'The first thing one notices about the gang world is this: There are no fathers'
February 13th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"The toughs Venkatesh stumbled on were low-level foot soldiers with the Black Kings, an enormous regional outfit whose Lake Park operations were controlled by a formidable gangland general named J.T...
"The first thing one notices about the world Venkatesh describes is this: There are no fathers. Everyone at Lake Park -- even J.T., who commands 200 gangsters and, in a good year, makes six figures from crack-dealing -- lives with their momma.
"The young men don't dream of settling down with a family. Rather, they seek to emulate the polygamous J.T., who uses his drug proceeds to lodge various girlfriends in separate apartments. With no father figures to guide them, these men internalize the juvenile conception of manhood peddled by rap videos, and fritter away their adolescent years pursuing it through streetcorner posturing and brawling."
Some fascinating commentary on the effect of fatherlessness on teenage boys and young men. Thanks to John, a reader, for sending it.
Ghetto godfather
For seven years, Sudhir Venkatesh studied the workings of a Chicago street gang. His new book explains why gangs flourish--and how to get rid of them
Jonathan Kay
National Post
February 12, 2008
In 1989, a University of Chicago graduate student named Sudhir Venkatesh decided to leave his cocoon-like campus, and find out what life was like in his city's notorious public housing projects. So he wandered into the decrepit Lake Park projects in Chicago's Oakland neighborhood, introduced himself to a group of teenagers shooting dice, whipped out a clipboard, and asked them this question: "How does it feel to be black and poor? Very bad, somewhat bad, neither bad nor good, somewhat good, very good?"
"You got to be f-cking kidding me," the ringleader said. And the whole dumbstruck group convulsed with laughter.
Hearing how ridiculous his own question sounded, Venkatesh realized then and there that he was wasting his time. The residents of this squalid building were living lives completely alien to his middle-class upbringing. He wasn't going to get inside their heads with patronizing multiple-choice questions.
But foolish as he felt, Venkatesh caught a break that day, one that eventually set him on a path to a rock-star reputation within sociology, and a professorship in the Ivy Leagues.
The toughs Venkatesh stumbled on were low-level foot soldiers with the Black Kings, an enormous regional outfit whose Lake Park operations were controlled by a formidable gangland general named J.T. Against all odds, Venkatesh struck up an instant bond with the man. Unlike just about everyone else who lived at Lake Park, J.T. had been to college, and had even studied sociology in preparation for a short-lived career in the legitimate business world.
A narcissist, J.T. imagined his life to be worthy of biography, and invited Venkatesh into his inner circle as a sort of court scribe. For the next seven years, Venkatesh would become eyewitness to the inner workings of gang life. His remarkable account of those years -- contained in a newly released book, Gang Leader for a Day: A rogue sociologist takes to the streets-- is required reading for anyone who wants to understand why gangs continue to thrive among the West's underclass.
The first thing one notices about the world Venkatesh describes is this: There are no fathers. Everyone at Lake Park -- even J.T., who commands 200 gangsters and, in a good year, makes six figures from crack-dealing -- lives with their momma. The young men don't dream of settling down with a family. Rather, they seek to emulate the polygamous J.T., who uses his drug proceeds to lodge various girlfriends in separate apartments. With no father figures to guide them, these men internalize the juvenile conception of manhood peddled by rap videos, and fritter away their adolescent years pursuing it through streetcorner posturing and brawling.
The nature of the local economy is the second thing that stands out: Except for the corner stores (which are run by Arabs), there is little legitimate free-market activity. Virtually all of the money coming in to Lake Park comes from two sources: government welfare and drugs. The few people who apply actual market-able job skills within the community -- such as the mechanic "C-Note," who gets his name because he has "a hundred ways to make a hundred dollars" -- are so rare as to be minor celebrities.
As a result, criminality is normalized: The idea of studying hard, going to college and getting a respectable job -- the formula for success applied by waves of European and Asian immigrants to North American since the late 19th century -- is dismissed as a white man's fantasy.
Gang life is at the centre of all these pathologies. But as Venkatesh explains, the local residents' attitude toward the Black Kings is actually quite conflicted. Because violence attracts police, and police scare away customers, J.T. has an economic interest in keeping life in the projects peaceful. For a small cut of the action, his henchmen provide a security detail for the local crack dens, and protection for prostitutes. They also drive sick residents to the hospital, organize basketball games, and even stage get-out-the-vote drives on behalf of the local black political machine. There is plenty of violence in Gang Leader for a Day. But it is not random. Like all petty tyrants, J.T. understands that his legitimacy rests on providing some semblance of order.
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.367 seconds.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:46 am
...Rather, they seek to emulate the polygamous J.T., who uses his drug proceeds to lodge various girlfriends in separate apartments. With no father figures to guide them, these men internalize the juvenile conception of manhood peddled by rap videos, and fritter away their adolescent years pursuing it through streetcorner posturing and brawling.
...
Gang life is at the centre of all these pathologies. But as Venkatesh explains, the local residents' attitude toward the Black Kings is actually quite conflicted. Because violence attracts police, and police scare away customers, J.T. has an economic interest in keeping life in the projects peaceful. For a small cut of the action, his henchmen provide a security detail for the local crack dens, and protection for prostitutes. They also drive sick residents to the hospital, organize basketball games, and even stage get-out-the-vote drives on behalf of the local black political machine. There is plenty of violence in Gang Leader for a Day. But it is not random. Like all petty tyrants, J.T. understands that his legitimacy rests on providing some semblance of order.
In the coming matriarchy these will be the real powerbrokers in our communties and neighbourhoods. They will be the warlords and rulers.
This is the world you want ladies. Count me out however. I'm no longer willing to defend our species' future with words or actions.
As I've stated several times previously if women ruled the world there WOULD be fewer wars but complete anarchy and brutality at the local level. Armageddon can't come soon enough.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
This is a great post. The topic of gangs comes up quite about on other blogs, where there's talks of fatherless youths roaming the streets in packs. The Roissy in DC blog is one place it's discussed, but there are people who comment there that have their own blogs who mention this.
It's an important subject that gets ignored in the mainstream. But...when you don't give kids families, they'll find families in other areas. That, IMO is why gangs exist.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:21 am
It said: "With no father figures to guide them, these men internalize the juvenile conception of manhood peddled by rap videos"
Men are still held to blame for the situation. Don't you guys see where that "rap" comment opens the door for blaming men? Like all those evil record company executives, and violent rap artists?
How are radical feminists to be held accountable? Like at least a mention of how they have influenced the family court system, so that joint custody is so rarely awarded? I realize the article isn't about radical feminism, I just don't think this will help men that much.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:31 am
That reminds me of something I saw on the True Equality Network's web site. (This is a slight digression, but it goes with the point I was making above).
On T.E.N.'s web site, they have (or at least used to have) a page with photographs of men in "disadvantaged positions". It is a small montage of photos occupying a prominent place on the page, with, for example, a photo of a homeless man, one of a male prisoner, a boy wearing a dunce cap and a boy being circumcised. Above the group of photos are the words "Brought to you, courtesy of 'The Patriarchy' ".
The intent is obviously to say, "if men had all the power, why would there be so many men and boys in these lowly circumstances?" But the problem is that feminists (and many other people) will see the page, and say, "yeah, it's true..those problems are due to the partriarchy (i.e. men)!"
Sorry to change the subject : - )
February 13th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Well, men are at fault in some ways, just like women are at fault in some ways. Men (for the most part) run the rap and black music industry, and they have a real say in what is presented to these young men. They are the role models these boys follow. Women have a real say in their decisions to keep men out of the homes, and continue to choose men who act in these ways, perpetuating the cycles. Both had a major role in creating the policies which created the welfare system, which was created not long after women got the vote-but before they were really voting as a block, which tells me it was a more mutual system than today. Welfare was created to help with the Great Depression, which was an appropriate time for a system like that. It just should have died with the Depression.
I agree this could come off as "only" men's fault, which would be very wrong. But let's be honest and see that women alone did not create this situation either.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
BisquitQueen, you can't just blame a whole gender, the groups are too large and diverse to do that.
You say that 'men' created rap music. I'm male, what part have I had to play in rap music? I hate rap music! You can't simply dismiss the complaints of mistreatment of a group (men) by saying that other men are to blame. So what? Who says that men act as a group? Male and female judges both favour female criminals in sentencing, not only their respective genders.
Any men working in the music industry are out to make money, not to push any social agenda. They aren't making these young men turn to gangs, they're merely exploiting it to make money. The media doesn't tell people what it wants them to hear, it tells people what THEY want to hear.
The gang problem is caused by social deprivation, lack of resources and as seen here, fatherlessness.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
The flip side of this is the type of men these women made the choice to be with. None of them obviously are candidates for father of the year but we go back to taking responsibility for our actions. As a woman if you are attracted to the "Bad Boy" why are you always so surprised when he takes off? Ive never understood that.
Many men today can tell you stories ranging from High School on up thru thier College life and adulthood where they may have either been dating or wanting to date a girl and were thrown aside because she wanted the "Bad Boy".
I have seen it myself to many times where the girl gets what she wants but then cant understand when the guy she chooses treats her like dirt or takes advantage of her. Then she turns around because she made bad decisions and blames ALL men for her troubles. I know a lot of nice guys who would go out thier way to have a good relationship with thier significant others who couldnt get the time of day from any nmber of women because they didnt fit the mold. They didnt have the car or clothes or the money but they had the one thing the girl/women wanted nothing to do with......
A Future.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Callum, exactly. I am a woman and I had no part to play in the creation of black slum gang culture. But if some say men are not to blame, then by default that means women are to blame. Nope.
Not all men are to blame here, nor are all women. But SOME men and women are feeding into this problem in major ways. Just as in another thread women were told ignorance was no excuse, the same can be said here. I never said all men were running the rap music industry, but out of the people who are running it, most are men. I also admitted that in black homes, it is the women who are making the choices to not have the men in their lives, either by kicking them out of by choosing men who will not stay around. Since they have final choice as to procreation, it comes down to their decision.
Of course this problem is much deeper than these few points. A system designed to hold inner city poor hostage with just enough welfare to keep them quiet but not enough to actually help them be autonomous, as atmosphere of fear and horrible role models for the kids, lack of healthy foods, all play a part.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Ironically, public assistance and welfare programs have segregated the largest populations they serve. Typically more native americans and african americans as a higher percentage receive the most public assistance and welfare dollars. This has led to segregation for these populations rather than integration into mainstream society.
Actually, puplic assistance and welfare programst only exacercebate the problem and continues the cycle of poverty for these populations.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Just as with girls whom seek out the missing father figure, boys seek out the same in other males including coersive gang influences.
(Thomas, we have a similar toll system here which is routinely used for criminal investigations and that's why I don't use it but only tokens. If they go fully automated, I suspect I'll seek to stay off the toll roads altogether. P.S., when I buy gas in quantities as low as less than a dollar, I sometimes tell the attendant I need a receipt because I'm presumed to be burying my money behind my apartment.)
Mike
February 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
BisquitQueen: Nobody said that 'men' weren't to blame, nor that women were the blame. In fact the whole point of Glenn posting the article is that he is making the point that a culture of fatherlessness is to blame. What exactly are you directing your point at?
February 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The problem here in the US dates to the Great Society when we started to pay women to have children without fathers. In the 1940s, the number of fatherless homes in the inner city of most urban areas was around 15%. Today it is 70%. The crime rates for boys and levels of promiscuity for girls have a direct correlation to that terrifying figure. The government can't raise a child.
Bottom line: if you need to ask how important a father is to a child, look to the inner city. We don't need feminist writers to tell us fathers don't matter, we have Exhibit "A" to PROVE them wrong.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:01 am
BQ,
I agree with you that both men and women share some blame here. Boys don't have to choose to hang with their Lord-of-the-Flies male peers and the gangland hierarchy that goes with it. No one's forcing girls to have precocious sex and then marginalize the father of the resultant baby in a fit of control-freak pique.
And you've touched on another blame source as well with your "system designed to hold inner city poor..." comment. And this source is a system of government-sponsored incentives that encourages women to marry the gummint rather than a flesh-and-blood man, or to obtain a divorce. And I'm not just talking welfare, either, I'm looking at the whole constellation of factors that entice women to do it "on their own" without a man.
Whatever the cause, the results of father absence in a child's live are as predictable as they are tragic.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Tim Murray: Great Comment.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Tim
I would add a caveat to that comment (which I agree with btw) that up until very recently the mothers were paid a healthy check for all those children which was incentive to have more.
A big reason for the welfare reform and passing the burden of paying back the states falling squarely on the fathers was because states found themselves payng billions of dollars in welfae benefits to baby machines. But rather then hold the mothers accoutable we find that the fathers are being squeezed in the worst example of legalized extortion that has ever been seen. If a private citizen did half the things the State and Federal Govt do they would be in jail so long they would never see the sun shine again.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Who profits from this situation as described in the article?
I guarantee you this “ghetto godfather” is not the only one making a profit. He’s just left with the “chump change” and really has nothing to do with the problem. This article doesn’t address any solution to the problem, it only encourages reform, in order to create more work for bureaucrats to fix the problem they created in the first place.
If you think for a moment about the *vast welfare bureaucracy*, (far too many occupations to mention here) that serves the army of “single mother” welfare-recipient-households, then you’re beginning to see the picture.
If you think about the *vast law enforcement community*, (judges, lawyers, police, prison staff and far too many others to mention here) you begin to get an idea of what’s behind this “industry”, that makes its living from the destruction of the family.
The amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer to finance this bureaucracy is mind-boggling. There’s a very simple solution to this problem, but no one is listening to a proposal that will end the careers of most of the people who extort their livelihood from the future of our children.
Kevin Merck
February 13th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Wow, FASCINATING article!!!
What guilty White liberals don't realize is that these "poor, oppressed" Blacks in da hood are living out their own ghetto-fab fantasies BY CHOICE. 6 figures and multiple hoz?
Beats working a 40-hr job and living life as an indentured servant to your wife, right?
I feel these kids are actually paving the way for men of the future in the US with their "ghetto ways."
February 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Good points Gwallan. I grew up with both parents and they disciplined me when I was wrong. After loving me, I say that discipline is the second most important ingredient. I would forsake materialism for discipline. But that word has no meaning today.
You can get rid of all the rap videos and the problem still won't go away. When boys don't have fathers they often turn to gangs. But the videos do exacerbate the problem.
Norman L, I'm sure that Venkatesh doesn't completely blame men for gangs. He stated the truth that gang members have a juvenile view of manhood. His statement suggests that if their were more fathers then there would be fewer gangs.
TheBisquitQueen, I agree that men and women are responsible for this problem. But I also say that feminists are now the main ones driving the engine with there incessant attacks on the family and the detrimental effects of the child protective service (cps). Too many men got caught up in the Playboy Magazine lifestyle and the sexual revolution which cause illegitimacy to rise.
Their are numerous factors involved in making gang members but children without fathers is the biggest cause.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
"At the same time, Gang Leader for a Day implicitly suggests a strategy for tackling this underlying subculture: overhauling the drug laws and welfare programs that serve as its two-pronged economic power source.
As Canadian gang expert Michael C. Chettleburgh wrote in a June, 2007, National Post op-ed, our criminal prohibition of recreational drugs permits gangs to capture the massive economic premium associated with illegal enterprise. By treating drug use as what it truly is --a health problem instead of a criminal-justice problem -- we would force gangs to fall back onto far less lucrative activities, and thereby discourage membership."
February 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
"What guilty White liberals don't realize is that these "poor, oppressed" Blacks in da hood are living out their own ghetto-fab fantasies BY CHOICE. 6 figures and multiple hoz?"
Surely the fact that poverty and crime are high in some areas and low in others suggests it is not CHOICE that is the determining factor but rather social influences. Your suggestion is like saying sub-saharan Africa is poor because they're all LAZY.
In fact, the whole point of the article is that fatherlessness is one of the factors that causes these problems, rather than choice.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Coming soon to a (white) neighborhood near you (if it hasn't already)!
Given the demographic trend of "heroic" single mothers, anyone who doesn't think this is a harbinger of things to come for society in general is kidding themselves. Single motherhood is at 70% in the black community. In the general population, single motherhood is at about 33% -- and is climbing rapidly. You go girls! Keep having babies fathered by "baby daddies" who don't give a flying f**k about you, or society. When you aren't invested in something, it's hard to give a sh*t about it. And these days, marriage and fatherhood is about as risky an investment as a man can make.
Gee, who could'a seen this one coming?
February 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
BTW, is feminism to blame? Let's see. Feminism expressly promotes the destruction of the nuclear family which, due to the malevolent male presence, is an oppressive trap for women. I don't seem to recall any other group agitating for this over the last 40 years. So, yeah, it's hard not to lay a heaping helping of blame in feminists' laps. Also note the vicious circle: the more successful feminism is, the fewer men are in the father role, the more male children grow up disadvantaged and likely to be miscreants, the worse men are, and the more protection is needed for women, etc., etc.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
[...] "The first thing one notices about the world Venkatesh describes is this: There are no fathers. Everyone at Lake Park -- even J.T., who commands 200 gangsters and, in a good year, makes six figures from crack-dealing -- lives with their momma. "The young men don't dream of settling down with a family. Rather, they seek to emulate the polygamous J.T., who uses his drug proceeds to lodge various girlfriends in separate apartments. With no father figures to guide them, these men internalize the juvenile conception of manhood peddled by rap videos, and fritter away their adolescent years pursuing it through streetcorner posturing and brawling." Except for the corner stores (which are run by Arabs), there is little legitimate free-market activity. Virtually all of the money coming in to Lake Park comes from two sources: government welfare and drugs. criminality is normalized: The idea of studying hard, going to college and getting a respectable job -- the formula for success applied by waves of European and Asian immigrants to North American since the late 19th century -- is dismissed as a white man's fantasy. So, we see the primal African mating strategy resurfacing here. Women getting knocked up by non-commital studs and living off welfare (taxpaying cuckolds) and crime. And this is all by CHOICE. These young bastard boys actually make 6 figure incomes dealing and loitering. "Hustle and breed" is their motto. White suburbans may feel sorry for them - but it is they who feel sorry for White & Asian squares who work hard to pay their welfare and get married to give their women half their loot! This racial behavior is simply becoming academic now - as even this sympathetic book attests. When I was in EU, it was weird to not see any "Africatown" ghettoes anywhere - because in the US, you find one in every city. Breeding grounds for bastard babies, drugs, welfare, hustling and crime. But, when their Black population keeps rising, they will form just like here too (lookout Canada!). It's a simple law of Nature. As the Black saying goes, "You can take a nigga outta tha hood, but you can't take the hood outta the nigga." No offense anybody, but keeping our heads in the sand only makes these problems worsen... __________________ A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and it is confirmed only by other men. Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all. - Camille Paglia A monkey prefers a banana to an iPod. Warning: Dumb people may find me offensive. [...]
February 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Anyone blaming rap culture for the gang scene should pause and consider that the rap scene is a result of fatherlessness. Not the reverse as some are suggesting.
Ghetto gangs existed long before rap.
It is the future folks. Get used to it.
This is the feminists' "communities" playing out before our eyes. And note the gangs' community sensibilities.
Gang life is at the centre of all these pathologies. But as Venkatesh explains, the local residents' attitude toward the Black Kings is actually quite conflicted. Because violence attracts police, and police scare away customers, J.T. has an economic interest in keeping life in the projects peaceful. For a small cut of the action, his henchmen provide a security detail for the local crack dens, and protection for prostitutes. They also drive sick residents to the hospital, organize basketball games, and even stage get-out-the-vote drives on behalf of the local black political machine. There is plenty of violence in Gang Leader for a Day. But it is not random. Like all petty tyrants, J.T. understands that his legitimacy rests on providing some semblance of order.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I've long said that the more power we allow women the more we will revert to barbarism.
Hillary's, and feminism's, "communities" will come to be as women collectively hitch their wagons to fewer and fewer men. Whether it be the government or the gang leader or the tribal chief or the big man or the mafia capo matters little. The outcome will always be brutality, especially for men.
Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister is relevant here. The more men who are marginalised the fewer of them who are able, or even willing, to follow their natural inclination to act in the greater good.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
We can not even blame men here. If the are all fatherless that damn it the mothers better step up to the plate. It seems to me that there is an implication here that all the fathers ran out on these boys. There are many reasons for these boys to be fatherless, death being one of them. This will disrupt their economic standing and many will have to live in the proj.
Has anyone seriously dated or marries a woman with kids, it seems to me that men who are in that situation more often than women are not allowed to play a parent role these restrictions placed by the mom.
Sorry ladies but for whatever the reason you find your children fatherless it is you who are responcible. You have the child(ren) you have to take on the task. I am not saying that if a dad walks out that he bears no responcibility but you are and adult and if you have the children you are the parent and you must raise them right and with rules. It is not fair but too bad, that is life in the big city and you cannot blame someone who is not there nor chan you expect him to help. Bottom line stop the blame game in this instance you have children to raise.
b
February 14th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Ooops sent before proof reading, and I am tired please excuse the typos and spelling errors
By the way this also applies for men who find themselves in iths situation also.
b
February 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
We see in the accelerating trend of single motherhood and violent gangs the approaching death of western society and dictatorial rule taking it's place. These young geraniums in their craniums young feminist women better get used to living in a state of fear in their later years. The U.S. is going to sooner than later resemble something out of the Mad Max movies.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Right on Taras. I'm glad you see that a society without strong fathers and families is due to collapse. Single mothers aren't good about disciplining their children. Hell, most two parent families are afraid to discipline their kids. Police have admitted that the justice system can't last much longer. Scary indeed.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@BiscuitQueen, where in my post does it say I'm "blaming women"?? I find you to usually be quite rational, but lately you have been making some odd comments.
On the other hand though, one thing that I notice that is often overlooked, is that mothers do raise their sons. And as psychologists have pointed out, the mother-son relationship is a very close attachment..
Almost everyone is in denial, about the influence that mothers have on their sons, when it becomes the case that a man turns out bad. Especially the not uncommon, though largely unreported, incidents of sexual abuse of boys by their mothers.
Although people are all to ready to give the mother credit when the son turns out to be talented and accomplishes much in life.
Funny how that works:)