Victimization and Attitudes Towards Woman Abuse of Impoverished Minority Women

There has been virtually no research on the linkages between poor minority women’s attitudes toward woman abuse and their experiences of mistreatment. In this article, this relationship is explored for 144 women from three racial groups living in public housing in a Minnesota city. One unique aspect of the study is the inclusion of Hmong women, members of a group originally from several areas of Southeast Asia, and about whom little is known. Generally, while there were no differences between groups, and a few within the Black or White groups, Hmong women who agreed with male privilege were five times more likely to be abused than other Hmong women, while Hmong women who disagreed with statements approving of male aggression in certain specific situations were only one third as likely to be abused. The results suggest that while rates of abuse among minority poor women are profound, agreement with certain patriarchal norms that may validate abuse varies considerably, and may have different consequences for different ethnic groups. Further research examining potential reasons for these variations is needed if policy makers and practitioners are to adequately address these women’s experiences of abuse.

Which Women are More Likely to be Abused? Public Housing, Cohabitation and Separated/Divorced Women.

Data collected at Canadian public housing estates in eastern Ontario are used here to analyze two hypotheses. Overall these women report more violence than do otherwise situated women in other general surveys. More specifically, complex theoretical models were designed to generate two hypotheses for further analysis: First, that separated/divorced women are more likely to be abused within public housing than married women. Second, that cohabiting women will report violence victimization at a higher rate than separated, divorced, or married women. Some support for both hypotheses were found, and the theoretical models are used to discuss these findings.

Dangerous Exits: The Abuse of Women in Rural America

Decade after decade, violence against women has gained more attention from scholars, policy makers, and the general public. Social scientists in particular have contributed significant empirical and theoretical understandings to this issue. Strikingly, scant attention has focused on the victimization of women who want to leave their hostile partners. This groundbreaking work challenges the perception that rural communities are safe havens from the brutality of urban living. Identifying hidden crimes of economic blackmail and psychological mistreatment, and the complex relationship between patriarchy and abuse, Walter S. DeKeseredy and Martin D. Schwartz propose concrete and effective solutions, giving voice to women who have often suffered in silence.

Violence Against Women: Myths, Facts, Controversies

In Violence Against Women, award-winning author Walter S. DeKeseredy offers a passionate but well-documented sociological overview of a sobering problem. He starts by outlining the scope of the challenge and debunks current attempts to label intimate violence as gender neutral. He then lays bare the structural practices that sustain this violence, leading to a discussion of long- and short-term policies to address the issue. DeKeseredy includes an examination of male complicity and demonstrates how boys and men can change their roles. Throughout, he responds to myths that dismiss threats to women's health and safety and provides an impassioned call to action for women, men, and policymakers.

Explaining Gendered Sentencing Patterns for Men and Women in the Late Victorian Period

Contemporary studies of disparities in the sentencing of male and female offenders claim that the differences found are caused by gender-related contextual factors, but not by a gender bias. In contrast, historical studies have suggested that women were disadvantaged by appearing to offend both against the law and the conventions of femininity. This article analyses minor assaults prosecuted in ten English magistrates’ courts between 1880 and 1920. It is based on a data-set that combines court cases and newspaper reports, and allows for the control of gender differences in sentencing outcomes through four contextual factors: severity of the assault, bonds between victim and assailant, culpability, and evidence. The findings reveal a differentiated pattern of sentences that questions the assumption that ‘doubly deviant’ women were more often convicted, and received higher penalties, throughout the Victorian period. The results show that the contextual factors of the offence affected judicial decision-making to the extent that they virtually account for gender differences in conviction rates, but do not, on their own, account for the different penalties handed out to men and women. Women who committed similar assaults to men were likely to receive a lighter punishment. Magistrates clearly targeted ‘male’ contexts of violence, and handed down more convictions and harsher penalties to men involved in these, in contrast to women involved in 'female' contexts. The findings of a strong gender bias in sentencing that disadvantaged lowerclass men indicate that local magistrates directed their efforts of 'civilizing' lower-class communities at 'dangerous masculinities', and deemed assaults committed by women as less important in this task.