1-3 of 3 Results  for:

  • Keywords: gender x
  • Victimology/Criminal Victimization x
Clear all

Article

Men are the main users of violence at every level of society ranging from the individual to the national; at the same time, they are the primary victims of violence outside of the home. Previous theoretical work on the gender of men has been criticized for pushing to the side men are the primary users of violence by not sufficiently incorporating violence as social practices underpinning men’s power. Violence generally and domestic violence and abuse (DVA) specifically are used as theoretical tools to analyze how theories on the gender of men facilitate understanding men’s experiences of power (e.g., primary user of DVA) and powerlessness (e.g., primary victim of DVA). DVA is utilized as a specific type of violence because it is a global social issue and because of the wealth of empirical studies showing that most men are the primary users, and a small minority experience DVA. Untangling men’s talk of DVA is rarely straightforward, as men who are the primary perpetrator may claim to be the victim, and men who are the primary victim may minimize their DVA experiences. Gender refers to one set of unequal power relations that structures society. One of the most well-known theories on the gender of men is hegemonic masculinity theory, which drew from feminist and gay scholarship to describe the social process of men’s continual creation and maintenance of power over women and the hierarchy of power among men. In brief, hegemonic masculinity was a set of gendered practices that was understood in a particular cultural context to ensure men’s domination of women. The importance of violence was noted within hegemonic masculinity theory, but the conceptual links between violence and hegemonic masculinity were inconsistent. The hegemony of men theory clarified these ambiguities by shifting the focus from masculinities to men, noting that men—not masculinities—are the primary users of violence. However, not all men will engage in violence. Some may subvert practices of violence. Neither theory sufficiently linked structural understandings of gendered power with individual practices to facilitate exploring the complexities of men’s practices, particularly men’s discursive practices. This limitation is due largely to three factors: (1) the conflation of the hierarchy of power between men and women and the hierarchy of power among men; (2) the lack of engagement with intersectionality; and (3) the lack of engagement with theories explaining the everyday practices of gender. Included in Walby’s theory of intersectionality are the structuring social systems of gender relations and violence. Adopting these systems provided the theoretical breadth and depth to explain the diversity of men’s engagement with violence within and between each hierarchy of power. Discursive social psychology (DSP) focused on how men used interpretative repertoires in their talk about themselves and others, to get a sense of how men (re)construct and negotiate gendered positions. Integrating DSP with intersectionality facilitated understanding how men in their talk reconstructing their experiences of DVA could use discursive resources to position themselves as men—a position associated with power.

Article

Women and white-collar crime is a topic that has, overall, received little attention in the literature. Initially, women were omitted from discussion and research because of their lack of participation, though some early commentary focused on victimization. When Edwin Sutherland first drew public and academic attention to white-collar crimes, few women were employed in positions that were conducive to commit elite crimes related to occupations or professions. According to Sutherland, white-collar crime involved professional men in positions of trust. From 1939 until the 1970s, work on white-collar offenders and offenses was male-centric, which included both scholarly researchers who were exploring the topic and males committing the majority of crimes. Corporations and respected professionals, not women, were presented with a multitude of opportunities to engage in white-collar crimes with little or no serious consequences. Primarily male corporate executives, politicians, and medical professionals committed white-collar crimes that included, for example, activities such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, insurance fraud, and Ponzi schemes. Women, who lacked opportunity outside the private sphere of the home, were less involved in crime overall and certainly were in no position to commit white-collar offenses. In the 1940s and 1950s, female crime was typically viewed as promiscuous, aberrant, and male-like behavior. Eventually, in the mid-1970s as more women moved into the public sphere seeking employment, early predictions by female scholars suggested that an increased involvement in white-collar crime was inevitable. The types of crimes committed by women, as noted by pioneering female scholars, were likely to expand beyond prostitution, check kiting, and shoplifting to white-collar offenses as opportunities became increasingly available in the public sphere. Gender inequality in most criminal endeavors continues to exist and more recent debates continue about the role of women in white-collar crime.

Article

The development of social media, and Web 2.0 more broadly, has revolutionized all aspects of our social, cultural, and political lives. Notably, social media and online platforms have opened up space for resisting gender-based violence (GBV) in a way that, in some respects, was not possible “offline.” Some authors, drawing on Nancy Fraser, have conceptualized online spaces as a form of “counter-public”—a site in which collective and individual resistance to, and contestation of, dominant norms is enabled. Given the well-documented trajectories of victim-blaming and the perpetuation of various myths and misperceptions in relation to gender violence, social media spaces can function as a counter-public or countercultural forum in which victim-survivors can give voice to their experiences in their own words, and in doing so challenge persistent norms and stereotypes. Such practices have been documented across the Global North and South, with the potential of social media as a space of resistance and contestation most recently evidenced by the #MeToo global phenomenon, which was preceded by a string of digital activist efforts such as SlutWalk, Hollaback, #WhyIStayed, and #EndRapeCulture. Yet the use of digital platforms to resist gender violence brings with it a range of concerns and limitations. While some activists and victim-survivors are able to harness social media to share experiences and be heard, the ability to do so continues to be shaped by factors such as age, (dis)ability, sexuality, socioeconomic status, race, and geographical location. Online resistance has likewise faced critique for actively reproducing certain myths and stereotypes about gender violence, or for providing a limited or partial picture of what this violence “is.” This suggests that only certain victim-survivors and experiences are recognized and validated as such online. In addition, online disclosure and the “naming and shaming” of perpetrators raises serious concerns regarding due process and “vigilantism.” Moreover, social media spaces can themselves be sites of gender violence, with the routine harassment and abuse of (particularly) women online increasingly well documented. Together, such perspectives illustrate the complex, nuanced, and deeply political role of social media as a site of resistance to gender violence.