Cooks are like Gods: Hierarchies in Methamphetamine-Producing Groups Jenkot

1. Part VI Chapter 34 Cooks are like Gods: Hierarchies in Methamphetamine-Producing GroupsJenkot

2. Part 6: Ch. 34 Since the 1970s, there’s been an increase in domestic clandestine production of meth & rise in meth use through the 1990s Little known about social relations within groups that produce meth

3. I. The Study Part 6: Ch. 34

4. A. Methods Part 6: Ch. 34 • In-depth surveys with 31 women incarcerated in county jails in Missouri & Arkansas; two didn’t want to participate (n = 29) • Ages 18 to 48 years; average age 36 • Mostly white population • Drug-related charges included possession, intent to deliver & maintaining a drug premises • All women reported using meth at least one time

5. II. The Status Hierarchy Part 6: Ch. 34

6. A. Methamphetamine Cook Part 6: Ch. 34 Hierarchy within meth-producing groups focuses on maintaining a supply of the drug Cook holds the highest position of prestige and privilege Seen as goal for non-cooks Attaining the position entails a constant supply of meth, deference from others & ability of having anything you want The power is considered economic in nature, with meth as the currency

7. B. The Gas Man/Juicer Part 6: Ch. 34 The ones who would supply the anhydrous ammonia, which is difficult to obtain Riskier than being the cook, they run risk of being arrested, injury & death At highest risk for physical injuries due to dangers of anhydrous ammonia

8. C. The Shopper Part 6: Ch. 34 They obtain the goods necessary to produce the drug – the more risk she or he takes, the more they are valued At least one shopper per group, up to four in any group

9. D. The Dope Ho Part 6: Ch. 34 Occupy status slightly above “simple” or “pain in the ass” users Usually trade sex for a “blow” Function to keep the cook happy (sexually), which aids in the production process Not considered threat by girlfriends or wives due to their marginalized status

10. E. The Meth User Part 6: Ch. 34 Simple users whose position lacks prestige Their presence creates issue of risk & trust Members of group know users or else they wouldn’t be allowed to interact with them Some might be undercover police or informants, so usually a burden to group

11. F. Users vs. Simple Users Part 6: Ch. 34 User: usually occupies other positions in group Simple user: just used drug & not considered part of group The greater the involvement in the production process, the higher the status

12. G. In-Group Mobility & Status Variation Part 6: Ch. 34 • Process of meth production involves multiple individuals performing specific tasks • Performance of tasks relates to social roles within group • Other tasks include: • Obtaining key precursor chemicals • Obtaining other items & compounds • Actual production of meth

13. Review Questions Part 6: Ch. 34 In the hierarchy of the group, what roles are thought to be the most prestigious? What differentiates users from “simple” users?

14. Part VI Chapter 35 Gender & Victimization Risk Among Young Women in Gangs Miller

15. Part 6: Ch. 35 An undeveloped area in the gang literature is the relationship between gang participation and victimization risk Strong evidence (Lauritson, Sampson, and Laub, 1991) suggests that delinquent lifestyles are associated with an increased risk of victimization

16. Part 6: Ch. 35 Gangs are social groups organized around delinquency and participation in gangs has been shown to escalate youth’s involvement in crime and violence Research on gang violence indicates that the primary targets of this violence are other gang members

17. Part 6: Ch. 35 Thus gang participation can be seen as a delinquent lifestyle that involves high risks of victimization Research on female gang involvement has expanded in recent years to include examination of such issues as violence and victimization, but the relationship between gang participation and violent victimization remains undeveloped area here as well

18. I. The Study Part 6: Ch. 35

19. A. Methods Part 6: Ch. 35 Data from survey and semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 female members of mixed gender gangs in Columbus, Ohio Ages 12-17 years 75% were African American or multiracial (16 of 20); the rest (4) were white

20. A. Methods Part 6: Ch. 35 Sample drawn from several local agencies in Columbus working with at-risk youth Structured as a gang/nongang comparison; a total of 46 girls interviewed (N = 46) Gang membership determined by self-definition A limitation of study is that only young women were interviewed; inferences about gender dynamics and young men’s behavior is based on young women’s perceptions only

21. II. Gender, Gangs & Violence Part 6: Ch. 35

22. A. Gangs as Protection & Risk Part 6: Ch. 35 • Several girls suggest that being a gang member is a source of protection in the neighborhood • Females offered a gendered sense of protection by belonging to a group that was mostly male • Male gang members could retaliate against violent acts to girls in gang • At same time, members recognize that they may be targets of rival gangs and were expected to “be down” for their gang at those times even when it meant being physically hurt

23. A. Gangs as Protection & Risk Part 6: Ch. 35 Thus members should be tough, able to fight and engage in criminal activities, be loyal to the group, and be willing to put oneself at risk for the gang Initiation rites and internal rules exposed members to submit to violence For example, a person submits to a certain number of blows to the head and/or chest or is “beat in” by gang members for a certain duration of time

24. A. Gangs as Protection & Risk Part 6: Ch. 35 Breaking a rule such as disrespecting the leader or dating a rival gang member would result in physical punishment Clear that in spite of subjects’ views of gangs as a form of “protection,” being a gang member also involves opening oneself to possible victimization Perhaps because of its more structured nature compared to random vulnerability of being on streets without gang, victimization risk for young women in gangs may seem preferable

25. B. Gender & Status, Crime & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • Status hierarchies within Columbus gangs, like elsewhere, are male-dominated • All young women reported established leaders as males & in some cases, only males could be leaders • Leadership qualities - all perceived as masculine in nature: • Being tough • Able to fight • Willing to “do dirt”

26. B. Gender & Status, Crime & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • Status in gangs for most part based on willingness to use serious violence & commit dangerous crimes, traits more likely found among males • Since such traits seen as masculine, young women have greater flexibility in their gang involvement • Fewer expectations on them to fight, use weapons, commit crimes • As a result victimization risk for girls was less than for males

27. B. Gender & Status, Crime & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • Girls could gain status in gang by use of serious violence, being hard • Young women also had a second route to status unavailable to men via their connections as sisters, girlfriends, family to high-status males in gang • This second route maintains gender inequality in gangs but decreases risk of victimization for women

28. B. Gender & Status, Crime & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 Young men’s perceptions of girls as lesser members served to keep girls from being targets of serious violence at hands of rival gang males leaving that to their girls Most subjects tended not to be involved in serious gang violence or crime & some reported they chose to exclude themselves due to feelings of ambivalence

29. C. Girls’ Devaluation & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • In addition to girls choosing not to participate in serious gang violence, they were also excluded by male members from doing so • Two crimes in particular “off-limits” for girls: • Drug sales and drive-by shootings • Often framed as protection for girls, and reducing their risk of injury, women’s exclusion perpetuated devaluation of female members as less significant to group

30. C. Girls’ Devaluation & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • Some women found perception of them as weak & in need of protection frustrating • It meant girls had a harder time proving they were serious about their gang commitment • Such devaluation of girls in gangs could lead to mistreatment & victimization of girls by members of their own gang if lacking specific male protection like a brother • This is exacerbated by gang activities leading to view of women as sexually available

31. C. Girls’ Devaluation & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 • Another problem reinforcing devaluation of women in gang was sexual in nature • Girls but not boys could be “sexed in” as form of gang initiation thereby losing respect • Such girls were viewed as sexually promiscuous, weak and not “true” members and were mistreated by both other males & females

32. C. Girls’ Devaluation & Victimization Part 6: Ch. 35 The option of being “sexed into” gang served to keep girls disempowered since it diminished claim of every woman as to how they gained membership Women gang members, unlike men, could also become potential victims of rival gang sexual violence such as rape

33. Review Questions Part 6: Ch. 35 What were the similarities & differences in the initiation of males & females into gangs? Why are females perceived to be more vulnerable than their male counterparts within gang life?