Viewing Various Forms of Violence From a Feminist Perspective

Concurrent Sessions 2
Session ID#: 
115

Discussant: Jill Bowers
Presider: Elizabeth Sharp
Recorder: Theresa Lindsay

Date: 
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Time: 
10:00 am - 11:30 am
Session Location: 
Salon 3
Session Type: Paper
Sponsoring Section(s): 
Feminism & Family Studies

About the Session

  • Exploring Nonviolent Coercive Control During Marriage And After Separation
    Presented by:
    Kimberly A. Crossman, Jennifer L. Hardesty, Marcela Raffaelli
  • Where's the Theory? A Critical Analysis of LGBT Violence Research
    Presented by:
    Janel M. Leone, Nicole E. Conroy, Michael P. Waide
  • PAPER CANCELLED. Victimization at Work among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults: A Feminist Analysis
    Presented by:
    Erika D. Brooks, Ramona F. Oswald, Anisa M. Zvonkovic
  • Intimate Partner Violence, Socioeconomic Status, and Use of Protective Strategies
    Presented by:
    Megan L Haselschwerdt, Samantha K Nielsen, Hannah Habeeb, Jennifer L Hardesty, Marcela Raffaelli

Abstracts

Exploring Nonviolent Coercive Control During Marriage And After Separation

Presented by: Kimberly A. Crossman, Jennifer L. Hardesty, Marcela Raffaelli

Recent work has identified ongoing damaging effects that intimate terrorism has on women's lives. However, little is known about women separating from coercive controlling partners without a history of violence. This study examined the characteristics of nonviolent coercive control during marriage and after separation. Preliminary results describe coercive controlling behaviors present during marriage, women's reports of fear of their partner, and various help-seeking strategies implemented in response to partners' control. Additionally, results describe variations in ongoing control and harassment, women's help-seeking, and perceived risk after separation. Data analysis is ongoing and will be completed by May 2011. 

Where's the Theory? A Critical Analysis of LGBT Violence Research

Presented by: Janel M. Leone, Nicole E. Conroy, Michael P. Waide

We conducted a systematic, critical theoretical analysis of research examining violence within LGBT partnerships. Two major themes emerged. First, the overwhelming majority of the studies lack explicit theory to explain or predict findings. Second, discussions of gender roles and the social construction of gender tend to differ based on the studies' sampling frames. These findings speak to the value of making distinctions within LGBT violence research and the generalizability of gender-based theories for understanding, explaining and predicting violence in LGBT partnerships.

Victimization at Work among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults: A Feminist Analysis

Presented by: Erika D. Brooks, Ramona F. Oswald, Anisa M. Zvonkovic

This study explores victimization in the workplace for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. This study examines the socio-structural location by exploring how participant's social status and aspects of employment are associated with victimization at work. Different aspects of both social status and work such as type of job, education, income, gender expression, and parental status are a few of the aspects that are used to predict victimization in the workplace for LGB-adults in this study. A feminist perspective helps explain how heteronormativity and gender may play a role in people's experiences in the workplace.

Intimate Partner Violence, Socioeconomic Status, and Use of Protective Strategies

Presented by: Megan L Haselschwerdt, Samantha K Nielsen, Hannah Habeeb, Jennifer L Hardesty, Marcela Raffaelli

This study examined the role of socioeconomic status and type of intimate partner violence (IPV) on the use of protective strategies among forty-five divorcing mothers who reported marital IPV. Preliminary results indicate that divorcing mothers who experienced IT used more overall protective strategies than mothers who reported experiencing SCV. SES indicators, including education, employment, and use of public assistance were not associated with the use of protective strategies, but income was negatively associated with protective strategies for mothers in the SCV group only. Implications for research, practice, and policy will be addressed in the presentation.