On-the-job training reinforces the masculine norm and constructs correctional work as a gendered occupation because training is geared toward working in male penitentiaries, not female prisons. There are different approaches to dealing with each gender and they are not addressed in training because the format for teaching officers is done so asexually. This means they train the officers as if the were not men or women; is essence “gender-neutral”. The reality is that these policies are not really gender neutral at all because they create a norm that is actually masculine.
They are based on masculine identity of aggressiveness and violence found in male-dominated penitentiaries. One inmate described how his training was geared toward working in a high-security penitentiary, and the reality of where he ended up working was quite different. A female officer mentions how she when she started to work in a woman’s prison, she was unsure of how to tend to the inmates because her training focused on dealing with aggressive men. She argued that the “asexual” gender-neutral policy of her training prevented her from being allowed even 30 minutes of discussion on how to work in a female prison.
The differences between men and women’s prisons are than men’s prisons are more violent, while women’s prisons are more emotional. In men’s prisons, officers can feel racial tension during lunch because all the black men sit together, all the Hispanic men sit together and all the white men sit together. This racial tension creates violence among the inmates and it even the men that sit alone can become targets of physical violence. According to officers, this racial tension is not felt in women’s prisons because they all sit wherever they want. The lack of racial tension creates a decrease in violence.
Women are, however, more emotional than male inmates. They can become upset over tiny problems and create a feeling of suspicion with officers because they never know when they are having a serious issue or they are just being dramatic. In male prisons if a man claims to have a problem, it is usually a legitimate one. Also, since officers are not trained to work in female prisons because of so called gender-neutral policies, they only know how to deal with violent outburst so it makes them unsure as to how to handle a non-violent but extreme emotional outburst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The attempt to make training gender-neutral reinforces the assumption that the ones employed or receiving the training are male. If we look at the training given to the officers we find that it mostly done hands-on and with inmates and given by other officers already on the job. Well, if most of the officers are male and most of the prisoners are male, would we think for a moment that the training would be from a male perspective? And rather than claiming to be gender neutral, why aren't these institutions specifically training both female and male officers for situations that they may each separately encounter?
ReplyDeleteThe institutions are obviously gendered and the images of "violence" in prisons filter through the media outlets so much that the ideas that prison guard jobs are only ideal for men that can handle violence as violence is characterized to be a male trait. If we recall, a woman committing a crime was deemed to have been worse than her male counterpart as she had deceived her moral and gender role. What further reinforces gender in the institution is that prisons and their officers alike, both male and female officers prefer to work with male inmates because “women are too emotional.” Violence is described as the expression of emotion for men-why is emotion acceptable here?