The Contributions of Female Independence and Gender Equality to Rape in Metropolitan Areas

Öz

Recent examinations have placed importance on gender equality and women’s independence as determinants of violence against women. These examinations have resulted in mixed results about the importance of different theoretical constructs and levels of analysis. This examination integrates macro strain constructs with the feminist perspective and utilizes the Uniform Crime Reports U.S Census data from year 2000 to determine how gender differences in social and economic status can be used to explain rape rates in the 75 most populated Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Implications for future research based on these results are presented and discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rape, gender equality, female independence, macro strain theory, backlash hypothesis.

Kaynakça

1. Avakame, E.F. (1999a). Female’s labor force participation and rape: An empirical test of the backlash hypothesis. Violence Against Women, 5, 926-949.
2. Avakame, E. (1999b). Sex ratios, female labor force participation, and lethal violence. Violence Against Women, 5, 1321-1341.
3. Bailey, W.C. (1999). The socioeconomic status of women and patterns of forcible rape for major U.S. cities. Sociological Focus, 32, 43-63.
4. Baron, L. & Straus, M. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In N.M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.) Pornography and sexual aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Baron, L. & Straus, M. (1987). Four theories of rape: A macrosociological analysis. Social Problems, 34, 467-488.
6. Baron, L. & Straus, M. (1989). Four theories of rape in American society: A state- level analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7. Blau, J. & Blau, P. (1982). The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review, 47, 114-129.
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006). Criminal victimization in the United States,

9. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press.
10. Ellis, L. & Beattie, C. (1983). The feminist explanation for rape: An empirical test. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 74-93.
11. Fisher, B.S., Sloan, J.J., Cullen, F.T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.
12. Gartner, R. & McCarthy, B. (1991). The social distribution of femicide in urban Canada, 1921-Law & Society Review, 25, 287-312.
13. Grana, S.J. (2001). Sociostructural considerations of domestic femicide. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 421-435.
14. Koss, M.P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.
15. Hunnicutt, G. & Broidy, L.M. (2004). Liberation and economic marginalization: A reformulation and test of (formerly?) competing models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 130-155.
16. Lee, M. & Stevenson, G. (2006). Gender-specific homicide offending in rural areas. Homicide Studies, 10, 55-73.
17. Martin, K., Vieraitis, L.M., Britto, S. (2006). Gender equality and women’s absolute status. Violence Against Women, 12, 321-339.
18. Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, , 672-682.
19. Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
20. Peterson, R.D. & Bailey, W.C. (1992). Rape and dimensions of gender socioeconomic inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 162-177.
21. Reid, L.W. & Konrad, M. (2004). The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 399-425.
22. Warshaw, R. (1994). I Never Called it Rape. New York: Harper Collins.
23. Whaley, R.B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape. Gender & Society, 15, 531-555.