Showing posts with label youth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youth. Show all posts

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Trends in Contemporary Social Movement Leaders



Beginning with Malala Yousafzai, she along with Emma González and Greta Thurnberg, have been leading major campaigns since the early 2010's. Lots of patterns to recognise here, not only with respect to these three individuals, but also in how segments of society have responded to them.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Dominant-Minority Relations: Malmo, Sweden


Joseph Rodriguez, with the BBC World Service, has an interesting piece posted titled, "Open Eye: Swedish racial tension." The photofilm effectively demonstrates dominant-minority relations in a community of Malmo, Sweden, known as Rosengard.

The piece is an effective tool in illustrating how social stratification (social inequality) influences youthful minority group members. As the photofilm shows, young people from Rosengard, live in a heavily segregated community, estranged from the majority population. And in this community, young Palestinians, Iraqis, Somalis, and so on compete with one another for respect in a space with limited resources.


Those interviewed speak of exclusion and stereotyping on the part of the dominant Swedish culture, who do not always offer young minority students equal opportunities to be exposed to conventional workplaces. Interviewees also describe examples of avoidance, in that some minority group members feel more comfortable remaining in ethnic enclaves, speaking their native language rather than Swedish.

Deviance is displayed as a reaction among minority youth, who resist what they define as an oppressive and exclusionary broader Swedish culture, as well as retreatism into substance use and withdrawl from the overall social system.

Because the photofilm is so heavily fixated on the minority youths' perspectives from Rosengard, viewers get a biased perspective on how these groups are integrating (or not integrating) into Sweden's culture. In other words, although youth interviewed overtly state most minority youth from Rosengard do not engage in deviant behaviors, the overall sense in the photofilm is that minority, immigrant youth tend to be trouble-makers (this is a concern that emerges whenever a complex issue is condensed into a piece with limited time).

Finally, the piece (in particular, the lengthier
22-minute podcast) offers excellent content for discussing how a society can address social stratification and deviance. Youth discuss Sweden's robust educational and rehabilitative social services. Again, unfortunately, because youth who are not succeeding according to the majority groups' standards are profiled, listeners are left thinking minority group members are more inclined to exploit these services, rather than use them constructively to secure upward social mobility.

Overall, this is a fantastic film that can spark a number of important conversations regarding multiculturalism, immigration, governmental/social support, dominant-minority relations, and how one coveys messages to the public through media outlets with limited timeframes.

Academics Blogs
academics blog

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Contextualizing Dating Violence in Jersey Shore


The past few weeks of MTv’s reality television show,
Jersey Shore, have provided strong examples of the ways co-occurring violence can emerge in young people's intimate relationships and have differing effects based on the respective individuals' sex. For those unfamiliar with the show, you may read a sociological perspective here.

Among the show's cast of characters are Ronnie (a muscular and physically imposing individual) and Sammi – a romantically involved couple. The couple has incessant conflicts tied to jealousy and lack of trust (Ronnie, apparently, cheated on Sammi in a past season). The show typifies many reality shows in that contentious relationships between the characters are further problematized through participants' youth, a lack of structure, and easy access to alcohol.

Jersey Shore's episodes offer little in the way of substance. Characters are given employment,
consume alcohol excessively, party at nightclubs, and among a few other activities, pursue mostly transient sexual relationships. Still, due to the show's immense popularity, it merits some scholarly analysis, especially when sexuality mixes with violence to a degree of regularity.



Episode 18: "Drunk Punch Love": Contextualizing Dating Violence

In episode 18 of season 2, titled "
Drunk Punch Love," Sammi verbally accosts Ronnie (pictured above) after he re-forges his friendship with another female cast-member, Jenni (a.k.a., "Jwoww," also Sammi’s enemy). Upon admitting friendship with Jenni, Sammi punches Ronnie directly on his chin as he sits on a bench, completely unprepared. Sammi storms off while Ronnie responds by sitting relatively unfazed, mildly feeling his jaw.

This episode of dating violence illustrates the problem with an emergence of teen dating violence studies that Jody Miller and Norman White critique in their important article, "
Gender and Adolescent Relationship Violence: A Contextual Examination." Miller and White point out that a good portion of quantitative studies on adolescent dating violence suggests boys and girls are equally as likely to be perpetrators of dating violence (e.g., hitting a dating partner). These studies, however, are misleading because they completely de-contextualize what appear to be equal levels of violence between boys and girls (or young men and women).

Although girls may hit their male intimate partners as often as males hit their female partners, this does not mean the precursors to violence or ramifications of violence are equal. As seen in Jersey Shore, Sammi's physical violence is preceded by Ronnie's unfaithful history; she has immense trust issues specifically because he cheated on her. And though this does not excuse physical violence on Sammi's part, it helps provide a context to her actions.

Secondly, we see very vividly that Sammi's physical violence directed towards Ronnie has almost zero physical impact. Her strike directly upon his chin, with Ronnie completely unprepared, still leaves Ronnie unharmed (at least physically; he later breaks down emotionally). And in fact, teen dating violence studies have found that male adolescents frequently laugh off being hit by their girlfriends. The same cannot be said nearly as often when males hit females.

Thus, when dating violence studies find equal rates of physical violence between heterosexual adolescent couples and report those findings without proper context, they are missing critical information tied to gender imbalances between males and females. This episode of Jersey Shore effectively illustrates how irresponsible it is to report that males and females hitting one another at equal rates is actually equal.



Episode 19: "Should We Just Break Up?": Being a Bystander During Dating Violence

The Jersey Shore dating violence drama continues in episode 19, "
Should We Just Break Up?" In this episode, the couple continues intensely arguing to the point that the other three male cast-members – Michael, Paul, and Vinny (a.k.a., "MVP") – intervene.

Ronnie, who is far larger and more muscular than any of the other males, never strikes Sammi (pictured above). Still, he is extremely physical when expressing his anger and has been in at least one fight with another male (non-cast-member) in a past episode. As the "MVP" trio intervenes, both Ronnie and Sammi magnify their verbal aggression and physical bravado, though neither partner strikes the other. Eventually, the male trio successfully gets Ronnie to leave, thereby creating a reprieve to the dating violence.

Unfortunately, the lure used to help Ronnie leave is taking him to a nightclub, where he may consume more alcohol. And unsurprisingly, Sammi and her female cast-mates decide to go to the same nightclub where she openly flirts and dances seductively with male patrons. Seeing Sammi's actions as a sign of public disrespect, Ronnie is infuriated, goes back to the house and tears apart her belongings in a fit of rage. The Jersey Shore cast-members watch on at this point without intervening.

This sequence of events again illustrates young people's unfamiliarity with how to address obvious forms of dating violence. Weisz and Black, in their study titled "
Peer Intervention in Dating Violence: Beliefs of African American Middle School Adolescents," found that high percentages of African American middle school students would not intervene in a peer-couple's relationship even if they knew violence was taking place. Students (male and female) reported they would not intervene because (among other reasons) it was none of their business, intervening could hurt them, and their intervention may cause more unforeseen problems.

Again, the way the scenarios played out on Jersey Shore effectively demonstrated how young people do not know how to cope as bystanders with peer dating violence. Truth be told, the "MVP" trio did a good job of initially stopping the dating violence. However, both the male and female bystanders/cast-members probably did the worst thing in having Sammi and Ronnie go out and consume more alcohol in the same location. Watching Sammi dance seductively with other males, Ronnie felt his masculinity was publicly violated, leading him to engage in violent property damage.

As an outside observer, it is impossible to say how much of Jersey Shore is constructed by the production team. This notwithstanding, recent episodes showcase how dating violence emanates among young people. We can see dating violence contextualized along imbalanced gender lines, as well as how bystanders of dating violence struggle to cope with the social problem largely because they don't know how to intervene in a healthy manner.


Not that we can expect more from MTv, but it would be nice if the company at least complimented these Jersey Shore episodes with supplementary videos on how to prevent teen dating violence. They must have the resources that could speak to greater social responsibility. I mean really, does MTv want young viewers thinking that true love is supposed to be violent?

Academics Blogs
academics online

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Reading Eminem and Rihanna's 'Love The Way You Lie'

Ever since Eminem and Rihanna's video for their hit song "Love The Way You Lie" was released, I've been thinking about the song's violent lyrics and its video's violent imagery. The folks over at Sociological Images helped me wrap my initial thoughts around the video:

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a beautiful song. Rihanna’s vocals are gorgeous; it’s was hard to not feel heartfelt while listening to them. And that’s the problem. It’s a powerful form of socialization. That we might internalize the message that passionate love and incontrollable rage go hand-in-hand is really very scary. It suggests not only that you should tolerate interpersonal violence but that, if there is no violence in your relationship, perhaps you don’t really love one another.

How many individuals feel happy when their partner expresses jealousy, even goes into a jealous rage? Why is that dynamic normalized in varying degrees? There's no denying the song's popularity. According to Yahoo! Finance, "Love the Way You Lie," "...has reigned at No. 1 on the Digital Songs chart for five consecutive weeks and has sold more than 1.4 million downloads." A portion of the lyrics:

Told you this is my fault
Look me in the eyeball
Next time I'm pissed
I'll aim my fist
At the dry wall
Next time
There will be no next time
I apologize
Even though I know it's lies
I'm tired of the games
I just want her back
I know I'm a liar
If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I'mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

Graphic and shocking to say the least, as are the images in the video, which features movie and television stars Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan:





Graphic and shocking was largely the point. The song was authored by Eminem, who then asked to collaborate with Rihanna, in part because of her history as an intimate partner violence (IPV) victim (listen
here for an excellent discussion on Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the gendered politics of IPV). Against my general principles, I dug into the "bee-bop" popular culture internet sites to see what I could find about how this song and video were intended to address IPV. In fact, there are direct connections being made between the video and IPV.

For instance, Megan Fox has
donated her video appearance fee to a shelter for battered women. And in a VH1 interview with Rihanna, the music star explains her and Eminem's personal connection to the song's theme:

"It's something that, you know, [Eminem and I have] both experienced, you know, on different sides, different ends of the table," she said.

"It just was authentic. It was real," Rihanna continued. "It was believable for us to do a record like that, but it was also something that needed to be done and the way he did it was so clever. He pretty much just broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that a lot people don't have a lot of insight on, so this song is a really, really powerful song and it touches a lot of people."

[...]

Ultimately, the song was something Rihanna felt was in line with her past relationship. "The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with," she revealed.

"The concept of 'Love the Way You Lie' was essentially a look at the relationship that Eminem was in with his wife, Kim, so I kind of felt like I was playing Eminem a little bit, and Megan Fox was kind of playing Kim.

"It's the story of them getting to know each other, and it's the story of their tumultuous relationship, and it was the story of the breakdown of their relationship," he continued. "Ultimately, what I think he's trying to say in the song ... is that he should have walked away a little bit quicker than he did and not let it get as messy as it did."

At least explicity, there was critical thought put into this popular culture artifact. My question is, how will young people from different demographics and different life experiences interpret the song's and video's violent content? The one empirical study I could find on Eminem's music and its effects on listeners found that young adults who listened to his songs with misogynistic lyrics were largely unaffected by them, though the study was only conducted with research participants who were college students (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).

In my
dissertation, adolescent research participants spoke quite openly about the ways they saw IPV as completely normal. These were teens who had experienced multiple forms of violence throughout their lives (peer, family, romantic, drug, physical, verbal) -- certainly not the average college student. I wonder what their interpretations would be.

Then yesterday, I heard a male radio DJ essentially state the following after "Love The Way You Lie" was played: "You know, Megan Fox is supposed to play an abused victim in that song's video, (chuckling) but in the video, she's the abuser. I didn't see her get hit once. She was doing all the hitting!" Uh, yeah, real funny. Was that the video's intent? And did he miss all the punching of the walls (physical intimidation)? Contrast that point of view with a female student in my Sociology of Popular Culture class:

As for the video, I think maybe it has good intentions, especially using two artists who have a history with IPV, but I don't think it will be beneficial. Using [Dominic Monaghan] and Megan Fox (a sex symbol for everyone today) [it] seems to glorify the topic by using two high end celebrities. This video seemed like it wanted to make domestic violence look sexy and possessiveness look masculine.

Perhaps for some listeners, the song and video do raise consciousness regarding IPV prevention -- what Monaghan said the video is intended to accomplish. But certainly not for everyone. For the student quoted above, the video was offensive and reified traditional gender norms. To get a little academic, from John Storey (1993):

...an image containing references to pop music culture might be seen by a young audience as an index of freedom and heterogeneity, whilst to an older audience it might signal manipulation and homgeneity. Which codes are mobilized will largely depend on the triple context of the location of the text, the historical moment and the cultural formation of the reader (p. 80).

Since people with different social histories interpret popular culture differently, I'd be interested to see how young people from different demographics digest this song and video. Do the cultural artifacts problematize IPV (the stated intent) or further normalize and perpetuate this form of violence?

Or, as indicated by the radio DJ, does this video mobilize codes that perpetuate misunderstandings about co-occurring violence in intimate relationships? For instance, too many people assume that when males and females hit each other, the physical ramifications are equally harmful. Does the video gloss over the fact that verbal abuse, social isolation, and other forms of control (e.g., forcing what a partner wears) can be more damaging than physical violence?

The song's and video's influence will likely diminish over time. Nonetheless, "Love The Way You Lie" demonstrates how people's readings of the same cultural product can vary greatly, and how received meanings can be shaped more by audiences' past experiences than by the cultural producers.

Non Internet Sources:

Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (12), 3025-3042.

Storey, J. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Academics Blogs
Blogging

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Youth Substance Use and Indigenous Peoples

More from the 2009 YRBSS survey, taken among 9th-12th graders in the United States (see also previous post). The youth violence rates among "American Indians and Alaskan Natives" (AI/AN) and "Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders" (NHOPI) were so high compared to the other constructed "race" groups that I decided to check out how they compared for some of the more serious substance use items (there are also more minor forms of substance use, such as "ever used alcohol" and "ever used marijuana," for which the epidemiological literature generally shows Caucasian youth tend to have higher rates). "Top two" groups bolded again (males and females combined).


1. Tried Marijuana For The First Time Before Age 13 Years
  • Total (7.5%; N=16,134); females (5.0%; N=8,183); males (9.7%; N=7,888)
  • AI/AN total (18.1%; N=137); females (N/A; N=55); males (N/A; N=80)
  • Asian total (2.5%; N=741); females (1.1%; N=399); males (3.9%; N=342)
  • Black total (10.2%; N=2,741); females (4.1%; N=1,1413); males (16.1%; N=1,322)
  • Hispanic (10.3%; N=4,676); females (7.8%; N=2,412); males (12.9%; N=2,251)
  • NHOPI (15.0%; N=173); females (N/A; N=83); males (N/A; N=89)
  • White (5.7%; N=6,828); females (4.0%; N=3,403); males (7.1%; N=3,418)
  • Multiple race (9.1%; N=547); females (9.2%; N=307); males (8.9%; N=240)

2. Drank Alcohol For The First Time Before Age 13 Years (more than just a few sips)
  • Total (21.1%; N=16,207); females (18.1%; N=8,194); males (23.7%; N=7,949)
  • AI/AN total (36.0%; N=136); females (N/A; N=54); males (N/A; N=80)
  • Asian total (14.8%; N=734); females (12.4%; N=392); males (17.2%; N=342)
  • Black total (24.9%; N=2,773); females (21.9%; N=1,429); males (27.6%; N=1,338)
  • Hispanic (27.1%; N=4,692); females (23.2%; N=2,408); males (31.0%; N=2,271)
  • NHOPI (23.9%; N=176); females (N/A; N=83); males (N/A; N=92)
  • White (18.1%; N=6,854); females (15.5%; N=3,411); males (20.3%; N=3,436)
  • Multiple race (22.7%; N=552); females (20.0%; N=308); males (26.0%; N=244)

3. Ever Used Any Form Of Cocaine One Or More Times (for example, powder, crack, or freebase, during their life)
  • Total (6.4%; N=16,204); females (5.3%; N=8,214); males (7.3%; N=7,927)
  • AI/AN total (10.9%; N=135); females (N/A; N=53); males (N/A; N=80)
  • Asian total (3.9%; N=744); females (2.7%; N=402); males (5.2%; N=342)
  • Black total (2.9%; N=2,769); females (1.5%; N=1,431); males (4.3%; N=1,332)
  • Hispanic (9.4%; N=4,692); females (8.7%; N=2,415); males (10.1%; N=2,265)
  • NHOPI (8.5%; N=174); females (N/A; N=82); males (N/A; N=91)
  • White (6.3%; N=6,846); females (5.4%; N=3,410); males (7.1%; N=3,429)
  • Multiple race (3.8%; N=492); females (2.3%; N=274); males (5.5%; N=218)

4. Ever Used Heroin One Or More Times (also called "smack", "junk", or "China white", during their life)
  • Total (2.5%; N=15,731); females (1.7%; N=7,923); males (3.2%; N=7,750)
  • AI/AN total (3.1%; N=134); females (N/A; N=53); males (N/A; N=79)
  • Asian total (2.4%; N=662); females (1.3%; N=348); males (3.5%; N=314)
  • Black total (2.2%; N=2,757); females (0.7%; N=1,418); males (3.6%; N=1,333)
  • Hispanic (3.3%; N=4,450); females (2.9%; N=2,270); males (3.6%; N=2,171)
  • NHOPI (6.1%; N=144); females (N/A; N=67); males (N/A; N=76)
  • White (2.2%; N=6,798); females (1.6%; N=3,381); males (2.7%; N=3,411)
  • Multiple race (3.3%; N=501); females (1.9%; N=278); males (4.9%; N=223)

5. Ever Used Methamphetamines One Or More Times (also called "speed", "crystal", "crank", or "ice", during their life)
  • Total (4.1%; N=16,289); females (3.3%; N=8,244); males (4.7%; N=7,982)
  • AI/AN total (11.0%; N=137); females (N/A; N=54); males (N/A; N=81)
  • Asian total (3.1%; N=745); females (3.0%; N=401); males (3.2%; N=344)
  • Black total (2.7%; N=2,790); females (1.0%; N=1,437); males (4.5%; N=1,347)
  • Hispanic (5.7%; N=4,728); females (5.2%; N=2,430); males (6.1%; N=2,286)
  • NHOPI (7.7%; N=175); females (N/A; N=83); males (N/A; N=91)
  • White (3.7%; N=6,868); females (3.2%; N=3,419); males (4.2%; N=3,442)
  • Multiple race (4.6%; N=550); females (4.0%; N=307); males (5.3%; N=243)

6. Ever Used Ecstasy One Or More Times (also called "MDMA", during their life)
  • Total (6.7%; N=15,887); females (5.5%; N=8,016); males (7.6%; N=7,811)
  • AI/AN total (13.3%; N=134); females (N/A; N=53); males (N/A; N=79)
  • Asian total (4.3%; N=713); females (3.2%; N=383); males (5.3%; N=330)
  • Black total (5.1%; N=2,758); females (3.8%; N=1,420); males (6.5%; N=1,332)
  • Hispanic (8.2%; N=4,485); females (7.5%; N=2,287); males (8.9%; N=2,187)
  • NHOPI (12.0%; N=161); females (N/A; N=78); males (N/A; N=82)
  • White (6.4%; N=6,814); females (5.3%; N=3,388); males (7.4%; N=3,420)
  • Multiple race (8.0%; N=536); females (6.6%; N=298); males (9.8%; N=238)

7. Ever Took Steroid Pills Or Shots Without A Doctor's Prescription One Or More Times (during their life)
  • Total (3.3%; N=16,320); females (2.2%; N=8,256); males (4.3%; N=8,001)
  • AI/AN total (7.6%; N=139); females (N/A; N=55); males (N/A; N=82)
  • Asian total (3.1%; N=747); females (2.4%; N=403); males (3.8%; N=344)
  • Black total (2.8%; N=2,803); females (0.9%; N=1,441); males (4.6%; N=1,356)
  • Hispanic (3.9%; N=4,734); females (3.2%; N=2,433); males (4.6%; N=2,289)
  • NHOPI (5.3%; N=175); females (N/A; N=83); males (N/A; N=91)
  • White (3.1%; N=6,873); females (2.1%; N=3,419); males (3.9%; N=3,447)
  • Multiple race (3.4%; N=552); females (1.9%; N=309); males (5.2%; N=243)

8. Offered, Sold, Or Given An Illegal Drug By Someone On School Property (during the 12 months before the survey)
  • Total (22.7%; N=16,261); females (19.3%; N=8,238); males (25.9%; N=7,962)
  • AI/AN total (34.0%; N=139); females (N/A; N=55); males (N/A; N=82)
  • Asian total (18.3%; N=748); females (15.1%; N=402); males (21.5%; N=346)
  • Black total (22.2%; N=2,782); females (18.8%; N=1,435); males (25.7%; N=1,341)
  • Hispanic (31.2%; N=4,721); females (27.1%; N=2,429); males (35.1%; N=2,280)
  • NHOPI (27.6%; N=174); females (N/A; N=83); males (N/A; N=90)
  • White (19.8%; N=6,855); females (16.5%; N=3,412); males (22.7%; N=3,436)
  • Multiple race (26.9%; N=550); females (23.0%; N=308); males (31.6%; N=242)

Although I didn't show the results for every survey item listed under the substance use construct, it's still worth noting that AI/AN's had the highest prevalence rates for 7/8 survey items listed above. NHOPI's were in the "top two" for 5/7 survey items. Again, the small sample sizes for the two indigenous groups (counting "NHOPI" here since Hawaiians are included) are unfortunate. However, the high prevalence rates for these two indigenous "umbrella" ethnic groups cannot be ignored. More research and resources are, no doubt, needed in these communities.

Academics Blogs
Blog Directory

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Youth Violence and Indigenous Peoples

The Centers for Disease Control has their Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) that provides rates of different types of risk for 9th-12th graders across the United States. The 2009 data are out, and there's some extremely interesting findings.

To begin with, those going to the site can break down the data by grade, state, "race," and sex, and even test for statistical significance when making comparative requests. It's quite impressive, so that's what I did.

First, with regard to "race," there are the typical concerns. The sample size is just over 16,000, so its representativeness is suspect, especially when considering certain groups. The "Asian" group for instance, has just under 750 subjects, and the rates of risk tend to be low when compared to other groups. Of course, "Asians" are comprised of Japanese, Chinese, Laotians, Filipinos, Cambodians, etc.
Southeast Asians typically have much higher risk rates than East Asians, so it's a problematic and small "umbrella" category, but one that would become even smaller if broken down by all the ethnic groups that comprise the "Asian" rubric. Same concern for "Hispanics" -- how do specific Latino groups differ?

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's look at the rates of different types of violence, compared by "race" and sex. I've bolded the two groups (males and females combined) with the highest prevalence rates for each type of violence, also providing percentages ("yes" respondents) and sample sizes for each group.

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

1. Carried a weapon on school property on at least 1 day (for example, a gun, knife, or club during the 30 days before survey)
  • Total 5.6% (N=16,256) females 2.9% (N=8,239) males 8.0% (N=7,958)
  • American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI/AN) total 4.2% (N=138) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=81)
  • Asian total 3.6% (N=746) females 0.9% (N=402) males 6.3% (N=344)
  • Black total 5.3% (N=2,795) females 4.0% (N=1,437) males 6.6% (N=1,351)
  • Hispanic total 5.8% (N=4,712) females 3.7% (N=2,424) males 7.9% (N=2,277)
  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) total 9.8% (N=177) females N/A (N=85) males N/A (N=91)
  • White total 5.6% (N=6,848) females 2.4% (N=3,415) males 8.3% (N=3,426)
  • Multiple race total 5.8% (N=552) females 4.7% (N=309) males 7.3% (N=243)

2. Did not go to school because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school on at least 1 day (during the 30 days before survey)

  • Total 5.0% (N=16,371) females 5.3% (N=8,268) males 4.6% (N=8,040)
  • AI/AN total 8.7% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 2.9% (N=749) females 3.4% (N=403) males 2.3% (N=346)
  • Black total 6.3% (N=2,817) females 6.6% (N=1,445) males 5.9% (N=1,365)
  • Hispanic total 8.1% (N=4,750) females 8.3% (N=2,432) males 7.9% (N=2,305)
  • NHOPI total 10.6% (N=179) females N/A (N=85) males N/A (N=94)
  • White total 3.5% (N=6,886) females 3.8% (N=3,424) males 3.3% (N=3,455)
  • Multiple race total 5.5% (N=558) females 5.4% (N=311) males 5.6% (N=247)

3. Threatened or injured with a weapon on school property one or more times (for example, a gun, knife, or club during the 12 months before survey)

  • Total 7.7% (N=16,367) females 5.5% (N=8,264) males 9.6% (N=8,041)
  • AI/AN total 16.5% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 5.5% (N=750) females 1.6% (N=403) males 9.4% (N=347)
  • Black total 9.4% (N=2,828) females 7.4% (N=1,448) males 11.2% (N=1,373)
  • Hispanic total 9.1% (N=4,742) females 6.3% (N=2,429) males 12.0% (N=2,301)
  • NHOPI total 12.5% (N=179) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=94)
  • White total 6.4% (N=6,883) females 4.9% (N=3,423) males 7.8% (N=3,453)
  • Multiple race total 9.2% (N=557) females 5.2% (N=311) males 14.0% (N=246)

4. In a physical fight on school property one or more times (during 12 months before survey)

  • Total 11.1% (N=16,089) females 6.7% (N=8,150) males 15.1% (N=7,879)
  • AI/AN total 20.7% (N=135) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=80)
  • Asian total 7.7% (N=732) females 4.1% (N=397) males 11.4% (N=335)
  • Black total 17.4% (N=2,769) females 12.5% (N=1,430) males 22.2% (N=1,332)
  • Hispanic total 13.5% (N=4,676) females 9.3% (N=2,400) males 17.7% (N=2,263)
  • NHOPI total 14.8% (N=175) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=91)
  • White total 8.6% (N=6,771) females 4.3% (N=3,371) males 12.4% (N=3,394)
  • Multiple race total 12.4% (N=541) females 7.5% (N=302) males 18.3% (N=239)

5. Bullied on school property (during 12 months before survey)

  • Total 19.9% (N=15,633) females 21.2% (N=7,838) males 18.7% (N=7,734)
  • AI/AN total 33.8% (N=133) females N/A (N=52) males N/A (N=79)
  • Asian total 17.5% (N=650) females 13.9% (N=344) males 21.0% (N=306)
  • Black total 13.7% (N=2,728) females 15.5% (N=1,399) males 11.9% (N=1,322)
  • Hispanic total 18.5% (N=4,440) females 18.9% (N=2,254) males 18.0% (N=2,175)
  • NHOPI total 20.4% (N=146) females N/A (N=68) males N/A (N=77
  • White total 21.6% (N=6,756) females 23.5% (N=3,341) males 19.9% (N=3,409)
  • Multiple race total 23.9% (N=497) females 22.8% (N=273) males 25.1% (N=224)

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

6. Carried a weapon on at least 1 day (for example, a gun, knife, or a club during the 30 days before survey)

  • Total 17.5% (N=16,110) females 7.1% (N=8,203) males 27.1% (N=7,848)
  • AI/AN total 20.7% (N=137) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=80)
  • Asian total 8.4% (N=745) females 3.8% (N=401) males 13.0% (N=344)
  • Black total 14.4% (N=2,746) females 7.8% (N=1,427) males 21.0% (N=1,312)
  • Hispanic total 17.2% (N=4,667) females 7.9% (N=2,412) males 26.5% (N=2,244)
  • NHOPI total 20.3% (N=175) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=90)
  • White total 18.6% (N=6,807) females 6.5% (N=3,405) males 29.3% (N=3,395)
  • Multiple race total 17.9% (N=550) females 10.9% (N=308) males 26.2% (N=242)

7. Carried a gun on at least 1 day (during the 30 days before survey)

  • Total 5.9% (N=15,664) females 1.7% (N=7,916) males 9.8% (N=7,690)
  • AI/AN total 7.6% (N=135) females N/A (N=54) males N/A (N=79)
  • Asian total 3.4% (N=662) females 0.8% (N=347) males 5.7% (N=315)
  • Black total 7.6% (N=2,736) females 1.8% (N=1,417) males 13.2% (N=1,312)
  • Hispanic total 5.1% (N=4,430) females 1.9% (N=2,266) males 8.2% (N=2,154)
  • NHOPI total 10.4% (N=145) females N/A (N=69) males N/A (N=75)
  • White total 5.8% (N=6,778) females 1.5% (N=3,377) males 9.5% (N=3,395)
  • Multiple race total 7.2% (N=502) females 3.3% (N=279) males 11.7% (N=223)

8. In a physical fight 1 or more times (during the 12 months before survey)

  • Total 31.5% (N=16,130) females 22.9% (N=8,183) males 39.3% (N=7,890)
  • AI/AN total 42.4% (N=135) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=80)
  • Asian total 18.9% (N=737) females 13.2% (N=399) males 24.9% (N=338)
  • Black total 41.1% (N=2,759) females 33.9% (N=1,426) males 48.3% (N=1,326)
  • Hispanic total 36.2% (N=4,672) females 28.5% (N=2,404) males 43.8% (N=2,255)
  • NHOPI total 32.6% (N=174) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=90)
  • White total 27.8% (N=6,825) females 18.2% (N=3,402) males 36.0% (N=3,417)
  • Multiple race total 34.2% (N=549) females 26.7% (N=306) males 42.9% (N=243)

9. Injured in a physical fight one or more times (injuries had to be treated by a doctor or nurse, during 12 months before survey)

  • Total 3.8% (N=15,749) females 2.2% (N=7,938) males 5.1% (N=7,752)
  • AI/AN total 7.9% (N=134) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=79)
  • Asian total 2.9% (N=702) females 1.7% (N=378) males 4.1% (N=324)
  • Black total 5.7% (N=2,748) females 4.4% (N=1,414) males 7.0% (N=1,327)
  • Hispanic total 4.7% (N=4,462) females 3.3% (N=2,270) males 6.0% (N=2,181)
  • NHOPI total 7.3% (N=164) females N/A (N=79) males N/A (N=84)
  • White total 2.9% (N=6,732) females 1.3% (N=3,343) males 4.2% (N=3,383)
  • Multiple race total 3.9% (N=528) females 1.9% (N=294) males 6.2% (N=234)

10. Hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend (during the 12 months before the survey)

  • Total 9.8% (N=16,217) females 9.3% (N=8,196) males 10.3% (N=7,957)
  • AI/AN total 13.4% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 5.5% (N=740) females 5.3% (N=399) males 5.8% (N=341)
  • Black total 14.3% (N=2,803) females 14.8% (N=1,443) males 13.8% (N=1,353)
  • Hispanic total 11.5% (N=4,713) females 11.4% (N=2,414) males 11.7% (N=2,286)
  • NHOPI total 13.1% (N=177) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=92)
  • White total 8.0% (N=6,803) females 7.2% (N=3,380) males 8.8% (N=3,416)
  • Multiple race total 12.2% (N=548) females 11.2% (N=307) males 13.4% (N=241)

11. Every physically forced to have sexual intercourse (when they did not want to)

  • Total 7.4% (N=15,735) females 10.5% (N=7,926) males 4.5% (N=7,748)
  • AI/AN total 13.1% (N=135) females N/A (N=52) males N/A (N=81)
  • Asian total 5.7% (N=733) females 6.4% (N=396) males 4.9% (N=337)
  • Black total 10.0% (N=2,492) females 12.0% (N=1,286) males 7.9% (N=1,201)
  • Hispanic total 8.4% (N=4,680) females 11.2% (N=2,391) males 5.7% (N=2,276)
  • NHOPI total 11.9% (N=175) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=91)
  • White total 6.3% (N=6,696) females 10.0% (N=3,309) males 3.2% (N=3,380)
  • Multiple race total 9.3% (N=540) females 11.2% (N=301) males 6.9% (N=239)

SUICIDE

12. Felt sad or hopeless (almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row so that they stopped doing some usual activities during the 12 months before survey)

  • Total 26.1% (N=16,232) females 33.9% (N=8,199) males 19.1% (N=7,969)
  • AI/AN total 30.8% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 23.5% (N=741) females 26.4% (N=399) males 20.5% (N=342)
  • Black total 27.7% (N=2,811) females 37.5% (N=1,444) males 17.9% (N=1,360)
  • Hispanic total 31.6% (N=4,723) females 39.7% (N=2,420) males 23.6% (N=2,290)
  • NHOPI total 33.4% (N=177) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=93)
  • White total 23.7% (N=6,801) females 31.1% (N=3,381) males 17.2% (N=3,413)
  • Multiple race total 31.1% (N=544) females 35.8% (N=304) males 25.4% (N=240)

13. Seriously considered attempting suicide (during 12 months before the survey)

  • Total 13.8% (N=16,200) females 17.4% (N=8,189) males 10.5% (N=7,966)
  • AI/AN total 19.0% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 14.9% (N=740) females 16.9% (N=399) males 12.9% (N=341)
  • Black total 13.0% (N=2,805) females 18.1% (N=1,438) males 7.8% (N=1,360)
  • Hispanic total 15.4% (N=4,722) females 20.2% (N=2,417) males 10.7% (N=2,292)
  • NHOPI total 19.2% (N=179) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=94)
  • White total 13.1% (N=6,792) females 16.1% (N=3,377) males 10.5% (N=3,408)
  • Multiple race total 18.0% (N=545) females 21.2% (N=306) males 14.3% (N=239)

14. Made a plan about how they would attempt suicide (during the 12 months before survey)

  • Total 10.9% (N=16,213) females 13.2% (N=8,183) males 8.6% (N=7,965)
  • AI/AN total 17.0% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
  • Asian total 12.6% (N=740) females 14.7% (N=398) males 10.4% (N=342)
  • Black total 9.8% (N=2,798) females 13.3% (N=1,433) males 6.2% (N=1,358)
  • Hispanic total 12.2% (N=4,720) females 15.4% (N=2,418) males 9.0% (N=2,289)
  • NHOPI total 13.2% (N=177) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=92)
  • White total 10.3% (N=6,796) females 12.3% (N=3,376) males 8.5% (N=3,413)
  • Multiple race total 13.2% (N=545) females 14.4% (N=306) males 11.8% (N=239)

15. Attempted suicide 1 or more times (during the 12 months before survey)

  • Total 6.3% (N=14,609) females 8.1% (N=7,475) males 4.6% (N=7,082)
  • AI/AN total 10.0% (N=122) females N/A (N=51) males N/A (N=69)
  • Asian total 4.0% (N=681) females 3.7% (N=367) males 4.3% (N=314)
  • Black total 7.9% (N=2,308) females 10.4% (N=1,206) males 5.4% (N=1,096)
  • Hispanic total 8.1% (N=4,132) females 11.1% (N=2,151) males 5.1% (N=1,972)
  • NHOPI total 11.9% (N=155) females N/A (N=73) males N/A (N=81)
  • White total 5.0% (N=6,459) females 6.5% (N=3,237) males 3.8% (N=3,215)
  • Multiple race total 12.4% (N=509) females 13.7% (N=289) males 10.8% (N=220)

Okay, that's a lot to unpack. To begin with, there are some prevalence rates that merit discussions in their totality. The last survey item on suicide attempt(s) surprised me a bit. Over 1 in every 20 youths reports a suicide attempt within the last year. Survey item #11 on sexual assault also surprised me, with about 1 in 10 girls reporting forced sexual intercourse. These are American high school students. I knew these rates were high for young adults, but not this high for high schoolers.


Now onto the prevalence rates by "race." For 12/15 survey items displayed here, "American Indian or Alaskan Native" youth had either the highest or second highest prevalence rates. They had the highest rates for 8/15 survey items. "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" youth were in the "top two" for 11/15 survey items. None of the other construted "race" groups ranked among the "top two" slots nearly as much.


One could easily aruge the sample sizes for these groups are too small to make generalizations, and thus, they are not representative. That's a valid concern. At the same time, one cannot help but notice that these groups are also the colonized groups in the United States (well, for the NHOPI group, Hawaiians are). True, their proportion of the total U.S. teen population is small, but that is largely because of their colonial history.


These consistently high rates across numerous youth violence constructs demand further research with those communities and further illustrate colonialism's deleterious impacts on indigenous peoples. Without strong data, these communities have a more difficult time advocating for services and policy change. The feds need to get the concentrated research with indigenous communities conducted, and start providing these communities with more robust youth, family, and occupational resources, now!

Academics Blogs
Top Sites

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Community Building to Decrease Gang Violence


The L.A. Times has a very interesting article up (11.26.09), "Returning favor to a park: A recreation area once claimed by gangs has been turned into a vibrant community hub with help from an ex-Avalons heavy-hitter." It provides sociological information, demonstrating how larger macro forces historically set the stage for gang development in South Los Angeles. The story revolves around a current gang member, "Blue," and his ongoing commitment to a broader social responsibility, seen through his efforts to redevelop a park and make it open too all residents, including rival gang members and their families.

He is 38 now, with a barrel chest and Popeye forearms that belie the gray hairs in his goatee. In the gang world, he and his contemporaries are of a specific age. They were the first to become men during the truly terrible years in South L.A. 20 years ago, when crack cocaine came through like a tempest and gangs were averaging a killing a day.

Everyone, he said, seemed to desert them at once. Many of their parents were lost to drugs; his own mother was murdered and his father was addicted and absent, like most of the fathers he knew at the time. The police, he said, became cruel and combative. The schools offered little hope. The factory jobs on Alameda and Slauson — the jobs that had lured his grandparents from Louisiana, like thousands of other African American families — were gone. Blue and his friends had hustled a little cash by offering to pump gas for customers at the local stations; soon, even that was taken away, as crackheads kicked the boys out and took over.

"We didn’t have a man at home. I never had a single man walk through the door and say, ‘I paid the light bill today.’ None of us did,” Blue said.

"So now your mom is getting high. The lights get turned off. The house is getting stinky. We all looked at each other and said: ‘Well, I guess it’s just us now. We ain’t got no malls, no colleges, no jobs. But everybody wants to be a part of something. All we could do is claim . . . this."

He stretched his arms wide; he meant the park.

As implicitly stated, when economic opportunity rapidly declines due to the "free market" and global economy, the disastrous rippling effects are numerous. In addition to poverty, familial stress, the underground drug economy, community-police tensions, substance use, gang development, and youth violence all increase.

While the empirical research has found overwhelmingly that interventions should not encourage gang members to retain their gang affiliation in programs, the best part of this story covers the way in which law enforcement and "Blue" compromised and came to an agreement so that they could open up a park for constructive community use. At least thus far, the results appear very impressive in shifting a crime-ridden park to a sort of safe heaven for local residents:

["Blue"] also launched a tradition called “Spread Friday.” Each week he and his friends make a goulash of sorts, using only ingredients that are also available for purchase inside local jails: ramen topped with smoked oysters and canned beef, honey, jalapeños and crushed Doritos, tossed inside a garbage bag and doled out to all takers, who are surprisingly many — and eager. The meal, said Blue — who in his 20s served 22 months in prison for robbery — is a reminder that life will always be better on the outside.

Once Blue had signed off on the notion of the Avalons cooperating with the city — or at least allowing the community unfettered access to the park — the floodgates opened.

Using grants and money routed from City Councilwoman Jan Perry’s office, the park built a playground, replaced the gym floor and refurbished a band shell. The park launched a series of music performances. During the first concert, featuring blues and jazz, “everyone held their breath,” Cox said. Nothing happened. So at the next show, Cox asked Blue and his comrades — “the big, bad Avalon Crips,” Cox said with a grin — to provide security. It worked without a hitch.

Today, there are talent shows, tutoring programs, toy giveaways at the holidays. An aerobics class has exploded in popularity; more than 200 women are registered, making it one of the city’s largest park programs for adults. The class is so large that the instructor had to develop hand signals to telegraph dance moves. There are more than 700 children enrolled in classes and sports programs. And there are 18 kids in the preschool.

This is a must-read for those engaged in community work aiming to decrease and prevent community violence. The story illustrates the need for leaders from different organizations to compromise and make LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE COMMITMENT to the community.

Academics Blogs

Friday, November 27, 2009

'Thanksgiving' in native America

Hope everyone enjoyed their turkey dinners yesterday. From an Al Jazeera story, 'Thanksgiving' in native America, recounting some of the long-term effects of American colonization:



Academics Blogs

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Good things happening in Bangladesh

Social movements have to begin somewhere. A few recent examples of laudable social movements can be seen in Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim country where girls' and women's rights are steadily improving. Of course there are and will be setbacks. However, these examples are crucial in showcasing how struggles for social equity in places of heavy poverty are not impossible.

First in this interview, Irene Khan (former secretary general of Amnesty International) and Nicholas Kristof (author of Half the Sky) discuss how the United States has attempted to "build up" Pakistan by building up their military, and subsequently, how this has done little to improve Pakistanis' quality of life and image of Americans.

Conversely in Bangladesh, social movements pushing for social stability have revolved around equal education for girls, which over time have led to more women integrated in the business sector. Kristof and Khan stress that these gender imbalances are being rectified through official state policies within a largely Muslim country (listen in particular from about the 30-37 minute period of the interview).

One can see Bangladesh's efforts to battle instability through the improvement of boys' and girls' literacy here:



And in the Al Jazeera YouTube video, below, one can see a youth movement striving for children's
rights, most notably girls' rights not to be forced into arranged marriages.



For sociologists who spend an inordinate amount of time highlighting social problems without tangible models for addressing those problems, these are a few good examples that can be used to point out broad-based efforts promoting positive social change.

Academics Blogs