Abstract
Feminist policy analysts and activists have for several decades emphasized the need for gendered discussions of policy reform, noting that all policies are likely to have differential consequences (i.e., benefits and costs) that vary by gender as well as other social locating variables. In the article that opens this issue of Violence Against Women (VAW), Andrea Krizsan and Raluca Popa examine the impact of women’s advocates’ efforts to translate international human rights norms on violence against women into national legislation and policy in five Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. They consider one form of violence against women, domestic violence, as it is the issue that dominated policy debates in these countries. They conceptualize gender equality as a dynamic, contested construct that has diverse meanings in different contexts and among different stakeholders. They maintain that in the five countries they studied, the translation of international norms into domestic policy framed domestic violence largely in terms of individual rights to win support from mainstream policy makers and, in turn, results in co-optation by groups who oppose gender equality. Krizsan and Popa argue that to protect policies against co-optation and simultaneously realize the potential for transformative gender equality content, policy making and policy implementation must be gendered, and gender equality advocates must be empowered throughout the process.
L. Allen Furr discusses fire attacks on women in India from the perspective of survivors of these attacks. Through analysis of narrative data from two focus groups with survivors, Furr shows the intense stigma these women experience in all aspects of their everyday lives. He applies the theory that stigma is a response to perceived threats, but even more important perhaps than the data’s support of this theory are the powerful words of the women as they describe their lived reality of marginalization and ostracism.
Victoria Frye and her colleagues turn our attention to U.S. neighborhoods and how specific characteristics of these neighborhoods are associated with sexual intimate partner violence (IPV). Their analysis uses a sample of low-income, drug-involved women and men in New York City from 2005 to 2009. Among their most interesting findings is that among men, neighborhood collective efficacy was significantly, positively associated with perpetration of sexual IPV. This finding runs counter to the standard theory of neighborhood collective efficacy, which posits that crime should be lower in neighborhoods high in collective efficacy. However, in my own research (Renzetti & Maier, 2002) and in research by others (e.g., DeKeseredy, Alvi, & Tomaszewski, 2003; Miller, 2008), findings indicate that the power of neighborhood collective efficacy does not appear to reduce IPV and other forms of violence against women. This may be due to residents’ perceptions that IPV and violence against women are “private” matters or none of their “business,” so they are unwilling to intervene as they would if they observed other types of crime. Frye et al.’s study makes a significant contribution to this body of literature, focusing specifically on sexual IPV and highlighting the need for gendered theoretical frameworks for guiding research on neighborhood characteristics and violence against women.
The study by Cortney Franklin and Tasha Menaker explores the importance of status inconsistency along with other risk factors for IPV. Franklin and Menaker report that along with greater relationship distress and family-of-origin violence, employment status inconsistency increases the likelihood of IPV victimization in their random, community sample of women. Their work adds to the growing volume of empirical research that demonstrates the importance of taking status inconsistencies into account in screening for IPV victimization risk.
Susan Robinson-Whelan, Rosemary Hughes, Joy Gabrielli, Emily Lund, and Paul Swank report the results of their evaluation of a personal safety awareness program for women with diverse disabilities. Robinson-Whelan et al. compared safety awareness and knowledge of safety protective skills and behavior among women randomly assigned to the 8-week personal safety awareness program with women who received usual care at 10 independent living centers. Their results indicate that the safety program is effective at enhancing the safety skills of women with various disabilities.
It has been argued that women are overly studied in research on IPV, and there are calls for more research on men’s perceptions of and attitudes toward IPV and other forms of violence against women. Pam Nilan, Argyo Demartoto, Alex Broom, and John Germov’s study is one response to these calls. Nilan and her colleagues analyze interview data collected from men in Indonesia. As they note, the majority of men were quite reluctant to talk about violence against women and most denied that such crimes occur in their immediate communities. Those who did talk about violence against women typically claimed that it occurred in other communities or in other households than their own. In these instances, the men tended to blame the victim for the violence and exonerate the male perpetrator. Nilan et al. discuss the need for programs to re-educate men about violence against women while empowering women to improve their safety.
This issue of VAW ends with a commentary by Murray Straus. Straus presents a reanalysis of data provided by Edward Gondolf in an article in this journal in 2012. Straus’s reanalysis of the data calls into question Gondolf’s conclusion about the role of women’s perpetration of IPV in their male partners’ likelihood of reassaulting them. Straus discusses the implications of his findings for preventing and protecting women from violent victimization.