Although gender inequality has been a key focus of research on violence against women, the absolute socioeconomic well-being of women is another important part of the story. As Bailey (1999: 50) observed, “in terms of vulnerability, womens absolute socioeconomic status may have a dramatic impact on the supply of potential … victims.” Routine activities and lifestyle theories (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, 1978) offer a theoretical framework for examining how dimensions of the absolute status of women may be linked to their risk for victimization. Feminist writing on violence against women also has considered womens absolute status (see Vieraitis, Kovandzic, and Britto, 2008, for a review), but routine activities and lifestyle theories offer the most detailed account of the mechanisms that may account for these relationships. The utility of these perspectives for understanding violence against women is, in particular, highlighted by the work of Gartner and her colleagues (Gartner, 1990; Gartner, Baker, and Pampel, 1990). Drawing on motivational, control, and opportunity explanations of homicide, Gartner (1990) examined cross-national variation in the rates of homicide across gender and age subgroups in 18 countries (U.S. included) from 1950 to 1980. In light of a variety of economic, social, demographic, and institutional developments in these countries, Gartner predicted that the movement of women into the labor force would increase womens rates of homicide victimization because the shift away from household activities would result in reductions in guardianship, elevating womens risk for violence. In support of this hypothesis, Gartner (1990) found significantly higher rates of femicide, or homicide of women, in nations where more women participated in the labor force. Gartners (1990) discussion of female labor force participation has important implications for understanding the etiology of victimization. Instead of focusing strictly on issues of womens subordination and gender conflict, the routine activities approach focuses on changes in womens activity patterns (e.g., in labor markets) that increase exposure to offenders. Gartner, Baker, and Pampel (1990) extended this discussion to incorporate womens education and income, suggesting that these variables are more direct indicators of womens access to economic resources. As such, the gains in womens income and education (either individually or collectively) are hypothesized to be protective and thus should reduce female victimization rates. In short, labor force participation per se is argued to increase exposure to victimization, whereas gains in education and income are expected to protect women. The distinction between dimensions of womens status provides a theoretical basis for testing whether each factor has a unique effect on womens victimization. Routine activities and lifestyle theories similarly suggest that victim–offender relationships are important factors to consider when evaluating womens risk for violence. According to these theories, working outside the home may increase opportunities for female victimization by increasing womens exposure to strangers and other potential offenders. In contrast, the participation of women in the labor force may reduce their opportunities for victimization within the family by lessening the dependence of women on their abusers and by reducing the amount of exposure in the home (Dawson, Bunge, and Balde, 2009). In other words, the impact of womens absolute status on violence may vary across victim–offender relationships, just as the impact of womens relative status may vary across victim–offender subtypes of violence. Consistent with this view, researchers have found that long-term trends in womens victimization vary depending on victim–offender relationship (Browne and Williams, 1993; Dugan, Nagin, and Rosenfeld, 2003; Lauritsen and Heimer, 2008; Rosenfeld, 1997, 2000). Together, these findings again underscore the possible differences in the mechanisms leading to violence at the hands of strangers, intimate partners, and other known offenders.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:07:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015