#so345 Previously in the semester, we talked about how the discovery of child abuse was not necessarily that child abuse wasn't occurring, but there was a shift in how we thought/talked about it. Part of that was a shift from labeling youth as delinquents and recognizing them as victims. However, these boys are continually abused by police, the school system, and community members (peers and rival gangs), yet they are still viewed as delinquents/criminals rather than victims. (1/2)

#so345 In Rios's Ted Talk he describes how many of the boys are like oysters, they open up when they're ready and if there is not support around, they will close immediately. This analogy exemplifies many of the comments made by boys in the study. The boys often remarked about wanting to genuinely change but not having the resources or support to actually make real change in their lives. Without systems of support and resources, the cycle of poverty and criminalization continues to trap them.

#so345 Ch 7 illuminates more ways these boys are placed in double binds. They can either choose to be positively evaluated by the youth control complex and negatively evaluated by their delinquent friends, or the opposite and negatively viewed by the system and positively viewed by their friends. However, either way, these boys continue to experience criminalization and victimization regardless of their course of action. This demonstrates the double standards these boys have to try to live with.

#so345 at the beginning of the semester we talked about how deviance is associated with certain things, like night time. As I read Ch 7, Rios pointed out how the hours between 3-6 pm were the most dangerous hours because this is when youth crime, violence, and victimization occurs. This demonstrates how deviance is not just linked to behaviors, but linked to times of day where deviant behaviors are most acceptable. For these boys, its after school and before parents return home from work.

#so345 How are crimes of resistance and masculinity linked? Do you think in an effort to display their masculinity, these boys end up participating in crimes of resistance, like Spider keeping his hands in his pockets? Does playing into the ideas of masculinity strengthen or limit the boys' agency and freedom in their choices?

#so345 I was shocked at the end where T, in a decision to desist from crime (like the system wants) ends up exploiting others to provide for himself. This exemplifies some of the collateral consequences of a criminal record/label. Not being able to get a job or federal/state assistance, T finds a new way to stop committing crime and survive: exploiting others for his benefit and further victimizing others to protect himself.

#so345 Just as the "code of the street" becomes a means to survive, it is interesting how masculinity is used by males and females to survive. Rather than masculinity being linked strictly to biological sex, young men and women employ it to assert dominance and protect themselves from those who want to victimize them. However, in this process of protecting against victimization, masculinity then becomes too extreme leading to criminalization of these individuals.

#so345 the concept of double bind is exemplified in the boys' search for dignity and freedom. When searching for dignity, they often found it through crimes of resistance which then limit their freedom. However, if they sought freedom, they often had their sense of dignity severely damaged. They cannot seek one without the other suffering and their attempts to seek both dignity and freedom are met with further criminalization.

#so345 The concept of "going dumb" and how the boys' purpose behind it versus how others interpret it demonstrates the power in labeling behavior. For the boys, they labeled this behavior as something to regain dignity over those who view them as deviant or criminal, but for those in authority, "going dumb" often reinforced their perceptions of these boys as deviant and criminal.