This article provides a comprehensive review of the emerging domestic violence literature using a race, class, gender, sexual orientation intersectional analysis and structural framework fostered by women of color and their allies to understand the experiences and contexts of domestic violence for marginalized women in U.S. society. The first half of the article lays out a series of challenges that an intersectional analysis grounded in a structural framework provides for understanding the role of culture in domestic violence. The second half of the article points to major contributions of such an approach to feminist methods and practices in working with battered women on the margins of society.

Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender: Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence Against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities

Two studies explored how domestic violence may be implicitly or explicitly sanctioned and reinforced in cultures where honor is a salient organizing theme. Three general predictions were supported: (a) female infidelity damages a man's reputation, particularly in honor cultures; (b) this reputation can be partially restored through the use of violence; and (c) women in honor cultures are expected to remain loyal in the face of jealousy-related violence. Study 1 involved participants from Brazil (an honor culture) and the United States responding to written vignettes involving infidelity and violence in response to infidelity. Study 2 involved southern Anglo, Latino, and northern Anglo participants witnessing a "live" incident of aggression against a woman (actually a confederate) and subsequently interacting with her.

Male honor and female fidelity: implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence.

There is an urgent need to identify the factors that impede battered women's flight from violent relationships. This article is organized into two articles: Part 1 centers on external inhibiting fa...

Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 1 External Inhibiting Factors Within Society

This article is based on the life histories of two immigrant women of Turkish origin living in Sweden. Fictive names are used in the article. The women are given in marriage at a very young age to ...

http://www.ensani.ir/storage/Files/20100609121730-16.pdf

The honour/shame complex revisited: violence against women in the migration context

33 К наиболее эффективным и часто ис6 пользуемым методам вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий (assisted reproductive technologies) относятся: экс6 тракорпоральное оплодотворение — ЭКО (in vitro fertilization — IVF) и инъек6 ция сперматозоида в цитоплазму яйце6 клетки — ИКСИ (intracytoplasmic sperm injection — ICSI). По данным Россий6 ской Ассоциации Репродукции Челове6 ка (РАРЧ) доля ЭКО и ИКСИ в общем числе циклов ВРТ в России составляет не менее 75%. В нашей стране экстракорпоральное оплодотворение применяется с 1986 г. По данным РАРЧ, в России в 2011 г. работали более 120 клиник ВРТ, что в 4 раза боль6 ше, чем в 2000 г. По числу выполненных циклов ВРТ в 2011 г. Россия занимает тре6 тье месте в мире (после Франции и Герма6 Особенности развития детей, зачатых при помощи вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий

Топонимия квебека: лингвокультурологический анализ

The authors argue that cultural and personal systems of honor that depend on the behavior of others are an integral part of the killing of women by their families or intimates. Comparing patterns of conduct in both traditional cultures and English-speaking countries, this study focuses on the basic elements of such honor rationales—control, feelings of shame, and levels of community involvement—to establish that such rationales are a worldwide phenomenon. An appreciation of such honor systems adds an additional theoretical dimension both for understanding the incidence of male intimate violence in English-speaking countries and for cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, it contributes to the current need for a theoretical framework that accounts for cultural and contextual patterns of male intimate violence.

Family Killing Fields Honor Rationales in the Murder of Women

Soon after the George W. Bush administration began crafting its response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, voices could be heard questioning the impact of its antiterrorism measures on civil liberty. The Patriot Act would give the FBI "a blank warrant," warned the Village Voice (Hentoff 2001). When names of the detained were not released, one editorial asked "Why Not Disclose?" (Editorial 2001). The debate has not died down. In fact, according to the Washington Post, it has crystallized around opposing views of the nature of threat and the best way to confront it (Lane 2002a). Almost two years after the attacks, The New York Times discussed calculating the benefits and costs of the limits on liberty (Andrews 2003), and the The Economist (2003) posed "A question of freedom." In the intervening months, publications ranging from The Christian Science Monitor (Kiefer 2002) to the Sunday newspaper insert Parade Magazine (Klein 2002) have covered the debate summarized as national security versus civil liberties. The debate has special saliency during wartime, because the suggestion that there is another side than the government's implies dissension and even subversion. This was the point raised by Attorney General John Ashcroft in Senate hearings in December 2001: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists--for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve..." (U.S. Senate 2001, 316). This grim warning is particularly disturbing in the context of a war against terrorism, because the war has no clear end or scope; it is not waged against a nation-state or even an ideology, but against age-old methods of violence and terror; it is bound neither by time, geography, nor specific adversaries. President Bush has noted the difference as well, commenting that, "We're at war in a different kind of war" (CNN 2003). Defining the attacks as an act of war--instead of a domestic crime or a crime against humanity--has implications for the presidency as well as for the nation, opening up some policy avenues and foreclosing others. One important outcome has been the centralization of power within the Oval Office; presidents historically have been able to exercise greater authority in international than domestic matters, and in wartime than peacetime. In the current crisis environment, this administration has asserted unilateral authority in multiple arenas, including the claim that the other branches lack competence to review its "core executive" actions. At such moments of crisis, members of Congress and the judiciary are expected to defer to the president's definition of the national interest, and most have (Baker 2002). Another product of wartime is that civil liberties are generally categorized as luxury items, like silk stockings during World War II, that divert valuable resources from the war effort. Historically, once war is over, those luxuries are again embraced. The White House, Congress, and the courts then reassert civil liberty values, perhaps even chiding themselves for their earlier restrictions. But a war on terrorism, bringing a securitization of domestic life, creates a different metaphor. Liberties are not luxuries to be sacrificed in the short term until we can afford them again. Liberties are gaping holes in the security fabric; they must be sealed off permanently if the nation is to be safe. The demands of a war on terrorism also undercut the likelihood that liberties can be reasserted, because a war without a clear end will never produce the peace of mind necessary to reflect on what we have lost. "Firmly rooted in the Constitution." The administration characterizes its antiterrorism measures as fully consistent with civil liberties and denies that any of its actions constitute restrictions. A commitment to civil liberties extends up to the president, according to Ashcroft: "President Bush insists that our responses to evil respect the Constitution and value the freedoms of justice the Constitution guaranteed" (CNN 2003). …

National Security versus Civil Liberties

ments create a provocative dialogue with his on-air performances. 8. Interview in Moscow with Sergei Erofeev (1988). 9. M.M. Bakhtin 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 416-419. 10. Gary Saul Morson, ed. 1986. Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on his Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 11. I wish to thank Charles Benton for his persistent support of my research and especially for his encouragement of the thinking I have been doing along these lines of creating new forms of television through intercultural production. I am deeply appreciative to the Benton Foundation and the MacArthur

Oyez, Oyez, Oyez: The Trials of Teaching the Supreme Court

One predictable outcome of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, has been the expansion of presidential power. Political scientists have long noted how national crises serve to centralize power in the White House, and this moment in the nation's history is no different. From the start, the administration of George W. Bush sought to "restore" presidential prerogatives that it believed had been eroded during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, particularly in relations with Congress (Blum 2002; Milbank 2001). Success in this regard had been unlikely, given the contested nature of the 2000 election and his predecessor's inability to successfully assert privilege claims. The tragedy of September 11, however, provided both the rationale and public support needed to support assertions of broad unilateral authority. As Mayer and Price (2002, 380) note, "Presidential power turns not just on the executive's persuasive capacities but on the constitutional and statutory sources of unilateral authority on which any president might draw." In asserting both of these sources of unilateral authority, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has been key in crafting and promoting the administration's response in a way that enhances the president's domestic power. Many of Ashcroft's high-profile actions--such as the secret detention of foreign nationals following the terrorist attacks (Oliphant 2001; Goldstein 2001), the new rule permitting eavesdropping of conversations between attorneys and certain clients in federal detention (Bureau of Prisons 2001), and his support of military tribunals (Resnick 2002; Blum 2001)--have garnered much attention for their potential impact on civil liberties. Less attention has been paid to the potential impact of these and other actions on the constitutional system of divided and overlapping powers. This study will offer an early examination of the administration's domestic response to the terrorist threat, specifically focusing on the actions of the U.S. attorney general, to seek to clarify what impact the post-9/11 antiterrorism actions have had on the separation of powers. Theory of Divided Powers Many U.S. citizens consider it axiomatic that divided power is the bulwark of American liberty. "That all lawful power derives from the people and must be held in check to preserve their freedom is the oldest and most central tenet of American constitutionalism," according to constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe (2000, 6). Power is divided both horizontally between branches and vertically between levels. But what does a system of divided powers require in the current context of a war against a nonstate enemy? For all of their references to tyranny, the Constitution's framers did not want weak and ineffectual government. They saw a division of power not simply as a check on its arbitrary and abusive exercise but as a source of greater government efficiency (Fisher 1997; Gwyn 1964). However, this did not mean a system of strict functional segregation and independence. Instead, the system they adopted institutionalizes the interdependence of the branches and levels of government, with powers shared more than separated (Tribe 2000; Fisher 1997; Gwyn 1989). The doctrine of separation of powers has become particularly salient since September 11, 2001. Both Congress and the president have made reference to the doctrine, either directly or indirectly. For example, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee, described the administration's plan to monitor some attorney-client conversations as "what appears to be an executive effort to exercise new powers without judicial scrutiny or statutory authorization" (Reuters 2001b). The executive branch, for its part, has characterized certain judicial and congressional actions as assaults on its core executive powers (see, for example, Bush 2001 a). …

Nancy V. Baker

Papers

Family Killing Fields Honor Rationales in the Murder of Women

National Security versus Civil Liberties

Oyez, Oyez, Oyez: The Trials of Teaching the Supreme Court

The Law: The Impact of Antiterrorism Policies on Separation of Powers: Assessing John Ashcroft's Role

The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate – Andrew Rudalevige