Historically, women were not working or getting money.

A powerful woman got back at another woman by telling her bf/husband who then made sure that the other woman's husband/bf was taken care of and there by the woman was economically tortured. It was rare for a weak husband to be immune from torture by a powerful woman who had a grouse against his wife.

Husbands/bf's were not flexible historically. But that is not the case in bronx. So a bronx girl telling her bf and then he getting at the other girls bf does nothing to take care of the girl as such. So the girl has to resort to a direct attack on the other girl. If we get back to the old times of inflexible huband/wife or bf/gf relationships, girls would still get back at the other girls via their bf's

Reminds me of that dialogue in irobot - the good old days when people used to kill other people....can be adapted to this situation as the good old days when girls used to get back at other girls through their guys and not directly

People are scociopaths, sure some small bits of basic morality are hard wired in, more of a cost/benifit of being an asshole anylisis really, but people are animals, and animals fuck eachother up competing over resorces.

"The mom is working three jobs and comes home at 11 at night, so they're not being raised by anybody but the streets and their friends"...

In other words no daddy, sure daddy issues are great for someone looking for cheap and easy sex, but they are hell on scociety.

So what you are left with is a bunch of kids, in a city of millions, with no supervision or guidence and only the barest minimum of their morality working. Is it really any wonder the only loyalty they show is to the immediate members of thier impromptu family?

And once they are busted on something with a large enough sentance, most of them drop that last shred of loyalty as well

"The mom is working three jobs and comes home at 11 at night"

I seriously doubt that most of these moms are working. They are probably living off welfare and maybe child support. They are probably blowing their welfare payments on drugs and boyfriends who spend more time in jail than out.

If mom was actually working 3 jobs, the kids would not be this deviant. If working late was the reason for kids getting deviant, then kids of single dads would also be deviant, but by and large, kids of single dads are better than kids of single moms. The kids are probably getting that way because of the example set by their moms. Single dads normally set a good example which the kids emulate. This is probably a sign of lack of a good example at the house and kids are probably just following the example set by the parent(mom)

Geez, redrajesh, there's some validity mixed in there with your crap. I read this article about the girl gangs on the uprise. These girls are coming from very tough areas and extremely tough projects. I'd have to agree with Rej, that the moms are not working 3 jobs. Instead, I'd say they are the moms who were raised on welfare and the belief that as long as you keep having kids, you'll keep getting money. Most of them had kids in their mid to late teens and got pregnant by boys who don't stick around much past the impregnating part of the relationship.

I try not to be a judgmental person but these girls make it difficult to be sympathetic. They do some pretty nasty stuff and they can be very brutal. And they'll think nothing of having a baby. Personally, I hate the people who don't want to pay for their abortions because life is so precious. Yes, let's instead pay for them to have 9 kids on welfare.

And btw, these girls all have designer stuff and jewelry that I could never afford,not to mention iphones, ipads, and whatever the latest technology is. I was in Queens recently and saw one who was wearing Prada sneakers that were well over $300 while pushing a kid in a Bugaboo, a stroller I couldn't afford, and talking on her iphone while smoking a cigarette. Btw, I'm a reformed smoker. I quit because I couldn't afford $11 a pack.

The gangs are a big problem. And honestly, its a vicious cycle because these kids are being raised in them so why wouldn't they think its normal or acceptable?

I tried leaving a link to this article in an earlier post, but the spam filter blocked it - there's been a few violent and/or fatal incidences between female college students at a few universities on the East Coast (Howard and University of Maryland being two) and the Washington Post had an article about it. If you Google something like "Washington Post female students violence college" it pops up.

One stabbed her roommate in the throat in front of several of their friends in their dorm room because they were arguing about an Ipod, the other one threw a pot of boiling water on her roommate because they were fighting about using pans in the kitchen, and I can't remember the other two, but something similarly stupid.

I only personally know two former female gang members. One was a poor, Chicago black girl trying to find her way without a lot of direction. Got out of the gang by letting them beat her - breaking her wrists in front of her kids. But she got out and is very successful today.

The other was a wealthy white girl of a split parent home who was neglected and left to herself. Mom was climbing the big corporate ladder and dad was a deadbeat. Stepdad was a creep. She had no family support really. She joined a gang to belong to a family replacement. She got out by running away. Also successful today.

I also witnessed two of my friends fist fighting over a guy once in college. Wealthy, suburban girls. No gang affiliation whatsoever.

I don't know about now, but these incidents are all from the 90s. Not sure if this is anything new. I actually think Lujip (or whoever pointed this out) is right. Some kids are surviving with what social skills they may have learned.

I'm not going to bash on single mothers (or fathers) because I am one. My kids are doing great, but I pay attention and I'm involved in their lives/choices. There are plenty of parents who are married drunks, mental cases or workaholics (seen in many wealthy homes) who don't contribute to their kids' lives. That is just as damaging as not being there at all.

While I have no experience with East Coast Black gang culture, I did grow up as the only white girl in a Mexican trailer park near San Antonio, and those girls were in gangs and fighting each other 20 years ago. They had to have learned it from their parents: to hate white* people (and black people, too) and other Mexicans who weren't in their group. The things you'd hear out of their mouths were similiar to the type of crap you'd hear from a white kid with bigoted white-trash parents- just switch the races and resentments around a little. I don't think you could blame it on the lack of Dad being around... Most of them had dads in the house. (From my observations, poor hispanics may have a lot of kids and start young, but the couples do seem to stay together. You don't see so many women with lots of children from lots of different men.) I think it's a cultural attitude and it's learned in the home. It's certainly not the prevalent attitude, but you do see it a lot in second-generation American working-class hispanic families. Those girls have grown up seeing their MOMS getting into fistfights.

*I mentioned hating white people because when they'd physically threated me, they let me know it was because I was a "white girl."

So the article conflates black and Mexican gang culture with white middle class families with both parents working...right.

I was beaten up by two Mexican girls in middle school. Maybe I deserved it, but funny how it didn't happen when academic tracking separated me from that culture in high school.

so the question becomes IFF mom is working 3 jobs, why isn't daughter following her lead?. There are prolly any number of potential reasons, but this should be a primary question. I'm gonna be cynical and doubt that mom is in fact working, but let's say she is. How was that work ethic instilled in the mom, but not from mom to daughter? Does a really short life and probable death seem so much more interesting than working 3 jobs and having a kid that could care less?
Perhaps.

As much as absent fathers harm boys because of the lack of a good male role model, so too do absent fathers hurt girls because nothing comes between father and "daddy's little girl". The stereotype of the over protective father coming down hard on his daughter's boyfriend the night of the prom is a stereotype for a very good reason.

Feminists hurt their own cause when they declared they no longer want men to protect them.

Fair enough. I get your point. I was sharing a personal experience story - which likely does support your data. I added that the former gang members were successful because that's how I met them. Perhaps my mentioning that is as irrelevant as Corn Flakes. Most likely the two girls in gangs WOULD have been better off in a two-parent family as would my kids. (They both sought a family connection.) I certainly wasn't bragging about being a single parent, but I can't wear a bag over my head or marry the next guy who walks down my driveway either. It would be ideal if all kids had a healthy, two-parent home, but that's not always possible or safe (in the case of drunk, mentally crazed or absent). Single parents cannot release kids into the wild just because prevailing data says they're doomed to fail in myriad areas, nor can they drown their families in failure data.

Maybe we just hear about it more, these days. With so many news channels, it isn't like the old days when the only news you got was 30 minutes local or national. They have to work to come up with enough stuff to fill all that time. I think mass shootings are down but from the news it seems like an epidemic.

A girl at my high school brought a gun to school and shot another girl, but it was in the 1970s so it made the paper and the local radio and tv news but I'll bet nobody outside of 100 mile radius ever heard about it.

People are sociopaths, sure some small bits of basic morality are hard wired in, more of a cost/benefit of being an asshole analysis really, but people are animals, and animals fuck each other up competing over resources. --lujlp at December 5, 2011 3:50 AM

I just heard about the Milgram Experiment just the other day:

The volunteer subject was given the role of teacher, and the confederate, the role of learner. The participants drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]

The max voltage was 450 volts. Guess how many went to 450? (I'll let you google the rest.)

This effect can be seen in the gang world. The children have no role models that consistently show the right thing to do. The role models they do have are the gang leaders (pack leaders) determine what is acceptable behavior. They have peer pressure from the other pack members as to what's acceptable. And if you are immersed in that 24/7 without being an alpha type, you eventually go along to get along. Even if it isn't 24/7 but you can fake the 3-5 hours you have with a distracted semi-caring parent 4 nights a week.

Jim R.: In your post, I'm missing the part in the experiment in which electric shocks were administered.

Re News coverage
They have to work to come up with enough stuff to fill all that time.

Bullshit.

'More on this story later' = playing the smae fucking clp and making the same fucking remarks dozens of times over without evr adding new info

@Amy - I did mention it in an email to you, jeez. The spam filter didblock my comment, even after I removed the link. I like reading your blog and enjoy the comments, but your spam filter problems aren't my responsibility.

Oh, come on, folks! How can you not applaud this demonstration that we do indeed now live in a "woman's nation" where all the grrrrrl-power we could ever want is on copious display?

Women have always been masters at "violence by proxy." Now, as with so many other previously "male" pursuits, they want to take direct control of the situation!

You go, girls. No. Seriously.

Kristen, it's true about the designer jewelry and fancy gadgets. I used to work at a charity school for low-income kids, and I was amazed at some of their Christmas gifts, things that my parents NEVER would have gotten me.

We were the last family to get a computer, a cd player, a vcr... we never had the latest gadgets. But we got enriching vacations and summer programs and a college education, and my parents bought their house. I guess when your money isn't going to that stuff you have more discretionary cash to spend on trinkets.