Money Matters: Dissecting the Relationship Between Gender Equality and Female Homicide Victimization Rates in the European Union

DOI10.1177/1557085116667480
Published date01 December 2018
AuthorJanet P. Stamatel
Date01 December 2018
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17NYAx5vji4d8g/input 667480FCXXXX10.1177/1557085116667480Feminist CriminologyStamatel
research-article2016
Article
Feminist Criminology
2018, Vol. 13(5) 435 –455
Money Matters: Dissecting
© The Author(s) 2016
Article reuse guidelines:
the Relationship Between
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116667480
DOI: 10.1177/1557085116667480
journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx
Gender Equality and Female
Homicide Victimization
Rates in the European Union
Janet P. Stamatel1
Abstract
This study utilized a fairly new measure of gender equality from the European Union
to dissect the relationship between gender-specific homicide victimization rates and
different forms of gender equality across a sample of European countries. Results
showed support for a curvilinear relationship between financial equality and female
and male homicide victimization, providing support for amelioration and backlash
theories, but no support for absolute economic marginalization. While there were
some similarities between the female and male models, there were enough differences
to warrant further investigations of gendered theories of violent victimization.
Keywords
homicide, violence, gender, equality, Europe
International agencies have long recognized the importance of increasing gender
equality as a means of preventing violence against women. In fact, one of the agreed
conclusions from the 2013 session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of
Women stated that
the realization of gender equality and the empowerment of women, including women’s
economic empowerment and full and equal access to resources, and their full integration
into the formal economy, in particular in economic decision-making, as well as their full
1University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Janet P. Stamatel, Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, 1571 Patterson Office Tower,
Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Email: jstamatel@uky.edu

436
Feminist Criminology 13(5)
and equal participation in public and political life, is essential for addressing the structural
and underlying causes of violence against women and girls. (United Nations Economic and
Social Council, 2013, p. 4)
Yet the empirical literature examining the relationship between gender equality and
the most extreme form of violence against women—namely, female homicide victim-
ization—has produced mixed results about the nature, extent, and form of this rela-
tionship. This article takes advantage of a unique measure of gender inequality in the
European Union to better understand this relationship.
The analysis of disaggregated homicide rates has been fairly common in crimino-
logical research in the United States for several decades and has increased our knowl-
edge of the differences between general risk factors of homicide versus those specific
to particular subpopulations (e.g., Brewer & Smith, 1995; Kruttschnitt, 1993; Lauritsen,
Heimer, & Lynch, 2009; Lauritsen, Rezey, & Heimer, 2014; Peterson & Krivo, 2005).
Disaggregated analyses have not been as prominent in cross-national homicide research,
as most of these studies only analyze total homicide rates per country, although there
have been a few exceptions (Chon, 2013; Gartner, Baker, & Pampel, 1990; Stamatel,
2014; Yodanis, 2004). Overlooking gender variation in homicide rates is due, in part, to
the fact that men comprise the majority of both homicide offenders and victims glob-
ally. Nonetheless, women are at least one fifth of all known homicide victims world-
wide, and Europe has the second highest percentage of female homicide victims, behind
Asia (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013). In addition, females are much
more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than males. A recent review of the empir-
ical research estimated 38.6% of female homicides globally were committed by inti-
mate partners compared with 6.3% of male homicides (Stöckl et al., 2013).
We also know that violence against women, more broadly conceived, is pervasive
worldwide, and homicide is only one manifestation of the problem (United Nations
Economic and Social Council, 2013). Survey data from the European Union found
33% of women had experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15,
and 22% of women with an intimate partner had experienced violence by a partner
(FRA-European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014). Although cross-
national data on violence against women are not complete, the information that exists
strongly suggests that the nature of homicides for female and male victims differs;
therefore, we should explore differences in macro-level social contexts of gender-
specific homicide patterns.
Criminologists in the United States have also examined the relationships among dif-
ferent forms of social inequality and aggregated homicide patterns, including material,
gender, and racial inequalities. In contrast, cross-national homicide research has focused
almost exclusively on material deprivation, while other types of inequalities have
received far less research attention (for reviews, see Nivette, 2011; Pridemore & Trent,
2010; Trent & Pridemore, 2012). The few cross-national studies that have examined the
relationship between gender equality and homicide victimization have relied on basic
and often indirect measures of gender equality, and these studies have produced mixed
results about the nature of this relationship. To address this gap in the literature, this

Stamatel
437
study takes advantage of a fairly new and complex measure of gender equality to dissect
the relationship between gender-specific homicide victimization rates and different
forms of gender equality across a sample of European countries.
Theory and Literature
Some scholars argue that violence against women should be studied just like other
forms of violence, advocating a gender-neutral approach to the topic (Felson, 2010;
Felson & Lane, 2010), whereas others contend that gender inequality and women’s
status in society should be central to theorizing about violence against women, sup-
porting a gender-specific approach (Barberet, 2014; Ferraro, 2013; Renzetti, 2013;
Taylor & Jasinski, 2011). To date, the majority of the research on this subject outside
of the United States supports gender-specific approaches, although there have not been
many cross-national studies testing the role of gender equality and women’s status on
sex-specific homicide rates.
Gender equality lies at the heart of feminist criminologies (Barberet, 2014; Renzetti,
2013), but the theoretical expectations for the relationship between gender equality
and female homicide victimization are still debated. Three perspectives are prevalent
in the literature. First, the amelioration hypothesis contends that violence against
women should decrease as women’s equality increases because improving women’s
social status in the legal system, workplace, and home will loosen patriarchal domi-
nance, and violence is a common tool of domination (Brownmiller, 1975/1993;
MacKinnon, 1989; Renzetti, 2013; Stanko, 1985; Vieraitis, Britto, & Kovandzic,
2007; Whaley, 2001; Whaley & Messner, 2002).
In contrast, the backlash hypothesis suggests that as women’s equality and social
status increase, men will be threatened by their loss of status and power and could
retaliate with violence. At least during the early gains in women’s status relative to
men’s, violence is expected to increase, although it may stabilize later as people adjust
to the new social order (Brownmiller, 1975/1993; Russell, 2003; Vieraitis et al., 2007;
Whaley, 2001; Williams & Holmes, 1981).
The third perspective focuses more specifically on women’s absolute economic
status rather than their status relative to men. Marxist criminological theories contend
that economically marginalized populations are at greater risk for violent victimization
and have fewer resources with which to protect themselves. Because women have
been economically marginalized historically, their economic status puts them at risk
for violent victimization; however, as their absolute socioeconomic status improves,
then their risk of victimization should decrease (Bailey & Peterson, 1995; Gartner
et al., 1990; Vieraitis et al., 2007).
Macro-level research both within the United States and cross-nationally has
found mixed support for these three perspectives. Vieraitis, Britto, and Morris
(2015) provided a comprehensive review of the existing literature, heavily domi-
nated by studies conducted with U.S. data, so I will only present a summary of their
findings and add information about a few other studies that were not included in
their review. Vieraitis et al. (2015) found seven studies supporting the amelioration

438
Feminist Criminology 13(5)
hypothesis (Bailey & Peterson, 1995; Brewer & Smith, 1995; Davies, 1996; Dugan,
Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 1999; Haynie & Armstrong, 2006; Stout, 1992; Titterington,
2006), and their own 2015 analysis using multilevel modeling to examining change
over time in the United States provided some support for this hypothesis as well,
for a total of eight studies. In addition, they identified 10 studies supporting the
backlash hypothesis (Avakame, 1999; Brewer & Smith, 1995; Davies, 1996;
DeWees & Parker, 2003; Dugan et al., 1999; Gartner et al., 1990; Gauthier &
Bankston, 1997; Stout, 1992; Vieraitis & Williams, 2002; Whaley, Messner, &
Veysey, 2013). Pridemore and Freilich’s (2005) study of female homicide victim-
ization...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT