Abstract
The first two articles in this issue of Violence Against Women focus on understudied and underserved populations of women who have been victimized by violence. Carlos Cuevas, Chiara Sabina, and Riva Milloshi report findings from their federally funded study, the Sexual Assault among Latinas (SALAS) study, which they designed to address many of the methodological limitations of previous research with Latinas. Using data from their national sample, they discuss prevalence rates across a range of types of victimization, in both childhood and adulthood, including physical violence, sexual assault, witnessing violence, threats, and stalking. In addition, they examine polyvictimization and revictimization. They report prevalence rates in terms of characteristics of victims as well as characteristics of perpetrators. With regard to some forms of violence, Cuevas and his colleagues found victimization rates similar to those reported by other researchers who have included Latinas in their studies, but with regard to other types of violence, Cuevas et al.’s findings diverge from those of other studies. They consider some of the factors that may account for their findings, but they also emphasize that their findings demonstrate the broad scope of Latinas’ victimization experiences and the fact that many of the Latinas in their sample experienced more than one type of violent victimization.
Hyunkag Cho studied the use of mental health services by Latinas and Asian women victims of intimate partner violence, drawing on data from the National Latino and Asian American Study. Cho reports that after controlling for education, English proficiency, family values, the type of IPV experienced, and victims’ perceptions of their mental health status, Asian victims were significantly less likely than Latino victims to use mental health services. In fact, Cho found that Asian victims are highly unlikely to use mental health services, despite the debilitating effects of IPV. Cho makes several recommendations for increasing Asian victims’ use of these services, including ensuring that the services are culturally responsive and engage in appropriate outreach to Asian victims.
Sharon Flicker, Catherine Cerulli, and Marc Swogger also examined mental health issues among women who have experienced IPV. More specifically, Flicker and her colleagues studied how various coping strategies used by IPV victims may affect their symptoms of depression and PTSD. The researchers report that several negative coping strategies—disengagement, denial, and self-blame—along with being blamed by others for the abuse increased depressive and PTSD symptoms. Flicker et al. discuss the service implications of their findings.
Filomena Critelli’s research is also focused on services for IPV victims, but Critelli’s study took place in Pakistan. Critelli interviewed 19 IPV survivors living in a private shelter in Pakistan. Her research not only documents the women’s abuse experiences but also the many obstacles the women confront when they try to free themselves from abusive households. The women Critelli interviewed tell harrowing, often heartbreaking stories, but Critelli emphasizes their incredible strength and resilience.
The final two articles in this issue focus on legal constructions. In their article, Vivienne Elizabeth, Nicola Gavey, and Julie Tolmie analyze how divorcing parents are constructed in family law as either problematic (“violent,” “conflictual,” “hostile”) or “normal.” The researchers note that family violence scholars and advocates have contributed to this construction and, while they understand the rationale, they argue in their article that this dichotomy of violent versus “normal” creates serious problems, not the least of which is that it obscures the gendered power dynamics among divorcing couples who are not “violent.” Elizabeth and her colleagues interviewed women involved in disputes with their ex-husbands over contact arrangements for their children, which, they point out, show that even in relationships that would not be labeled “violent,” women are subjected to various manifestations of male power, privilege, and entitlement.
Wendy Larcombe, in her article, analyzes the legal construction of “sex offender recidivism.” Larcombe shows how the research on which this construction is based is faulty in no small part because case attrition produced a pool of sex offenders for study that are in many important ways quite dissimilar to “typical” sex offenders. In highlighting the biases in the prosecution of sex offenders and, therefore, research based on convicted sex offenders, Larcombe makes the important point that policies and practices derived from this research are likely to be ineffective in protecting women and children.
This issue of Violence Against Women concludes with three responses to Ronald Weitzer’s review essay of two books on pornography that was published in the journal last year. Lori Watson, Karen Boyle, and Gail Dines reply to Weitzer’s critique and articulate a strong defense of the feminist antipornography analysis.