Social Science - Sociology Discussion Assignment

THE ROLE OF MASCULINITIES IN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Walter S. DeKeseredy and Martin D. Schwartz. “The Role of Masculinities in Violence Against Women). In Dina Anselmi and Anne Law, Questions of Gender: Perspectives and Paradoxes. New York: Blackwell, 2008. Choose a form of violence and examine international statistics on the gender of its perpetrators. You will always find a severely unbalanced sex ratio, generally with 90% to 100% of the violence being perpetrated by men and less than 10% being perpetrated by women (Bowker, 1998a, p. xiv).

THE GOOD AND BAD OF MEN Men around the globe are part of virtually all forces for good including a pro-feminist struggle to end violence against women (DeKeseredy, Schwartz, & Alvi, 2000). Still, much if not most of what is bad in the world is the product of men. For example, there is extensive scientific evidence that men perpetrate the bulk of the violence in intimate heterosexual relationships throughout the world (Renzetti, Edleson & Bergen, 2001). Similarly, men have a virtual monopoly on the commission of crimes of the powerful, such as price fixing and the illegal dumping of toxic waste (Messerschmidt, 1997). We would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of women who are involved in acts of state sponsored terrorism and torture. To belabor the obvious, women rarely participate in mass killings like the recent tragedies at Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, or Port Arthur, Australia, or the events of September 11, 2001. There have been occasional female suicide bombers in the Middle East, but in general this is another field dominated by men. At a more common level, men‟s involvement in all types of violent crime, including street violence, greatly exceeds that of women (Kimmel, 2000). What accounts for this glaring sex difference? Of course we could start with the argument that most men are not criminally violent and thus those who beat, rob, kill, torture or rape are deviant members of an otherwise harmonious society. There is some truth here. Serial killers like John Wayne Gacy are very rare, committing less than one percent of all U.S. homicides (Fox & Levin, 1999). Yet overall male violence itself is not particularly rare; it is in fact endemic in our society. In one example, at least 11 percent of North American women in marital/cohabiting relationships are annually physically abused by their male partners. Similar figures have been reported in a variety of other English-speaking countries. In our Canadian national representative sample survey of undergraduate students, about 28 percent of the females said that they had been sexually assaulted in some manner in the past year alone by a male boyfriend or dating partner, while 11 percent of the men admitted to such sexual violence in the past year (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998a). This does not include any violence that is unadmitted, or unreported on the survey, or violence which is physical, economic, or psychological. Are these men truly deviant and “sick”? Of course, some abusive men have clinical pathologies (Aldarondo & Mederos, 2002), but no more than 10 percent, which means that any theory

1

stressing mental disorder cannot account for 90 percent of violence. In fact, in another setting we argued that woman abuse on campus is so rampant that an argument might be made that men who do not engage in woman abuse could be seen as the deviants (Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy, 2001). Other theories about male violence are too often ideologies “dressed up in…scientific regalia” (Devine & Wright, 1993, p. 125). For example, evolutionary theorists (e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1988) claim that male violence is the result of competition for sexual access to women. Yet, men not only kill men but also beat, rape, or kill female intimates. As Kimmel (2000, p. 244) reminds us, “To murder or assault the person you are trying to inseminate is a particularly unwise reproductive strategy.” Another challenge to evolutionary theory is that many societies have much lower rates of male violence than those of the U.S. So if “boys will be boys,” they “will be so differently” (Kimmel, 2000), depending on where they live, their peer groups, social class position and race, and host of other factors (Messerschmidt, 1993). Men are not naturally aggressive. As Katz and Chambliss (1991, p. 270) discovered in their review of the research on the relationship between biology and crime, “An individual learns to be aggressive in the same manner that he or she learns to inhibit aggression. One is not a natural state, and the other culturally imposed: both are within our biological potential.” Horrocks (1994) further points out that men might not be born aggressive, but there are certain societies that are much more likely to teach violence to men than others. Missing in the above brief review of theories and in most media accounts is any discussion of the role of masculinities (Messerschmidt, 2000). The main objective of this chapter is to review and critique the extant sociological literature on the relationship between this important factor and variations in interpersonal violence across different social class and racial/ethnic backgrounds. UNDERSTANDING INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE: THE CONTRIBUTION OF MASCULINITIES STUDIES Part of the problem in defining interpersonal violence is that there are many behaviors that we or some others may view as extremely violent, but at the same time many others can view that behavior in other ways. Certainly killing the enemy in warfare is violent, but that may be grounds for being awarded a medal. Sports often provide our most ambiguous area, where exceptional levels of very harmful behavior are often seen as just part of the game. It is relatively common for events to “occur in the name of sport, which, if they were perpetrated under any other banner short of open warfare, would be roundly condemned as crimes against humanity” (Atyeo, 1979, p. 11). Professional ice hockey is the source of many of the best examples, but American football, boxing, and other contact sports have the same problems. Even non-contact sports like baseball suffer at times from beanballs or physical attacks. There are many examples outside of sports. One is the spanking of children, which is not only widely condemned in North America, but it has been found to be unacceptable by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Still, many North Americans not only see nothing wrong with slapping or spanking a child, but may regard such behavior as necessary, normal, and good (Straus, 1991).

2

Of course, it is also important to note that while men commit most violent crimes, and that such violence is widespread, this still does not mean that all men are violent (Connell, 2000). For example, homicide is an infrequent violent crime and thus “we are not talking about a tendency that is either universal or inevitable” (Newburn & Stanko, 1994a, p. 4). Further, there is no simple standard of being a man that guides all male behavior, including violence (Polk, 2003). In fact, although society functions in many ways to promote male violence, there remains in any situation other means of expressing one‟s masculinity (Connell, 2000). For example, we noted earlier that professional ice hockey players can be exceptionally violent. They live in an atmosphere heavily influenced by hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995), and learn through pressure from owners, sportswriters, coaches, teammates, fans and parents to be aggressive; carry the capacity for violence; strive for achievement and status; avoid all things feminine and particularly emotions deemed feminine (e.g., crying); and actively engage in homophobia. Official statistics are kept on penalty minutes, and executives and sports magazines talk approvingly about how teams need to hire “enforcers” who may have no talent for ice skating or hockey but can intimidate others through the use of violence. To pick one isolated but not unusual example, one of Detroit‟s mainstream newspapers “ran a picture of bleeding Colorado goalie Patrick Roy under the huge headline, BLOODY GOOD” (Riley, 2003, p. 24). What this leads to is a sport where fights are very common. Yet, some hockey players will not engage in fighting with an opponent, because they can “do masculinity” in other ways. A prime example is Wayne Gretzky, who recently ended his stellar career holding the record for most goals scored in the NHL. Gretzky rarely fought. His amazing ability to score goals and help his teams win games and championships was a key resource at his disposal to demonstrate that he was “manly.” Those lacking his skills, but under intense pressure from employers, teammates, and spectators to fight those who challenge them, commonly feel that they would be derided as of doubtful moral worth and relatively useless to the team if they walked away from violent honor contests. Thus, although men are encouraged to live up to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity and can be sanctioned for not doing so, violence is just one of many ways of “doing gender” in a culturally specific way. Moreover, masculinities studies shows us that the decision to be violent is affected by class and race relations that structure the resources available to accomplish what men feel provides their masculine identities . Hegemonic masculine discourses and practices, including violence, are learned through personal and impersonal interactions with significant others such as teachers, journalists, parents, entertainers, and politicians (Connell, 1995). However, the all-male patriarchal subculture is one of the most important agents of socialization. As described in the next section, membership in such a peer group, regardless of its social class composition, promotes and legitimates the physical and sexual victimization of female intimates.

3

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN INTIMATE HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS There is no question that many women are victimized by men within intimate relationships each year, including the physical or sexual assault of about 10 percent of those in marital/cohabiting relationships (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997), and the physical or sexual assault of women when they try to leave or have left their spouses or live-in lovers (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, forthcoming). University/college dating relationships are also marked by high numbers of physical and sexual assaults (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998a). Why do these assaults take place? While there seem to be several key reasons, many quantitative and qualitative studies have found that one of the most important is male peer support, “the attachments to male peers and the resources that these men provide which encourage and legitimate woman abuse” (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). The relationship between male peer support and various forms of violence against women varies across different social classes and settings. For example, in universities and colleges across North America, the identified sexual abusers are typically white middle-class men, especially if they belong to the “hypererotic” subcultures which exist on most campuses (Godenzi et al., 2001). As Kanin (1985) found, these all-male homosocial cohorts produce high or exaggerated levels of sexual aspiration, and members expect to engage in a very high level of consensual sexual intercourse, or what is to them sexual conquest. Of course, for most men, these goals are impossible to achieve. When they fall short of what they see as their friends‟ high expectations, and perhaps short of what they believe their friends are actually achieving, some of these men experience relative deprivation. This sexual frustration caused by a “reference-group-anchored sex drive” can result in predatory sexual conduct (Kanin, 1967, p. 433). These men are highly frustrated, not because they are deprived of sex in some objective sense, but because they feel inadequate in their attempts to get what their peers have defined as the proper amount of sex to establish their heterosexual masculinity. Hence, sexual assaults committed by socially and economically privileged white male undergraduates are largely functions of a fear of appearing to be a misfit or of being left out. Like the more affluent college students, impoverished men also form “specialized relationships with one another” (Messerschmidt, 1993, p. 110). Such close bonds, under certain conditions, also promote violence against women as a means of meeting “masculinity challenges,” although these challenges are different than those encountered by members of hypererotic subcultures (Messerschmidt, 2000). For example, men in public housing are significantly more likely to physically assault their female partners than those who live in middle- and upper-class communities (DeKeseredy, Alvi, Schwartz, & Perry, 1999). To explain this problem, DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2002) offer an empirically informed Economic Exclusion/Male Peer Support Model described in Figure 1. Briefly, DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2002) contend that recent major economic transformations (e.g., the shift from a manufacturing to a service-based economy) displace working-class men and women who often end up in urban public housing or other “clusters of poverty.” Unable to economically support their families and live up to the culturally defined masculine role as bread winner, socially and economically excluded men experience high levels of life events stress because their “normal paths for personal power and prestige have been cut off” (Raphael, 2001a, p. 703). For example, since they cannot afford to look after both their partners and their children,

4

some women evict male intimates or “invert patriarchy” in other ways by making decisions for the household and having the lease and car in their names (Edin, 2000). Such actions are often perceived by patriarchal men as “dramatic assaults” on their “sense of masculine dignity” (Bourgois, 1995, p. 215). ECONOMIC EXCLUSION/MALE PEER SUPPORT MODEL

Some men deal with stress caused by their partners‟ inversions of patriarchy by leaving them, while others use violence as a means of sabotaging women‟s attempts to gain economic independence (Bourgois, 1995; Raphael, 2001b). Other men, however, turn to their male peers for advice and guidance on how to alleviate stress caused by female challenges to patriarchal authority. Large numbers of socially and economically excluded male peers in and around public housing view wife beating as a legitimate means of repairing “damaged patriarchal masculinity” (Messerschmidt, 1993; Raphael, 2001a), and they often serve as role models because many of them beat their own intimate partners (DeKeseredy, Alvi, Schwartz, & Tomaszewski, 2003).

Broader Economic Change

Formal Labor Market Exclusion

Men‟s Inability to Fulfill Bread-Winning Role

Social Isolation in Public Housing

Stress

Patriarchal Male Peer Support

Woman Abuse

5

In sum, male physical and sexual violence against women is very much a function of men‟s deep-rooted concern with presenting an image of themselves as men within their social networks, although patriarchal peer groups‟ definitions of what it means to be a man varies across social class categories. Similarly, there are variations in motives for different types of homicide determined by the structure and location of one‟s peer group. HOMICIDE Since men are much more violent to each other than they are to women, this discussion must include some understanding of how men experience violence. Of course we cannot fully explore the role of violence in men‟s lives here, and cannot even fully explore homicide. We will instead look at two sub-themes as identified by Polk (1994): (1) homicide in the context of sexual intimacy and (2) confrontational homicide. Although Polk studied Australian men, many masculinities scholars argue that his findings are just as relevant to the discussion of men in other countries. Male proprietariness is closely related to sexual intimacy homicide, especially during the stages of separation or divorce. Wilson and Daly (1992), define it as “the tendency [of men] to think of women as sexual and reproductive „property‟ they can own and exchange.” More generally, proprietariness refers to “not just the emotional force of [the male‟s] own feelings of entitlement but to a more pervasive attitude [of ownership and control] toward social relationships [with intimate female partners]” (1992, p. 85). Jealousy also plays a major role in a man‟s decision to kill a woman who threatens his power and control by seeking to leave or actually leaving him. As Polk (2003, p. 134) points out, “[T]ime and time again the phrase „if I can‟t have you, no one will‟ echoes through the data” on homicide in the context of sexual intimacy. However, although intimate homicide is a common type of murder, it is a relatively rare crime. If we live in a patriarchal society that promotes male proprietariness, why then do only some men kill their estranged female partners? Certainly there are variations in male proprietariness which means that female challenges, like all single factors, cannot explain all men‟s behavior. This is why it is necessary to simultaneously focus on all-male subcultural dynamics when attempting to link masculinities and homicides. As we have noted, many patriarchal men have male friends with similar beliefs and values and these peers reinforce the notion that women‟s exiting is a threat to a man‟s masculinity (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002). If a patriarchal man‟s peers see him as a failure with women because his partner wants to leave or has left him, he is likely to be ridiculed because he “can‟t control his woman,” which can motivate him to lash out against her. Peers can also directly or indirectly influence Polk‟s (1994) second type: male-to-male confrontational homicides, which account for over 50 percent of all murders. Such killings are similar to “interpersonal disputes,” which, according to Wallace (1986, p. 155): formed the basis of the majority of killings outside the domestic sphere. A large number of these quarrels were unpremeditated events that erupted between strangers or acquaintances, usually while socializing in or around a club or hotel, or in the home of either victim or offender. The content of the disputes in these circumstances may be less important than the male context in which they occurred. A common variant of confrontational homicide involves a “pub fight,” an event Polk (2003) refers to as an “honor contest.” Typically committed by young working-class men who are under

6

the influence of alcohol and who have histories of violence, such murders are triggered by a perceived challenge to their masculinity or honor. This challenge may involve an insult, a “minor jostle,” a comment to a girlfriend or wife, or “challenging eye contact” (Polk, 2003, p. 135). Honor contest participants do not intend to kill each other. Rather, their main goal is to fight and male peers often serve as bystanders in these tragic events. Fights that are about honor can escalate into deadly violence when weapons are involved. Even without peers present, many men and youths commit violent crimes in anticipation of the status they will gain (or lose) from friends (Warr, 2002). YOUTH GANG VIOLENCE Unsurprisingly, many social scientists sharply oppose popular stereotypes of male youth gangs and they do not view all groups of unsupervised young men interacting on the street as members of deviant or criminal cohorts (Short, 1997). While there is much debate among sociologists and criminologists about what constitutes a gang, most researchers agree with Warr‟s (2002, p. 5) assertion that “gangs constitute only a small fraction of delinquent groups, and that a ganglike structure is not a prerequisite for delinquent behavior.” Of course, as much as they engage in these activities most violent gang members spend much of their time engaging in nondeviant activities like listening to music, playing video games or watching television. Most serious crime by young men (e.g., violence) is committed in groups (Bursik & Grasmick, 2001), but the vast majority of young men who flock together do not belong to violent gangs, are not perpetrators of serious crimes, and do not see themselves as part of a gang. Thus, many popular perceptions of male youth street gangs are shaped by stereotypes (Sheldon, Tracy, & Brown, 2001). These observations are hardly trivial because they contribute to an ongoing moral panic about “kids out of control,” and they target and scapegoat visible minorities (Schissel, 1997). For example, newspapers often feature statements such as “Asian gang members responsible for violent attack.” Unfortunately, such racial references are common in the popular media. One is not likely to find headlines referring to “white youth offenders” or “European American gangs”(Schissel, 1997). Racism is part and parcel of much of the popular discourse on violent youth gangs, and the average white citizen responds differently to three or four young men of color mingling together on the street than they do to groups of white youths doing so (Sheldon et al, 2001). To summarize all of the rapidly growing literature on how masculinities influence young mens‟ involvement in violent gang activities in a short section of a chapter is a daunting, if not impossible, task. Instead, we address key themes that emerge from this body of knowledge. The first and perhaps most important one is status frustration caused by economically and socially marginalized young mens‟ inability to accomplish masculinity at school through academic achievement, participation in sports, and involvement in extracurricular activities. This problem plagues both whites and minorities. As Cohen (1955) pointed out decades ago, some youths try to deal with this problem by seeking extra help from their teachers, while others quit school and come into contact with other “dropouts” who share their frustration. A subculture soon emerges that grants members status based on accomplishing gender through violence and other

7

illegitimate means. However, some dropouts avoid gang participation because they construct their masculinity through such behaviors as work in the conventional marketplace. Still, for many young men living in inner-city or rural communities damaged by deindustrialization, the frustration spawned by the inability to accomplish masculinity in the school setting is exacerbated by their failure to find a steady well-paying job, which is another important theme that emerges from the extant literature on masculinities and gangs. These young men are hit with a “double whammy” that puts them at even greater risk of teaming up with others to create a subculture that promotes, expresses, and validates masculinity through violent means (Messerschmidt, 1993). Then there are young men who are hit with a “triple whammy.” They are not only failures in school and unable to find a job, but they are also people of color who face institutional racism on a daily basis (Sheldon et al., 2001), especially if they live in public housing complexes. An example of how public housing contributes to social and economic isolation is provided below by a Chicago-based employer interviewed by Wilson (1996, p. 116). He felt that people who lived in public housing would jeopardize his financial status: I necessarily can‟t tell from looking at an address whether someone‟s from Cabrini Green or not, but if I could tell, I don‟t think that I‟d want to hire them. Because it reflects on your credibility. If you came here with this survey, and you were from one of those neighborhoods, I don‟t know if I‟d want to answer your questions. I‟d wonder about your credibility. In sum, then, many inner-city African American young men are denied masculine status in three ways: through the inability to succeed in school; a lack of meaningful jobs, and through racism and stereotypes of their neighborhoods. Many Hispanic and Asian young men experience similar problems. Thus, it is not surprising that members of these socially marginalized ethnic groups compose most of the street gangs in the U.S. (Klein, 2002). Nevertheless, it cannot be emphasized enough that social factors – not skin color or biological makeup – contribute to a higher concentration of these people in violent youth gangs. These are young men who are most likely to go to schools that lack adequate financial and human resources, live in neighborhoods plagued by concentrated urban poverty, and who are unable to find jobs in a society brutalized by major structural transformations, such as the shift from a manufacturing to a service-based economy (DeKeseredy et al., 2003; Wilson, 1996; Zielenbach, 2000). Unfortunately, for many of the young men facing the problems described here, the only way of gaining masculine status, a reputation, and self-respect is through youth gang violence. Meanwhile, future prospects are not encouraging. Major corporations are continuing to cut jobs either to outsourcing or to trim budgets. Not only is work continuing to disappear, schools are facing massive cuts to their budgets, which keeps teachers from effectively reaching out to socially and economically marginalized young men who have special needs. Racial segregation in poor inner-cities is also a major problem . OTHER FORMS OF MALE VIOLENCE Of course, in a short chapter it has only been possible to go into depth in three specific areas of men‟s interpersonal violence. Needless to say, there are many more arenas in which masculinities play a role in facilitating men‟s violence. In fact, In fact, there are various forms of

8

masculinities, which helps to explain the wide range of responses to the contemporary crises facing men. Among these other arenas is child discipline. We mentioned earlier that many people see slapping or spanking a child as violent behavior. An entire field of study has arisen around child abuse in terms of the physical abuse of children outside the confines of mild disciplinary actions. Similarly, although we discuss youth violence in the context of gang behavior, there is a great deal of interpersonal violence, especially in the U.S., outside the context of youth gangs. Barbara Perry (2003) has argued that a great deal of racist violence and homophobic violence (“gay bashing”) can be traced to not only the desire of white men to assert their superiority and dominance, but also to “prove the very essence of their masculinity: heterosexuality” (p. 158). She argues that many men do not view such violence as breaking a cultural norm (on violence) as much as affirming “a culturally approved hegemonic masculinity: aggression, domination, and heterosexuality.” Of course, men engage in masculinist discourse to justify and allow their own violence in many other areas. POLICY AND PRACTICE Thus far, there have not been very many programs that have been exceptionally successful in reducing men‟s violence. In fact, as Hearn (1996, p. 22) notes, while there has been tremendous attention from a variety of sources to the development of a new field of men‟s studies, such studies have “generally not explored the question of men‟s violence to any large extent.” However, a broad number of forces in many countries are now working in many different arenas to deal specifically with men‟s interpersonal violence in intimate relationships. Pro-feminist men‟s groups are engaging in a wide variety of practices to protest racism and sexism, and to try to promote men‟s awareness (DeKeseredy, Schwartz, & Alvi, 2000). Unsurprisingly, at least in North America the most active of these are taking place on university campuses. However, there are a wide variety of groups dealing with a very different population, attempting to work with men who batter women. These programs had their beginnings in the U.S., often at the instigation of shelter houses and with the strong support of lower court judges who did not wish to allow batterers to be released on probation without at least sentencing them into “treatment.” Although widely called “treatment” programs, their efforts are most commonly short awareness programs that are more properly termed intervention programs (for extensive discussions, see Aldarondo & Mederos, 2002). Such programs are now found in a variety of European countries and Australia, although the theoretical underpinnings may be very different (Hearn, 1998). Even though male peer support studies have made it clear that men with social support for violence are more likely to be violent (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002) the hope for such programs is that it is also possible that the right kind of male social support can help a man to stop being violent (Hearn, 1998). CONCLUSIONS There are many theories on which offender characteristics best predict interpersonal violence, but the single best determinant of who commits beatings, homicide, rapes, and so on is whether the offender is male (Schwartz & Hatty, 2003). Why are most violent offenders men? As stated before, it has little to do with their biological makeup or with factors identified by evolutionary psychologists. The best answer is provided by masculinities studies and research on how masculinities conducive to violence are shaped by male subcultural dynamics. Clearly, for many

9

men, violence is, under certain situations, the only perceived available technique of expressing and validating masculinity, and male peer support strongly encourages and legitimates such aggression. Broader patriarchal forces alone do not motivate people to kill, rape, or rob others. Still, the accounts of the three harms examined here, like other explanations of the connection between masculinities and violence, require more in-depth analyses of complex factors related to race/ethnicity. For example, systematic studies on how masculinities contribute to date rape within the African American community have been rare. Similarly, Messerschmidt (1997, p. 117) appears to be the only researcher guided by the work of masculinities theorists who has examined “the historical and/or contemporary constructions of varieties of whiteness and their relation to crime.” Further, the contribution of technological developments, such as the Internet, requires in-depth examination. Today, many males are developing friendships via electronic mail, “chat rooms,” and other electronic means. Referred to by Warr (2002) as “virtual peer groups,” it is necessary to determine whether these homosocial cohorts present men with new or reconstituted masculinity challenges that spawn violence. Chances are that virtual peer groups simply reinforce existing hegemonic masculine discourses and practices, but only among males who can afford or have access to computers. However, as Warr (2002, p. 87) points out, there is no evidence that virtual peer groups, regardless of whether they promote violence, have “replaced or supplanted real ones.” Additional new directions in empirical and theoretical work could easily be suggested and will be taken in the near future, because there is a growing interest in the relationship between masculinities and crime as demonstrated by a series of important books published since the early 1990s (Bowker, 1998b; Hatty, 2000; Messerschmidt, 1993, 1997; Newburn and Stanko, 1994b; and Polk, 1994. Even so, as Connell (2000, p. 82) reminds us, “masculinities are not the whole story about violence….” Obviously, there are many other sources of violent crime. Nevertheless, violence and its reduction cannot be adequately understood without an in-depth understanding of masculinities. REFERENCES

Aldarondo, E., & Mederos, F. (2002). Common practitioners’ concerns abut abusive men. In E.A. Aldarondo & F. Mederos (Eds.), Programs for men who batter: Intervention and prevention strategies in a diverse society (pp. 2-1 – 2-17). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Atyeo, D. (1979). Blood and guts: Violence in sports. New York: Paddington. Bourgois, P. (1995). In search of respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York:

Cambridge University Press. Bowker, L.H. (1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bowker, L.H. (1998a). Introduction. In L.H. Bowker (Ed.), Masculinities and violence

(pp. xi-xviii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bursik, R.J., & Grasmick, H.G. (2001). Defining gangs and gang behavior. In M.W.

Klein, C.L. Maxon, & J. Miller (Eds.), The modern gang reader, 2nd ed. (pp. 2-14). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York: Free Press. Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney, Aus.: Allen and Unwin. Connell, R.W. (2000). Masculinity and violence in world perspective? In A. Godenzi

(Ed.), Frieden, kultur und geschlecht (pp. 65-84). Fribourg, Switzerland. University of Fribourg Press.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

10

DeKeseredy, W.S. (1990). Male peer support and woman abuse: The current stake of knowledge. Sociological Focus, 23, 129-139.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Alvi, S., Schwartz, M.D., & Perry, B. (1999). Violence against and the harassment of women in Canadian public housing. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 499-516.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Alvi, S., Schwartz, M.D., & Tomaszewski, E.A. (2003). Under siege: Poverty and crime in a public housing community. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & MacLeod, L. (1997). Woman abuse: A sociological story. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (1998a). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian national survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (2002). Theorizing public housing woman abuse as a function of economic exclusion and male peer support. Women’s Health and Urban Life, 1, 26-45.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Schwartz, M.D., & Alvi, S. (2000). The role of profeminist men in dealing with woman abuse on the Canadian college campus. Violence Against Women, 6, 918-935.

Devine, J.A., & Wright, J.D. (1993). The greatest of evils: Urban poverty and the American underclass. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47, 112-133.

Fox, J.A., & Levin, J. (1999). Serial murder: Myths and realities. In M.D. Smith & M.A. Zahn (Eds.), Studying and preventing homicide: Issues and challenges (pp. 79- 96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Godenzi, A., Schwartz, M.D., & DeKeseredy, W.S. (2001). Toward a gendered social bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. Critical Criminology, 10, 1-16.

Hatty, S.E. (2000). Masculinities, violence, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hearn, J. (1998). The Violences of Men. London: Sage. Hottocks, R. (1994). Masculinity in Crisis. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Kanin, E.J. (1967). An examination of sexual aggression as a response to sexual

frustration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 428-433. Kanin, E.J. (1985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative

deprivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 219-231. Katz, J., & Chambliss, W.J. (1991). Biology and crime. In J.F. Sheley (Ed.),

Criminology: A contemporary handbook (pp. 245-271). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kimmel, M.S. (2000). The gendered society. New York: Oxford University Press. Klein, M.W. (2002). Street gangs: A cross-national perspective. In C.R. Huff (Ed.),

Gangs in America III (pp. 237-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and

reconceptualization. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield. Messerschmidt, J.W. (1997). Crime as structured action: Gender, race, class, and

crime in the making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Messerschmidt, J.W. (2000). Nine lives: Adolescent masculinities, the body, and

violence. Boulder: Westview Press. Newburn, T., & Stanko, E.A. (1994a). Introduction: Men, masculinities and crime. In

T. Newburn & E.A. Stanko (Eds.), Just boys doing business?: Men, masculinities and crime (pp. 1-9). London: Routledge.

Newburn, T., & Stanko, E.A. (Eds.). (1994b). Just boys doing business?: Men, masculinities and crime. London: Routledge.

Perry, B. (2003). “Accounting for hate crime.” In M.D. Schwartz and S.E. Hatty (Eds.), Controversies in critical criminology (pp. 146-160). Cincinnati: Anderson.

11

Polk, K. (1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Polk, K. (2003). Masculinities, femininities and homicide: Competing explanations for male violence. In M.D. Schwartz and S.E. Hatty (Eds.), Controversies in critical criminology (pp. 133-146). Cincinnati: Anderson.

Raphael, J. (2001a). Public housing and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 7, 699-706.

Raphael, J. (2001b). Domestic violence as a welfare-to-work barrier: Research and theoretical issues. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L. Edleson, R. Kennedy Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 443-456).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Renzetti, C.M., Edleson, J.L., & Kennedy Bergen, R. (Eds.). (2001). Sourcebook on violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riley, R. (2003). The Life of Reilly. New York: Sports Illustrated Books. Schissel, B. (1997). Blaming children: Youth crime, moral panics and the politics of

hate. Halifax: Fernwood. Schwartz, M.D., & DeKeseredy, W.S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus:

The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwartz, M.D., & Hatty, S.E. (2003). Introduction. In M.D. Schwartz & S.E. Hatty

(Eds.), Controversies in critical criminology (pp. ix-xvii). Cincinnati: Anderson. Shelden, R.G., Tracy, S.K., & Brown, W.B. (2001). Youth gangs in American society,

2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Short, J.F. (1997). Poverty, ethnicity, and violent crime. Boulder: Westview. Straus, M.A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and

violence and other crime in childhood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154. Wallace, A. (1986). Homicide: The social reality. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau

of Crime Statistics and Research. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. New

York: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). Till death do us part. In J. Radford & D.E.H. Russell

(Eds.), Femicide: The politics of women killing (pp. 83-98). New York: Twayne. Wilson, W.J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New

York: Knopf. Zielenbach, S. (2000). The art of revitalization: Improving conditions in distressed

inner-city neighborhoods. New York: Garland.