in 2007.

Who is she and in what century was she born?

When a minority of women are violent (statistically, a very small percentage compared to male criminals), it seems that everyone is up in arms and going "OMG! Those eeeeeevil and dangerous women...". But when women are victims of violence, you see tons of articles about what THEY should do to "not get themselves raped" and ZERO articles about "OMG! Those eeeeeevil and dangerous rapists...". I guess as long as it's common, it's OK.

As others have pointed out, the article is clearly one more case of, "hey, you reporter, here's some sensational crimes, make em into an epidemic!" Reporter goes out and finds dubious anti-woman "expert" who willingly spouts the pop psych we all love to read in the paper, buries the actual statistics way below the fold, and BAM! everyone starts veering away from the potentially knife-wielding 12 yr olds on the street. If you look at yearly or quarterly reports on crime, every city is always concerned that crime is rising, or at least so the news stories go, but the statistics always turn out to be "five more murders than last year" or a 2 percent increase following a 12% decline over the decade before. I think Sally Henry has watched too much violent TV and is getting fantastical ideas in her head.

My take when I read this article was that the acedemic was pushing her own value system onto young girls who obviously have a different set of values. I'd be extremely surprised if knife carrying girls were concerned about procuring a good marriage.

It is my opinion that knife carrying girls are seeking peer respect and credibility, not a good husband. If you want to change this then change the patriachal ideology that values violence.

Yes, this whole thing is stupid (she said eloquently). Here's something that stood out to me:

These girls think physical violence empowers them.

Physical violence does empower them, at least in that moment. That's what power is--the abililty to enforce your desires on someone else. It's a power that men have had access to for a very long time, and it's a fantasy of power that's wildly popular (look at action movies, for example). I'm not a fan of real-life violence, but we're not going to get anywhere unless we acknowledge why people engage in it.

I'm sorry, chem_fem, your post does not meet BBC news standards. It relies too heavily on logic and common sense.

FYI- I googled the good doctor and she has a book coming out. about mental health and broken families.
***
When women and girls use violence it seems they are subject to much harsher punishment than men and boys- because they have to be punished 1. for the violence and 2. for being a girl who uses violence.
At least this is how it seems to me.

I think that if a girl is causing violence then there may be some reasoning behind it. I do not think that any teenage girl would start a violent attack for no reason at all. If she is being bullied or if she is being pushed around and teased then I guess I can see reasoning for it and I do not believe that girls should be criticize for it. Males do it all of the time and they get in trouble but not really get criticized. I think that if girls are goning to get criticized then boys should to.

kpsisu, I was thinking just that. Britain does have something of a burgeoning youth violence issue, or at least it appears that way from the media and from my friends' reports--but it seems girls' behavior is being decried because it is non-gender-normative and thus somehow more *shocking*, while the opportunity to address violence in general, and specifically youth violence, is being sacrificed in favor of reinforcing tired stereotypes. "What it means to be a girl" seems to mean "submission and gentleness even when surrounded by violence and at risk of victimization." I mean, if everyone else is carrying a knife, I'd sure as hell want to have one too!

Um...ye... If a girl is being violent and carrying around knives the main concern is that she's "marriage material?" WTF. You'd think that they'd focus on the environment or psychological issues that makes kids violent and carry weapons around (male or female). But no, the important thing is to make sure they're proper girls that the boys will want to marry.

When I was 11 years old, I was frequently physically attacked by 12 & 13-year old girls at my junior high. These girls beat me during girl scout camping trips, in restrooms of public buildings, & on the school soccer field -- there were NO boys around during these attacks. These girls were from middle-class, home-owning families -- whatever possessed them to physically attack me had *nothing* to do with boys or feminism and *everything* to do with horrendous parenting.

Honestly, how did this daft woman get a doctorate? She actually claims to have a PhD in "bullying", though I suppose she means "the study of bullying" or, you know, "social anthropology/behavioural science/etc".

Having also googled her, it's pretty clear what her game is: she provides a talking head on any vaguely media-friendly bullying issue, issuing press releases on such pressing subjects as whether the characters in a soap opera are "encouraging" kids to be mean to each other.

So, fine, she's gunning for the media don spot: but what the hell is someone who is supposed to be an expert in behaviour doing castigating tweens for their violent behaviour on the basis that it won't help them get a husband? I really don't think that's what they're after. They're twelve. Some of them were actually born (gulp) after the Spice Girls released "Wannabe". These kids haven't even heard of the Spice Girls, let alone Germaine Greer. Dr Henry may as well blame those crazy African voodoo rhythms of that new "jazz" music all the hep cats are cranking up on their gramophones these days.

I suggest Dr Henry tries a simple experiment of sitting at home all day and watching music videos. I guarantee that she will observe, at most, 5% of them showing women being aggressive. Meanwhile, at least 50% of them will show women as passive sexbot objects, draped over cars, shaking their booties, gazing dead-eyed into space, pouting, etc. If she's really lucky, she might get to see that Nelly video where he runs a credit card between the cheeks of a woman's backside.

Also, if you read the article, the grand total of girls aged 10-17 caught carrying a knife in London - a city of 8 million people - was, er, 25. Violent crime epidemic! Women on the warpath! Twisted feminism and music videos turn twenty-five of our young girls into bloodthirsty stabby hellvixens!

Meanwhile, one in five 16-year-old boys in the UK admits attacking someone with a knife with an intent to cause serious injury. But I suppose that's just to be expected - someone has obviously educated them about "what it means to be a boy" early on. http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm#Statistics%20-%20the%20numbers

Vanessa, Vanessa,

Don't you know that everything a girl does is to empress boys? From the moment we take our first breath after birth to our first potty to our last dying breath, it's all for the menz.

"These girls think physical violence empowers them. It is feeding their aggression and they are misinterpreting it as some kind of feminism"

This IS a kind of feminism to the extent that feminism means taking power that has previously been reserved for men and boys to use. Most violence isn't a socially acceptable form of power, but let's not pretend that it's a powerless act.

I beat up a boy when I was in elementary school because that was a girl's ticket onto the baseball field. Violence is transgressive and powerful and I hate it now, but I won't tell anyone to stop because it's unladylike.

I came across this today:

Stab-proof hoodies on sale

Now, is this actually a symptom of a bigger problem in Britain, or are certain people trying to sell something?

"I am having difficulty believing that a female academic could spout such backwards claptrap as the 'marriage material' guff and 'learning what it is to be a girl' in 2007."

Maybe she doesn't want those girls to compete with her when they grow up...

This would explain the increase of female suicide bombers in Iraq of course. They're feminists.

PrairieLily – there have been some high profile stabbings by teenagers lately, and kids in London being shot in their beds... Not sure if it's a genuine statistical increase, or a few incidents and yes, someone's trying to makek a quick buck.

Um, like, The Spice Girls are like, soooo 1997.

But seriously, feminism never meant kicking the crap out of anybody (unless you're trying to defend yourself, of course).

It saddens me that there are academics who have not only been duped into the media and popular culture's idea of "girl power," but they're actually basing research on falsehoods, namely that feminism is somehow to blame.

And that Hugh McKinney quote in the article turned my stomach.