User:Dancer9d/sandbox

This is a test to get started...

Request review at WP:AFC
This is just one idea I was thinking of that may contribute to female offending…

This article was chosen to look for a relationship between victimization and possible causation(s) of future crimes by victims. Psychological dimensions of power and control need to be considered in our patriarchic society for the proper reconceptualization of this type of violence. The author suggests social contexts of families and relationships need analysis since these contexts may encourage or discourage future violence. There are ongoing debates surrounding issues of domestic violence and how it impacts the daily lives of people. In the context of female offenders, research is needed to measure sociological factors that may contribute to offending. Difficulties arise because there are still fundamental differences in pinpointing a standardized definition of domestic violence. There are also other fundamental differences in how to accurately account for and measure incidents of the violence.

Multiple terms associated with domestic violence include: domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and marital violence and this potentially contributes to inconsistent measurements in providing qualitative data. Michalski’s position states that without consistency, there isn’t a way to properly assess possible inceptions of violence, specifically, roads to criminality. Some views of this particular type of violence vary from origins in: dominance and power exerted over women by men to origins in socio-demographic factors. Others believe that domestic violence is simply a reflection of humanity today and how we’ve become susceptible to overbearing societal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Arguably, this statement has some validity if one associates this with feminist movements for equality and women’s response to violence directed at them. Current research suggests that theories of family violence, feminist theory, gender, and resource theory need to integrate to fully provide explanatory results of domestic violence. In terms of domestic violence, we try to understand how people act in a societal sense, rather than on an individual level. No culture is perfect, and each has both good and bad spots in its social structures. Currently, one of the most troublesome problems is modern gender, which is probably most famously epitomized in the post-war years of the 1950's. Though women are no longer seen as being only capable as a homemaker, modern gender still has very rigid and specific gender roles that one must conform to. The belief is that some women offend to meet societal demands or some offend to keep up in a masculinized culture. Modern culture, in general, tells boys that you become real men through power and control, that respect is linked to physical strength and the threat of violence, and the ability to scare people. In doing so and accounting for hegemony, it is easy to immediately identify ‘subordinate’ individuals, namely, women.

In Joseph Michalski’s research article, Explaining Intimate Partner Violence: The Sociological Limitations of Victimization Studies, he addresses different types of intimate partner violence by first referencing previous studies on risk factors. Historical research has shown that groups at greater risk of intimate partner violence are: women, minority groups, younger individuals, those with less education, and those living in poverty or with low incomes. Feminist link intimate partner violence with systematic forms of social control over women and use this reasoning to explain the violence at a societal level, (Michalski, p.615). One tactic of dominating women (in this theory) is through isolation from resources that my help the woman escape; and, this is done by the use of ‘coercive control’ where males hold a patriarchal view and is more likely to abuse his female partner, (Michalski, p. 615). Skeptics of this theory view the feministic views as biased and unable to produce quantifiable evidence to support it. Failure to evaluate the social contexts of families and relationships that may encourage or discourage violent behavior has led to current inadequate and unsupported explanatory importance. Here, others argue that more sociological influences contribute to prevalence and some even go as far to say that poverty is a universal predictor of intimate partner violence. Like the feminist theory, statistically significant correlations have yet to be proven to validate this predictor.

Differences in methodologies are claimed to account for some discrepancies in research however, Michalski identifies part of the problem to conceptualization of the term ‘violence. His article favors conceptualizing violence as narrow as possible to avoid ambiguities in explanation. Referencing previous research, Michalski narrows intimate partner violence down to distinct conditions under which they occur: intimate terrorism (routine coercive control and domination), situation couple violence (occasional but mutual as a result of a particular dispute), and violent resistance (rebellion or fighting back). By making these distinctions, Michalski wanted to show the difference between what he calls, “predatory and moralistic forms of spousal violence.” Using research conducted over a period of 5 years, participants were asked series of questions relating to what they perceived as violence, perpetrated by themselves and partners. Results of his analysis predicted a more accurate picture of reporting experiences with ‘intimate terrorism’ than ‘situational couple violence’ with women being victimized more than men. Subsequently, situational partner violence flowed in a bidirectional pattern and intimate terrorism flowed downward. Michalski ended with addressing the need for [more] future research that draws clear distinctions between different types of violence and socio-demographical links to influences. He is a proponent of integration of theories and larger representations of nationally representative survey results. Whether it is called domestic violence, intimate partner violence, or marital violence, some form of standardization has to occur to build a body of literature to support various theories.

References

Michalski, J. H. (2005). Explaining Intimate Partner Violence: The Sociological Limitations of 	Victimization Studies. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 613-640. doi:10.1007/s11206-005-9060-5 Dancer9d (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Articles
Hello, these are the articles I am considering for peer review…

Dancer9d (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Katie Mackiewicz

McGowan, M. (2010). Why Sex Equality Is So Hard. Conference Papers -- Law & Society, 1. This study is basically the bones of my gender evaluation. It sets the stage regarding the differences in genders and some explanation as to why they are that way. We are all aware of the male and female differences on a general level, but diving into the topic a bit deeper can show the work that needs to be done to change the gender expectations and norms.

Teek28

This paper discusses the power that men have because of their gender. Their individual characteristics such as social class, income, education, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or physical strength are all different. It examines men in group, organizational, and community settings to create positive individual and social change. It also examines how endorsing masculinity have many privileges, but can also damage men. Again, I think the type of audience it is written for is one that are researching material for a history of masculinity. It is relevant to my topic because it discusses the history of masculinity and the impact it has on men. Schwalbe, M. (1997). The image of man: The creation of modern masculinity. Contemporary Sociology, 26(3), 319-321. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233609837?accountid=8023 Dancer9d (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)