RESEARCH TOPIC

I propose to research variation in femicide because I want to explain why women are murdered by inter-partner violence at disparate rates to help my readers understand how to combat international femicide.

Something to note when researching femicide is the lack of sufficient or accurate data. Adriana Quiñones, UN Women’s Country Representative in Guatemala, says “we don’t have comparable data on femicide at a global level… Much of the data that is collected on homicides is not disaggregated by sex. ” [1] Despite this fact, a list has been compiled that details the 25 states most affected by femicide. [2] Fourteen of the 25 states with the highest rates of femicide are found in Latin America. [3] The conversation surrounding femicide in Latin America has developed due to local feminist activists, primarily mothers of victims, who play a visible role in holding the state accountable for continued violations against women and girls. [4]

Though not nearly as high on the list of 25 states with the highest rates of femicide, European states have also called attention to femicide. In Italy, media outlets pointed to femicide as a nationwide epidemic. [5] However scholars found that femicide rates had not increased, even though the public was taking notice of the issue. [6] In Italy, one femicide is committed every two days. This equates to 124 women killed on a yearly basis as a result of inter-partner violence. [7] In El Salvador, 647 femicides were counted in 2011 alone. [8] Thus El Salvador holds the record for highest rate of femicide worldwide, a staggering increase from the already comparatively high rate of 200 femicides per year recorded in 2000. [9]

Herein lays my puzzle: states within different regions are home to similar discourse yet maintain varying rates of femicide. To what can this variation in femicide be attributed?

There is significant disagreement among scholars that seek to explain femicide. Most scholars point to one of three theories: the cultural, economic, or political aspects of the state. The broadest idea assesses culture, which also comprises religious traditions. [10] A common explanation points to cultural norms and practices as being among the most accepted of such theories. Alison Brysk explained that “international abuse of women grows from preexisting domestic practices of commodification of female reproductive labor… and patriarchal control of women’s movement, education, and employment- enforced by gendered violence.” [11] Thus, the cultural norm of hegemonic masculinity is thought to engender a patriarchal society which assigns women to an inferior, killable status thus making them susceptible to inter-partner femicide.

Other scholars dismiss this idea due to the fact that it fails to view femicide as a dynamic issue. Scholars Maya Mikdashi and Lila Abu Lughood argue that gender-based violence is not merely caused by the broadly encompassing term “culture,” but by a woman’s political status. [12] Such scholars identify gender-violence as “dense and multifaceted. It is economic, political, military, and sexual.” [13] This argument critiques the automatic assignment of “culture” as the universal culprit of women’s issues. [14] Scholars also claim that gender-violence can be attributed to the failure of recognizing women as political actors but rather as victims of the stronger, masculine sex. [15]

Lastly, scholars attempt to explain femicide through an economic lens and often rely on data collected by the UN or the WHO. The UN reported that “low social and economic status of women can be both a cause and a consequence of this violence.” [16] Economic risks of perpetrating femicide include unemployment and high school versus university education. [17] Economic equality in terms of gender and social spending on areas such as health and education are argued to be factors that lessen a woman’s risk of femicide. [18]

The puzzle I wish to research is significant because, as aforementioned, on an international level experts do not hold accurate data on femicide. By understanding why femicides occur at varying rates, my research would bring more knowledge to an ongoing question.

Generally, I want to explain variation in femicide.

Specifically, I want to understand why femicide rates differ significantly despite the fact such states maintain similar discourse surrounding the issue.

NOTES

[1] “Take Five: Fighting Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. February 2017.

[2] “When the Victim Is a Woman.” Geneva Declaration. Global Burden of Armed Violence. Chapter 4, pp. 119. 2011.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Driver, A. “‘We Want to Stay Alive’: Ending Feminicide in Juárez, Mexico.” World Policy Journal 33, no. 4 (2016): 45.

[5] Bandelli, Daniela, and Porcelli, Giorgio. “‘Femminicidio’ in Italy:  A Critique of Feminist Gender Discourse and Constructivist Reading of the Human Identity.” Current Sociology. Vol. 64, no. 7: 1071–1073. 2016.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Lalli, Pina, and Chiara Gius. “‘I Loved Her so Much, but I Killed Her’ Romantic Love as a Representational Frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in Three Italian Newspapers.” ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies 7. pp. 55. December 1, 2014.

[8] “Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. April 4, 2013.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Goodhart, Michael. Human Rights: Politics and Practice. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 30. 2009.

[11] Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 82. 2013.

[12] Mikdashi, Maya, and Lila Abu Lughood. “Tradition and the Anti-Politics Machine: DAM Seduced by the ‘Honor Crime.’” Jadaliyya جدلية.2012

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] “Violence against Women.” UN Report. Chapter 6, pp. 127. 2015.

[17] “Femicide” Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women. World Health Organization, 2012.

[18] Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandelli, Daniela, and Porcelli, Giorgio. “‘Femminicidio’ in Italy: A Critique of Feminist Gender Discourse and Constructivist Reading of the Human Entity.” Current Sociology. Vol. 64, no.7. 2016.

Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp.82. 2013.

Driver, A. “‘We Want to Stay Alive’: Ending Feminicide in Juárez, Mexico.” World Policy Journal 33, no.4:45. 2016.

“Femicide.” Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women. World Health Organization. 2012. 

Goodhart, Michael. Human Rights: Politics and Practice. Oxford University Press, USA. pp.30. 2009

Lalli, Pina, and Chiara Gius. “‘I Loved Her so Much, but I Killed Her’ Romantic Love as a Representational Frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in Three Italian Newspapers.”  ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies 7. pp. 55. December 1, 2014.

Mikdashi, Maya, and Lila Abu Lughood. “Tradition and the Anti-Politics Machine: DAM Seduced by the ‘Honor Crime'” Jadaliyya . 2012.

“Take Five: Fighting Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. 2017. 

“When the Victim Is a Woman” Geneva Declaration. Global Burden of Armed Violence. Chapter 4, pp.119. 2011.

“Violence against Women.” UN Report. Chapter 6, pp.127. 2015