"We cannot truly understand the "shady" economy if we see it as a dirty, lawless world of violence and disrepute, one that tarnishes an otherwise pristine sphere where everyone pays their taxes, obeys the laws, and turns to the government to solve disputes and maintain order" (Venkatesh)
Vankatesh references another author with this quote, but what drew me in was the connection to The Wire and the resistance of understanding the ghettos in a Middle class society. It is so easy to be insulated in the cloak of privilege and not even recognize the cost that it has on other socioeconomic group. This reading resonated with the NAFTA discussion we had on Tuesday. In the Maquila factories, there are vast human rights violations that go unrecognized, just as there are types of interchanges of commerce in "Off the Books". Both are not discussed and underground, but really discuss the way in which the poor in both circumstances survive the poverty they are in. Vankatesh mentions the glass ceiling of upward mobility, and the structure of the off the books economy is both a bi-product and precipitator imitating the upward mobility. I really value the argument that there is fraud on all sides of the issue and wish that in our own bubbles would recognize the internal violations of law in the middle and upper class.

Power Vacuums and Interpersonal Ties

Two points in Venkatesh that I found interesting:

1) The power vacuum created by deceased king-pins in low-income neighborhoods-- In chapter one Venkatesh details the complications of "Big Cat's" death. Like we saw in the film "The House I Live In", drug dealers are considered by "citizens" to be both a neighborhood protector and nuisance.
Mothers of Maquis Park could rely on Big Cat and his gang to keep younger, rowdier gang members off the street at night and protect their children. On the other hand, the main source of violence in their community stemmed from his gang's actions.
Similarly, in "The House I Live In" these dealers are seen as both antiheroes and protectors of the community. They help the less fortunate by providing assistance in the simplest of things, such as buying ice cream and nicer tennis shoes for children. These gang members also have a heavy hand in propagating violence (excessive force to demand respect) and "street" status symbols such as women (misogyny).
Unfortunately, "Big Cat's" death did not liberate the people of Marquis Park. In fact, Venkatesh implies that the negative consequences far outweighed the positives. I found this particularly interesting. Why would incarcerating king-pins for their crimes prove to be any more effective to these low-income communities? Their connections to the community run so deeply that it has become impossible to weed them out without perilous consequence. I am not suggesting that high-profile crimes do not need to be accounted for and stopped, but rather, aid needs to be dealt directly to the community, and not through the simple removal of their local drug lord.

2) Low-income community members unable to escape their situation due to lack of connections (Interpersonal Ties)-- I believe we talked about this last class. Due to a lack of networking and trust, people living in neighborhoods such as Maquis Park cannot find a lucrative niche in the work force. Venkatesh has a lot to say about jobs in low-income neighborhoods in chapters one and two (liberation found in prostitution, leasing apartments, etc.)

Staying “Decent” by Going Underground

Venkatesh demonstrates how the underground economy provides a network for citizens of Marquis Park to supplement their low or nonexistent incomes with untaxed, undocumented activities. The way Venkatesh describes this community’s underground economy makes it seem almost unavoidable. Although there are businesses that stay out of the shadow economy, for residents and business owners struggling to “keep food on the table, clothes on a child’s back, and rent paid up” there are few options but this underground economy, be it selling soul food out of their house, prostituting, or selling pirated movies in a restaurant (Venkatesh 61).

Though the argument could be and certainly is made that the underground economy robs the government of taxes, it is a necessity for some of these residents of Marquis Park to survive. However there are also other benefits. I found it interesting in reading these chapters how people were performing illegal activities yet I would classify them as “decent.” They perform multiple tasks to scrape by, provide for other family members and friends, and try to help others in their community. In some instances, helping other members of the community seems to have more incentive for the provider than the person receiving help or aid, such as the card sharks who will loan to members of this community unlike the banks, but still charge high interest rates. However, in some instances, store owners will pay homeless people to act as security guard either in food or cash. Not only does this provide for both the store owner and the homeless person but the community may also feel safer, knowing that someone is on the streets watching out and keeping an eye on things.

These people operating in the underground economy may be breaking the law, but they still represent decent people. Also, even though participants in the underground economy may have to associate with gangs to keep their business afloat and safe, they may be less likely to involve directly in illegal activities contributing to violence on the street. Because these people spend much of their time providing different services, such as those who work in an auto-shop for free during the day to be able to use the space for care repairs when the shop is closed, they have less time to get involved in “street” activities. Kids who might otherwise be unengaged and “street” are paid for small services, like going to a junkyard for car parts. Paradox as it is, the illegal, informal economy seems to maintain the “decency” of this community.

Impact through Repetition in Venkatesh's Writing

Though I have appreciated learning about the underground economy in Off the Books so far and believe that Sudhir Venkatesh is a good writer technically, I have been frustrated by his chapters because they feel unnecessarily long. In “Home at Work”, for example, the author introduces a lot of information about the daily trials of women in Maquis Park and the greater structure and mechanisms of illicit economics in the area, but he frequently restates points that he has previously made, as if he does not trust his readers to understand their significance initially. Examples of this that stand out to me are his periodic repetitions of the fairly obvious facts that women in Maquis Park usually have to supplement their legal incomes with illegal earnings to make ends meet and  that certain underground jobs, like prostitution, are more dangerous than others.

            As I neared the end of the chapter, however, I began to wonder whether or not these repetitions were conscious stylistic choices on Venkatesh’s part. They reflect the intractability of the problems these women face in Maquis Park, and the fact that no matter how many times they make money from illegal activities, they never earn enough to achieve lasting financial stability. Has anyone else observed a technique that Venkatesh may be using to make the struggles of his subjects more impactful to readers? 

There's Always Someone Lower On the Food Chain: Workers, Dichotomies, and Exploitation

My current fascination has been with wage theft, and I will be conducting a research project this summer on the subject. Lately, I have begun to look at wage theft as a structural phenomenon, one which comes out of an inherent identity of inferiority which is ascribed to "workers" because of their position on the wrong end of a dichotomy with "employers." It has been my argument in the past that the use of the term worker has an always already constructed and fully loaded meaning, therefore, even discussions of workers’ rights are framed within this preexisting conceptual hierarchy. Recently I have added a gendered component to this analysis and in my research this summer I hope to explore the ways in which the messages used to garner public support and funding for a local workers advocate organization (Workers Interfaith Network) play into two powerful cultural and ideological modes. On the one hand, WIN appeals to American masculine ideals of hard work and fair pay, and on the other hand, it appeals to other, more traditionally feminine, ideals such as shared humanity, dignity, and community. I want to argue that both of these cultural models form the basis for the culture and structure which allows for the existence of wage theft in the first place by lending themselves to underlying public views of workers as dependent participants in the economic hierarchy. In light of this component of my research, I found last night's reading very interesting. The author made the argument that many low wage service workers coped with the bad aspects and stigma associated with their jobs by emphasizing a powerful dichotomy between themselves as working people and others as the unemployed. It has been my experience working with WIN that many workers are intensely proud of their identities as workers, of their ability to do something with their hands, and to provide for themselves and their families. However, I wonder if this aspect of workers’ identities does not stem from, and reinforce, the very American fascination with hard work that I have begun to ironically connect to the devaluation of workers.  It is interesting to see the strong parallels between what these workers say about "lazy" unemployed people, and what I have heard many Rhodes students say about "lazy" or "stupid" service workers. In that same vain, it is interesting to view these workers statements in light of what I have theorized about the cultural hierarchy of the worker and the employer.

Personal: Employment barriers for people with low social capital

We as a society are very judgmental. We respect people and accept them as “citizens” when they are employed. The problem with that is that we do not respect people who are not employed or whose reasons for employment we might question.  We blame people for not having jobs, but we also do not offer opportunities for people to prove themselves capable of having those jobs.  This is one aspect of what Newman names the “employment barrier.” One example in “Getting a Job in the Inner City” was people's ideas of teenage employment. Newman presented the general expectation that teenagers may waste their earnings (on shoes, for example). However, the working teenagers mentioned specifically in this article actually supplemented their parents' incomes and provided basic necessities to the family.

One asset Newman mentions is networking. People already employed may make you aware of open positions, help you apply, or even refer you to their employers. Moreover, Newman says, you may do the same for your unemployed friends once you have established yourself in a stable job. This can be very valuable, but one aspect Newman does not mention is a lack of good networks. This can make networking another aspect of the employment barrier. An example is if I were to apply for a position with Memphis Pizza Cafe. I am not a good candidate for any position, because I do not have experience in the food service industry. I do, however, have a friend, Matt, who also works at Memphis Pizza Cafe. He says he will refer me. However, because his last referral was fired from Memphis Pizza Cafe, Matt's referrals are no longer valuable to his employer, and I do not get the job. My network, in this example, actually disabled me from becoming employed.

 The “employment barrier” is both personal and fragile, and, for people with very low social capital, the employment barrier is impenetrable.  

Effects of Globalization on low-income job Applicants?

             As a senior who is currently seeking a job for post-graduation, I was very interested in the article “Finding a job in the Inner-city”. Newman focused upon many key aspects of job-hunting, one of the most important being the ability for an applicant to adjust and adapt to the culture of the company they are applying to. In class on Thursday, we had spoken about this in the context of “acting white”. Newman created the image of a barrier with the applicant on one side and the employer on the other. It is expected that the applicant will “sell” or “pitch” themselves in a way that would be attractive to the employer. For those that do not already fit into this mold, mostly lower –income individuals, this creates an identity crisis. Newman remarked that “They [low-income applicants] have to park all of the symbolic baggage of their culture at home.” In my job-search I have already felt the pressure to present myself in a certain way so as to be more attractive to employers. I can see how this would create a true culture of stagnation for low-income applicants who cannot move past the thick barrier because they are considered culturally inept.

As I read this article, another barrier to entry I thought of was the recent globalization of markets and jobs. Much like there is a wide cultural gap between blue collar and white collar jobs that prevents low-income applicants from moving up in the job force, I would think that companies who have internationalized in scope would create an even larger gap in mutual understanding. For those that have never had the opportunity to travel or to gain exposure to the culture, lifestyle and needs of foreign populations, it seems as if there would be an even wider gap and a harsher barrier. Does anyone know much about the effects of globalization on domestic low-income workers?

Gender and the Calvin Commercial

No Shame In (This) Game refers to the dichotomy of the "worthy and unworthy, the working stiff and the lazy sloth" (pg 87).  This dichotomy further flushes out the dichotomy of street and decent people and provides insite into the difficulties of getting a job in the inner city, maintaining that job, and the stigma attached to the often "menial" jobs.  I say "menial" because to those working, any job is seen as better than having no job.  These two chapters made it extremely apparent that not only is minimum wage work tiring, but you have to put up with a bunch of nonsense from peers and customers many of whom do not even have jobs. The stigma attached to low wage jobs, especially burger joints, is apparent in the Calvin Commercial, aired in 1990 by McDonalds to show that working is a way to gain respect in the community.  I found it interesting that the majority of interviewees in the chapters were female and yet the commercial was clearly aimed at young African American boys from the inner city.  There is clearly some sort of genderized space associated with these menial jobs.  I think this goes back to the way that males gain respect on the streets.  It is not through having a minimum wage job at McDonalds, it is through showing violence and male hypersexuality that men gain respect in a street culture.  Perhaps then, while their are still stigmas attached to having a job at McDonalds regardless of gender, women may find that having a job at a fast food joint is socially easier for them than for men because men have to deal with lack of respect brought on by leaving street culture for a job.

Please omit the Ehrenreich article for tomorrow's class.  Thanks!

Info about the event at Caritas today at 5:00

The SpiritHouse Project Invites You to Hear

A New Generation of Freedom Fighters

 Breaking Silence and Rising Up

When?          Friday, February 22, 2013 at 5pm

Where?         Carritas in Memphis, Tennessee

Who?         Daniels and Younge Freedom Fighters are a part of an initiative at the SpiritHouse Project, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Our work comes out of a long history of youth who fought for freedom. We especially honor the work of Jonathan Daniels and Samuel Younge, youth martyrs of the Southern Freedom movement, as well as students activists of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Here is our organizing statement:

We see ourselves as descendants of SNCC. We follow their philosophy of movement building that recognizes the voices of grassroots communities as the heart of Movement Building and Social Justice. We are deeply nonviolent and frame our work within a nonviolent model.  As young Freedom Fighters we do not glorify ourselves as exceptional youth or leaders. Rather we understand that we come up out of the roots of communities struggling for racial justice. We are called to play a role in extending these roots in communities and not as lone individuals.

As did SNCC, we recognize that one of the major deterrents to freedom and justice is the system of White Supremacy. Our task, therefore, is to position ourselves on the frontline of a struggle for racial justice. We operate from a core value that recognizes that as young people we cannot self-proclaim ourselves as leaders in a community. Nor can we self-proclaim ourselves as leaders by virtue of our education or status. Instead, we know that communities anoint leaders based on their dedication, commitment, and loyalty to the critical needs that the community defines as essential to justice.

We thank Carritas for facilitating our visit to Memphis and for providing us with the opportunity and connections to speak about our work on the Prison Industrial Complex, White Supremacy and the Southern Strategy.  SpiritHouse Project is a national organization that uses research, education, the arts, and liberating spirituality to build up a just world.

Just in case you needed to read more tips on how to prevent rape...

I will warn you that this news website is a bit crude, but regardless this story is still interesting. Checkout the rape tips that University of Colorado posted for their female students - specifically numbers 6 and 7. Also, the article briefly (and humorously) discusses what role guns play in rape cases. Overall, this article relates to our discussion on Tuesday.

http://jezebel.com/5985902/university-of-colorado-told-women-to-avoid-rape-by-peeing-vomiting-and-menstruating-on-command

Crosstown Information

We are looking forward to hosting you for a guided tour of the Sears Crosstown building!  The building is an architectural marvel and an iconic piece of our city's history.  As plans for its future are well underway, we are trying to share it's unique story with as many people as possible, and we're grateful to have this opportunity to connect with you.

 

Note that once we enter the building, we will be locked in for safety; you will not be able to exit the building earlier or leave and re-enter.  Meet me in the parking lot on the south side of the building, located at 495 North Watkins, near the intersection of North Cleveland and North Parkway (really, you can't miss it.) A Google map of it's location is available here: http://goo.gl/DtJtV  When our entire group is assembled and accounted for, we will enter the building on its first floor and begin our tour.

 

THINGS TO REMEMBER:

• The Sears Crosstown building has been vacant since 1993.  While efforts have been made over the past 20 years to clean and remove some debris, the building is by no means clean.  During the tour, we will encounter broken glass, broken furniture, and dirt and dust.
• The building is not climate controlled.
• Most of the building, including most of the parts that we will be touring, do not have electricity.  While no part of our tour requires us to go through completely unlit areas, some parts will obviously be fairly dark and visibility could be compromised. 
• The building is 14 stories at its tallest point - and we'll be going all the way to the top!  The elevators in the building do not work, so we will be climbing a lot of stairs.

 

WHAT TO BRING WITH YOU:

• A flashlight.
• Warm, comfortable clothing and shoes.
• A smartphone with a camera.  There is no wifi access in the building but there is a strong 3G signal.

 

WHAT TO DO DURING AND AFTER THE TOUR:

• Ask questions! We will begin the tour with a very brief overview of its history, but we look forward to your questions, observations, and comments throughout our journey.
• Take photos and upload them to the web.  The building is 1.5 million square feet of mysterious, antiquated, and frankly weird architectural details and items.  We strongly encourage you to use Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram to document your tour and share the experience.  Please use the hashtag #crosstownmemphis on all of your posts.
• Encourage your friends to visit CrosstownMemphis.com/contact and let us know that they want to tour the building.

Louis CK explains privilege to Jay Leno

Not totally relevant to today's readings, but a comedian's take on the issues of privilege/inequalities we've been discussing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w&feature=share

Not Mentioned in Preparing for New Frugality

I did not like Evanoff's "Memphis Poverty: Preparing for the new frugality", and here's why:

The Brookings Institute does mention stuff like Memphis not being THE poorest, but it also is a metropolitan areas that's established size is increasing in the size of those living in poverty.  Whereas, other cities are decreasing the size of their poverty, have more or less people initially residing to skew the numbers, and have attracted one of these "man on the moon" type technologies like google fiber in Kansas City or even directTV installers and these new AT&T contraptions.
With "Complete Streets" a plan to engage every user with a street/sidewalk that the mayor has agreed to and will go into place, buses along Poplar and Elvis Presley will experience a bus rapid transit BRT situation-streamlining the system on these streets so that buses do not stop at every stoplight and can accomodate for more people by being timely and convenient. *The article explaining this was written before Evanoff's. 
As much as we do have these crazy single mother statistics, let's take a step back and acknowledge that our health is getting better-we started at the bottom, so granted any improvement is something. No child has been born with HIV in Memphis in 2 years. That shouldn't have to be a feat, but it is.
The Electrolux jobs are overwhelmingly blue collar, so I do not know what he's talking about there. I do know that I don't think for the tax write offs and ridiculous incentives it will ever employ 5,000 workers but maybe more in the 1,200 range-see that here. 
Now we have the stores that profit off the poor. Poverty, Inc. This concept is shocking and true and heartbreaking. I'm not sure if any of you have been in a Family Dollar when it was being robbed, but when I was, the robber stole detergent, not like cell phones, or something really expensive or detrimental to health or an addiction, laundry detergent. The people behind the register were very upset, they said it happened all the time, and the product would be taken from their low wages. Similarly, a camera or a security guard, despite asking multiple times, would not be placed in the store.
Maybe one of the real issues here is the fact that these service sector jobs that these about 30 year old, tired  women do not pay or make citizens feel safe. Fred's one of the stores that is mentioned in the article and based in Memphis was long guilty of wage theft and/or not paying their employees, the type of people who would shop at Fred's, minimum wage. This cyclical relationship, something that even Henry Ford saw as he wanted his workers to be able to purchase a car they had made, between the blue collar jobs and the poor and where they spend their money ties to financial literacy and the kinds of goods available for purchase. There are more than 105,000 Memphians who do not have a checking account and therefore must use money to get money often from a convenience or liquor store. Also, family dollar, despite the "value" name has goods that are more expensive there than at a supermarket or elsewhere. Would the profiting off the poor, if stopped, cut the jobs of the barely paid workers? People living in poverty often know how to fend for themselves, more so than many wealthy would if they had to live in poverty.
Also, because of low registrations, low voter turnout, and lack of excitement, Evanoff's final statement about voting is wishful thinking, especially when you have high turnout in the county compared to city because of issues that counter helping poor people (in 2012 schools, taxes).

The concept of preparing for frugality is not a bad idea, but I think he should look to some of this background, more, like the drivers of poverty inc and that maybe fending for oneself or learning how to live frugally is not the main problem.

Mentality of living in Memphis

Evanoff addressed an issue with the Memphis population that most people don’t even recognize: the mentality of Memphis residents and outsiders is that the city is a dangerous, poverty-stricken, dirty place.  And even more so, that it does not compare to the quality of life in the rest of the US.  It was really interesting to see this perspective, because I think that it contributes to many of the cities problems.  We discussed in the first couple days of class how the creative class rarely remains in the city and I think that this mentality is one of the main factors.  Many people in the region see Memphis as an undesirable place to live.  There are issues with Memphis, such as public transportation and poverty, but these issues are present in other cities as well.  Though there are certainly exceptions, I don’t think that native Memphians have much pride for there city.  There are some people who see Memphis as “up and coming” but even this mentality has flaws.  Memphis has its strengths and those should be recognized.  And the problems that the city has should be contextualized with the rest of the US, which is currently facing many similar problems.

A New Way to "Fend for Themselves"

One thing that particularly struck me about Evanoff’s article was the balanced approach to how we should go about fixing poverty. I feel like often, people approach solutions to poverty from a very one-sided approach. For example, repeatedly and especially throughout the course of the previous election, I hear the same resounding sentiment that if people could become more educated and apply themselves, or more bluntly, not be so lazy, they wouldn’t have to be poor. However, there are so many barriers to actually pulling oneself out of poverty that simply improving education alone will not solve the problem.

This same idea is shown in Evanoff’s article. Evanoff asserts that public transportation in Memphis should be improved to “allow a family a tolerable life free of buying a car, fuel, and insurance.” However, he is not suggesting that increased and improved public transportation is the answer. Interestingly, some of the cities with the best public transportation systems in the United States like New York, Boston, Denver, and Los Angeles were included in the list of cities with relatively similar poverty levels to those of Memphis. Thus, having a more extensive public transportation system alone does not show a significant impact on poverty levels. Granted, most of these United States city systems do not compare in their scope and use to those in cities like London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo, so there are still improvements that could be made. Nonetheless, to affect poverty levels, one solution, no matter how grandiose it may be, cannot fix the problem. Thus Evanoff proposes many ideas like bringing back manufacturing jobs, improving education and teaching skills like plumbing and electricity, investing in neighborhoods, and helping young people purchase homes.

Evanoff’s ideas about how to help the poor are much more positive ways to help people “fend for themselves.” Although I think this sentiment is one felt by many Americans, it often manifests itself as proposals to stop welfare and Medicaid spending and letting the poor sink or swim on their own. I was really encouraged by Evanoff’s method of letting the poor fend for themselves: giving them real skills and opportunities and fostering home ownership and safety so that people might actually find that they are not destined to stay poor.

The Implications of Racial Diversity on Economics

Before reading Ted Evanoff’s Commercial Appeal article, I thought it was going to confirm my assumption that Memphis is, in fact, “a stricken outlier” and among the poorest of the poor cities in America. After finishing it, I don’t know if I feel relieved for Memphis or more sorrowful for our country as a whole. Memphis, a city that I have grown to love, has always been viewed by the vast majority of people I’ve talked to as a place of dysfunction and mass poverty; even as someone originally from a city that is very close to Memphis in terms of wealth and diversity, I have always viewed it as more of a deviation from the norm.

The inclusion of statistics from the Brookings Institution was necessary to drive Evanoff’s point, and I am glad that he included a decent list to go with his claims. However--and this may be because of Common Ground--I could not help but notice a severe lack of information about what causes this poverty, and how it reflects other aspects of the cities, such as racial makeup. It seems that there would be a direct correlation with the amount of minorities and prevalence of poverty given the inevitable, haunting truth that white people are generally making more money. I am not sure whether Evanoff left it off because it is controversial or because he simply felt it was not the most relevant piece of information for an article on the economy, but as a sociology student I would have garnered more from the piece with that information.

Wait, Memphis is Average?

I really enjoyed the Reinventing Unions article and the Memphis Poverty piece in the Commercial Appeal.  What really struck me about Memphis was the statistics that placed us in the average percentage of poverty levels across the United States.  This intrigued me for a few reasons.  First, it really went against the typical Memphis mentality that is abhorrent toward the city and lacks hope for a better future.  While this mentality is slowly changing it still exists, so I thought it was interesting that Ted Evanoff gave the cold hard facts that show that the proportion of poverty in Memphis is similar to a lot of other "rich" cities like Seattle, New York, and Boston.  Second, the article really gave hope to what seems a rather dire situation.  He interestingly enough places the future of Memphis in the hands of what he terms Poverty Inc.   Many would not think that an economy based on people living in poverty could amount to over 5 billion dollars, but it does and the city can bank on this economy because after all an economy is better than no economy.  Third, WHY ARE POVERTY RATES SO FREAKING HIGH EVERYWHERE? Okay, I know he answers this question by saying that the 2008 depression hit us hard and pushed the lower middle class into poverty, but certainly 40 percent seems extreme in the cities.  This ties in nicely however with the Reinventing Unions article.  I liked the whole  idea of reinventing labor unions to create a more social movement attitude toward labor unions.  I think this is a creative solution to helping unions be effective tools for bargaining because the mentality of the social movement seems to me to be a more appealing approach to demanding higher wages etc.  It also seems to me that incorporating social change goes to the root of the problem and attempts to bring solutions that are meant to last.  I think that these movements from traditional labor unions to more social movements have a place in Memphis as well as most other American cities.  I would, however, like to see the demographics of some of the other cities that Evanoff quoted.  I wonder if social movements could or have already worked for unions that are largely minority?  Does race even have a bearing on this issue at all?

Frats and Gangs:Masculinity and Sexual Violence

Last week in my Gender Politics and Protest class, we discussed the Steubenville rape case that has been in the media lately. As I was reading "Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself," I began to see some striking similarities between one of the stories from the article and the Steubenville case. The article told of men urinating on a girl and then raping her, which also happened to the victim in the Steubenville case. It is especially interesting that we find these same hyper masculine dominant behaviors surfacing in two masculine institutions that affect boys at two very different socioeconomic levels. On the one hand you have the type of street culture that Anderson described in our readings several weeks ago, and on the other hand you have the sports/fraternity culture that influences so many middle and upper class young men. Both street culture and sport/frat culture can be characterized as "cultures of violence." In both cases we see somewhat of a “total institution” which centers on violence, competition, hyper masculinity, power, cohesion, and hierarchy. These similarities are particularly striking in regards to gangs and fraternities, both of which are fictive kinship organizations with initiations generally involving violence and both employ strict hierarchies, in which respect is earned though violence and exclusion. More importantly, both of these groups are associated with sexual violence, specifically gang rape. This tendency to engage in communal sexual violence is closely tied to the way these organizations glorify the type of masculine dominance feminine degradation that allows women to be seen as sexual objects in the first place. I find the juxtaposition of these two organizations to be particularly interesting considering the history of fraternities as racially exclusive clubs, and their current function as avenues for the perpetuation of middle and upper-class privilege. When looked at though Anderson's lens gangs represent organized "oppositional culture" and appear to be nearly polar opposite of fraternities as bastions of the dominant culture. Even if we see gangs as serving a similar role as fraternities, in that they provide avenues for economic advancement for members, it is interesting that institutional hyper-masculinity seems to transcend both race and class lines. It is troubling that a form of masculinity which encourages sexual violence against women would be institutionalized in street and sports cultures and organizations such as gangs and fraternities, which when considered together, influence a huge section of the young male population.

Gender Inequality Outside the 'Hood

I appreciate Miller’s ingenuity in researching gender inequality outside of the normal scholarship.  I’ve witnessed, usually second hand through stories, many of the same examples here at Rhodes in a less intensified form.  Rhodes students can receive counseling.  Rhodes students have a supportive residential network.  Rhodes students have legal enforcement in Campus Safety that will actually come to a student’s aid.  Regardless, acquaintance rape, usually under the guise of alcohol and or drugs is prevalent.  The Greek system is dominant (though, I’m Greek and it does have many pros to counter the cons) leading to hazy party scenarios on the regular.  I can identify somewhat with the young males who say the girls put it on themselves.  Yet, in the end, guys should ask for consent, and it should not be accredited as an individualize fault.  That being said, when 2 or 3 times a weekend Rhodes girls (and guys) intentionally get drunk with the full knowledge that their bed may be left unoccupied that night, it speaks to me that the structure is the issue.  

Even though a “norm of staying out of others’ affairs” (43) is more pronounced in the ‘hood, I have seen the same here.  Part of what we talk about during PA week is being social in a responsible way.  For one, it is not healthy to get blackout drunk multiple times a week.  That is why the Big Diehl and other organizations exist in the first place.  Secondly, we try to stress to girls that they should soberly plan with their friends about what they want the end result of the night to be.  If you go out as a trio, you should come back as a trio, etc.  It should be encouraged that Rhodes girls could “respect themselves” by wearing more than just a Texas flag to a party, and “protect themselves” by pouring their own drinks or enjoying the night with a group (148).  One thing that Miller doesn’t cover, at least in these chapters at least is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  Especially for the one girl who had 20 different partners over the course of two years, the odds of unplanned pregnancy and STDs are high.  In a “running train” scenario, that means all two, three, four guys could end up with a disease (134).  That reason alone is enough for my discouragement of such actions, let alone the emotional damage done to the women. 

Finally, the Rhodes community has at its advantage class-based resources.  The neighborhoods in isolated and racialized poverty have minimal access to health insurance that can help manage unplanned pregnancies and other health issues related to sexual assault.  These ‘hoods also have a lower collective efficacy in which the victims are further victimized by norms of silence.  Sometimes, the only response to the ghetto victim’s cries for help was laughter.  In the Rhodes community, hopefully everyone has at least one friend who will save them from an overaggressive dancer.