A Culture of Masculinity or Survival? Gendered Perspectives of Violence among Incarcerated Youth

ABSTRACT

Recent scholarship challenges the notion that the study of men’s and boys’ attitudes toward violence and their participation in violent behavior extends to women and girls. Using data collected from youth within the California Department of Juvenile Justice, this paper builds upon prior scholarship to elucidate women’s and girls’ perceptions of and experiences with violence, and the extent to which they differ from boys’ and men’s in carceral environments. Our analysis suggests that instead of trying to ‘be like boys’, girls recognize the benefit of violence as a means of survival in carceral institutions and will engage in violence if it seems beneficial for their livelihood. This differentiates the strive for masculinity and the need to survive in juvenile institutions, a finding that corroborates what critical, feminist scholars argue are the unique perceptions of, participation in, and experiences of violence among young women.

Notes

¹ The current study focuses on comparing female and male violence in a youth correctional setting, but there have also been multiple studies conducted on women and crime in the community (Díaz-Cotto 2006; Schaffner 2006).

² The overall project was not purely qualitative.  Interviews were semi-structured in which both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for the larger study.

³ An option was provided for the youth to not interview, or respond to questions at any time during the process. Youth were also informed that we were legally obligated to report any responses related to them planning to hurt themselves or another individual.

⁴ Researchers were not allowed to audio record the youth interviews. The incident descriptions were hand written by the interviewers as the youth described them in order to capture the youth’s perspective as effectively as possible within the interview time constraints.

⁵ In accordance with Saldaña (2015), coding can be separated into two main steps. There is first cycle coding, which includes the codes originally identified when analysis began, and second cycle coding, which are developed in conjunction with the codes identified in the first cycle.

⁶ “BTP” stands for Behavioral Treatment Program.

⁷ “Cracked ears” means listening to what a rival group is saying, when they shouldn’t.

⁸ “R” stands for Respondent.

Additional information

Funding

This study was conducted with the support of funding from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Agreement #5600001351. The opinions expressed herein represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the CDCR.

Notes on contributors

Amy M. Magnus

Amy M. Magnus is a PhD candidate in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine. She is a UCI Initiative to End Family Violence Fellow, three-time UCI Kugelman Research Fellow, and UCI Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation Pedagogical Fellow. Her work is featured in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education, The Politicization of Safety, Oxford Bibliographies in Criminology, and the doctoral student forum of The Criminologist.

Daniel W. Scott

Daniel W. Scott is an assistant professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of West Florida. His research examines youth and gang violence, juvenile justice and corrections, gang involvement, policies and programs, criminological theory, and mixed methods. His work has appeared in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Crime & Delinquency and the Journal of Criminological Research, Policy, and Practice.