Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Female Status and Infant and Child Homicide Victimization in Rural and Urban Counties in the U.S.

  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies consistently show that female labor force participation is a correlate of infant and child homicide victimization. Research and theory supports the notion that as women’s economic status improves, children are safer. Yet few existing studies make use of feminist perspectives to explain child homicide. Further, homicide studies have focused heavily on urban areas leaving a lacuna of understanding in the literature regarding rural areas. This study explores the connection between absolute and relative female economic status and infant and child homicide victimization in both rural and urban U.S. counties. Results show that absolute female economic status is positively associated with infant and child homicide in urban areas, but not in rural areas. I argue that in rural areas, stronger collective sentiment and less differentiation diminishes the effect of women’s status on child homicide. While rural areas are characterized by harsh economic realities, these realities are nevertheless shared among men and women, decentering the link between child victimization and women status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This relationship between female labor force participation and child homicide is a social condition. That is, this body of literature found a statistical association between rates of female labor force participation as a social condition, and child homicide as a social condition. This finding does not reveal anything about individuals, nor the motivations or characteristics of individual actors, but instead is a characteristic of social structures.

  2. The backlash hypothesis is an alternate perspective frequently tested in empirical works on homicide victimization. The idea here is that as the gap between males and females narrows, men are threatened by increasing equality and try to regain power through the use of violence. There is some support for this thesis [see 54].

  3. Gender equality theories also assume that as the economic margin between males and females grows smaller, the absolute status of females improves. That is, narrowing means that women are enjoying increasing economic prosperity and their rates are rising to meet the already higher rates of their male counterparts. While we know that men are universally advantaged over women, it is erroneous to assume that a narrowing of the economic gender gap translates to higher absolute economic status for women. In some social systems both men and women may be concentrated in poverty resulting in a situation where both the absolute economic status of women is low, as well as the economic distance between males and females. If there are indeed fewer antagonisms between men and women when the gender gap is narrow, then this is true whether economic gender gap is narrow at the poverty or the prosperity end of the spectrum.

  4. Retained multiple victim homicides if one of the victims was less than 5-years old. Child deaths that were the result of the 2001 September 11th attacks were removed.

References

  1. Adinkrah, M. (2003). Men who kill their own children: Paternal filicide incidents in contemporary Fiji. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 557–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Psychological Association (1999). The behavioral health care needs of rural women. Retrieved July 2005 from http://www.apa.org/rural/ruralwomen.pdf

  3. Avakame, E. F. (1998). How different is violence in the home? An examination of some correlates of stranger and intimate homicide. Criminology, 36, 601–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, W., & Peterson, R. D. (1995). Gender equality and violence against women: The case of murder. In: J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin C. L., & Perrin, R. (2005). Family violence across the lifespan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baron, L. (1993). Gender equality and child homicide: A state level analysis. In Anna Wilson’s (ed.), Homicide: The victim/offender connection. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

  7. Blumberg, R. L. (1984). A general theory of gender stratification. Sociological Theory, 2, 23–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brewer, V., & Smith, M. D. (1995). Gender inequality and rates of female homicide victimization across U.S. cities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Briggs, C. M., & Cutright, P. (1994). Structural and cultural determinants of child homicide: A cross-national analysis. Violence and Victims, 9, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Butler, M. A., & Beale, C. L. (1994). Rural–urban continuum codes for metro and non-metro counties. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Crittenden, P. M., & Craig, S. E. (1990). Developmental trends in the nature of child homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DiCristina, B. (2006). Durkheim’s latent theory of gender and homicide. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 212–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowdy, E. R., & Unnithan, N. P. (1997). Child homicide and the economic stress hypothesis: A research note. Homicide Studies, 1, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fiala, B., & LaFree, G. (1988). Cross-national determinants of child homicide. American Sociological Review, 53, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Finkelhor, D, & Ormrod, R. (2001). The homicides of children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1991). Homicide against the elderly: A research note. Criminology, 29, 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freudenburg, W. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable in community research. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 27–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuse, K., & Crenshaw, E. M. (2005). Gender imbalance in infant mortality: A cross-national study of social structure and female infanticide. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 360–374.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gallup-Black, A. (2005). Twenty years of rural and urban trends in family and intimate partner homicide: Does place matter? Homicide Studies, 9, 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gartner, R. (1991). Family structure, welfare spending, and child homicide in developed democracies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gauthier, D. K., & Bankston, W. B. (1997). Gender equality and the sex ratio of intimate killing. Criminology, 35, 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grove, W., Hughes, M., & Geerken, M. (1985). Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology, 23, 451–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Horton, H. D., Thomas, M. E., & Herring, C. (1995). Rural–urban differences in black family structure: An analysis of the 1990 census. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hunnicutt, G. & LaFree, G. (forthcoming 2008). Reassessing the structural covariates of cross-national infant homicide victimization. Homicide Studies.

  27. Jolliffe, D. (2003). Nonmetro poverty: Assessing the effect of the 1990s. Amber Waves, 1, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koenen, K., Lincoln, A., & Appleton A. (2006). Women’s status and child well-being: A state-level analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2999–3012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kowalski, G., & Duffield, D. (1990). The impact of the rural population component on homicide rates in the United States: A county-level analysis. Rural Sociology, 55, 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kposowa, A. J., & Breault, K. D. (1993). Reassessing the structural covariates of U.S. homicide rates: A county level study. Sociological Focus, 26, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kposowa, A. J., Breault, K. D., & Harrison, B. M. (1995). Reassessing the structural covariates of violent and property crimes in the USA: A county level analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Langstaff, J. & Tish Sleeper (2001). The national center on child fatality review, OJJDP fact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

  33. Lester, D. (1986). The relation of twin infanticide to status of women, societal aggression and material well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 57–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee, M. R., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Love thy neighbor? Moral communities, civic engagement, and juvenile homicide in rural areas. Social Forces, 82, 1001–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee, M. R., Maume, M. O., & Ousey, G. C. (2003). Social isolation and lethal violence across the metro/nonmetro divide. Rural Sociology, 68, 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee, M. R., & Stevenson, G. D. (2006). Gender specific homicide offending in rural areas. Homicide Studies, 10, 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mclaughlin, D. K., Lichter, D. T., & Johnston, G. M. (1993). Some women marry young: Transitions to first marriage in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 827–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Osgood, D. W. (2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Osgood, D. W., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38, 81–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parker, K. F., & Johns, T. (2002). Urban disadvantage and types of race-specific homicide: Assessing the diversity in family structures in the urban context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Paulsen, D. J., & Brewer, V. E. (1999). The spousal SROK revisited: A comparison of Chicago and Houston intimate partner homicide ratios. Gender Issues, Winter 2000, 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pridemore, W. A., & Freilich, J. D. (2005). Gender equity, traditional masculine culture, and female homicide victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pritchard, C. (1996). Search for an indicator of effective child protection in a re-analysis of child homicide in the major western countries 1973–1992: A response to Lindsay and Macdonald. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 545–563.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shen, C., & Williamson, J. B. (1997). Child mortality, women’s status, economic dependency, and state strength: A cross-national study of less developed countries. Social Forces, 76, 667–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sherman, J. (2006). Coping with rural poverty: Economic survival and moral capital in rural America. Social Forces, 85, 891–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Steffensmeier, D., & Haynie, D. L. (2000). The structural source of urban female violence in the United States. Homicide Studies, 4, 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Straus, M. A. (1987). State and regional differences in U.S. infant homicide victimization rates in relation to sociocultural characteristics of the states. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Report on community health in rural, urban Areas. Retrieved July 2005 from: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010910.html

  50. Vieraitis, L. M., & Williams, M. R. (2002). Assessing the impact of gender inequality of female homicide victimization across U.S. cities: A racially disaggregated analysis. Violence Against Women, 8, 35–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vieraitis, L. M., Britto, S., & Kovandzic, T. V. (2007). The impact of women’s status and gender inequality on female homicide victimization rates: Evidence from U.S. counties. Feminist Criminology, 2, 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wadsworth, T., & Kubrin, C. E. (2004). Structural factors and black interracial homicide: A new examination of the causal process. Criminology, 42, 647–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (2005). Deadly violence in the heartland: Comparing homicide patterns in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties. Homicide Studies, 9, 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Whaley, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Studies, 6, 188–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Tom F. Jackson, Julie V. Brown and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 337 Graham Building, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC, 27402-6170, USA

    Gwen Hunnicutt

Authors
  1. Gwen Hunnicutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwen Hunnicutt.

Additional information

A portion of this paper was presented at the 2005 American Society of Criminology meetings, Toronto, ON. This research was funded by a summer excellence grant from the University of North Carolina Greensboro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunnicutt, G. Female Status and Infant and Child Homicide Victimization in Rural and Urban Counties in the U.S.. Gend. Issues 24, 35–50 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-007-9046-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-007-9046-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation