ArticlePDF Available


The relationship between masculinity and femicide has been virtually ignored in the literature on both masculinities and femicide. The aim of this paper then is to concentrate on the relationship between masculinities and femicide by first briefly summarizing feminist theorizing in the 1970s and 1980s and its relation to the emergence of Raewyn Connell’s concept of “hegemonic masculinity.” Following that, new directions in scholarly work on hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities are discussed, with particular attention directed to the recent work of the author on the relationship among hegemonic, dominant, dominating, and positive masculinities. Finally, the paper concludes by briefly illustrating how this new conception of masculinities can be applied to two types of femicide: intimate partner femicide and so-called “honor” femicides.
Qualitative Sociology Review • 71
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
James W. Messerschmidt
University of Southern Maine, U.S.A.
Masculinities and Femicide1
The relationship between masculinity and femicide has been virtually ignored in the literature on
both masculinities and femicide. The aim of this paper then is to concentrate on the relationship be-
tween masculinities and femicide by rst briey summarizing feminist theorizing in the 1970s and
1980s and its relation to the emergence of Raewyn Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity.
Following that, new directions in scholarly work on hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities
are discussed, with particular aention directed to the recent work of the author on the relationship
among hegemonic, dominant, dominating, and positive masculinities. Finally, the paper concludes
by briey illustrating how this new conception of masculinities can be applied to two types of femi-
cide: intimate partner femicide and so-called “honor” femicides.
Hegemonic Masculinity; Dominant Masculinity; Dominating Masculinity; Positive Masculinity;
Intimate Partner Femicide; “Honor” Femicide; Patriarchy
James W. Messerschmidt is a Professor of Sociology
in the Sociology, Criminology, and Economics Department at the
University of Southern Maine. In addition to over fty articles
and book chapters, he has authored eleven books, most recently
Masculinities in the Making (Rowman & Lileeld 2016) and Crime
as Structured Action: Doing Masculinities, Race, Class, Sexuality,
and Crime (Rowman & Lileeld 2014). In 2011, he received the
“Outstanding Feminist Faculty Award” from the Women and
Gender Studies Program at the University of Southern Maine for
his notable contributions to scholarship in gender studies, and
in 2012, he received the “Outsta nding Alumn i Award” from San
Diego State University for his distinguished scholarly contribu-
tions to sociology, criminology, and gender studies. His current
projects include a historical examination of the transition from
patriarchy to gender in feminist theory and the relation among
reexivity and habit/routine in gender practice.
email address:
Studies1 of femicide rarely discuss how particu-
lar masculinities are associated with diering
types of this heinous crime. In this paper, I con-
centrate on this issue by rst summarizing brief-
ly feminist theorizing in the 1970s and 1980s and
exploring its relation to the emergence of Raewyn
Connell’s concept of “hegemonic masculinity.” Fol-
lowing that, I discuss new directions in scholarly
work on hegemonic and non-hegemonic mascu-
linities, with particular aention directed to my
own work on the relationship among hegemonic,
dominant, dominating, and positive masculini-
ties. Finally, I close the paper by briey illustrating
1 This paper was originally the Keynote Address at the con-
ference on “Culture, Masculinities, and Femicide in Europe,
Ljubljana, Slovenia, May 11-13, 2016. I thank participants for
their critical and insightful comments.
how this new conception of masculinities can be
applied to two types of femicide: intimate partner
femicide and so-called “honor” femicides.
Feminist Theory and the Emergence
of “Hegemonic Masculinity”
I dene “femicide” as the intentional killing of girls
and women by boys and men because the victims are
girls and women, and this denit ion necessarily calls
for an analysis of unequal gender relations in the
pursuit of conceptualizing why femicide occurs.
Historically, feminist approaches to femicide have
turned to the concept of “patriarchy,” arguing that
femicide is simply one of the oppressive dangers
girls and women face in a male-dominated, patri-
archal society. For example, from the late 1970s to
the 1980s, radical feminists argued that masculine
power and privilege are the root cause of all so-
cial relations, all forms of inequality, and thus of
femicide, and that the most important relations in
any society are found in patriarchy; and that all
other relations, such as class and race relations, are
secondary and derive from male-female relations
(Dworkin 1979; 1987; MacKinnon 1979; 1989). Rad-
ical feminism then advanced a structural and mo-
no-causal explanation for gender inequality and
femicide that concentrated on patriarchy (Radford
and Russell 1992).
Because of this structured mono-causal explana-
tion by radical feminism, another structured fem-
inist theory also appeared during this time period
to explain gender inequalitysocialist feminism
(Eisenstein 1979). Socialist feminists sought to con-
ceptualize the intersection of patriarchy and cap-
italism, of gender and class inequality, and how
that structural intersection impacts social action,
such as femicide.
However, it was not long after the development of
both radical and socialist feminism that solid crit-
icisms of these perspectives began to appear. For
example, scholars argued that both perspectives
are deterministic in the sense that behavior is seen
as simply resulting from a social system—either
“patriarchy” or “patriarchal capitalism”a social
system that is external to the actor (Messerschmidt
1993). In such a view, individuals display lile or
no agencytheir actions result directly from the
structural system of patriarchy or patriarchal cap-
italism. Both radical and socialist feminism then
failed to account for the intentions of actors and
for how social action is a meaningful construct in
Yet probably the most central critique of both radi-
cal and socialist feminism concentrated on the con-
cept of patriarchy. Feminist scholars argued that
this concept restricts the exploration of historical
variation in gender relations, obscures the mul-
tiplicity of ways in which societies have dened
gender, and therefore implies a structure that is
xed, missi ng the kaleidoscope of gender relations,
both historically and cross-culturally. In addition,
the concept was criticized for its unidimensional
conceptualization of gender and its neglect of dif-
ferences and power relations between men and
women and among women and among men (Row-
botham 1981; Connell 1985; Beechey 1987; Acker
1989). Finally, in much theorizing of patriarchy, the
categories of “women” and “men” are considered
Masculinities and Femicide
Qualitative Sociology Review • 73
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
as being in no need of further examination, ner
dierentiation, or a determination of how they
came to be what they are, thereby ignoring the so-
cial construction of masculinities and femininities
and the relations between and among them (Con-
nell 1985).
This spectrum of criticism indicated that eorts to
theorize patriarchy had come to an end, and thus
this realizat ion spaw ned new ideas about the social
character of gender, including masculinities. In this
regard, it was the work of Raewyn Connell (1987;
1995) that provided a perspective for conceptual-
izing gender inequality through an understanding
of the social construction of masculinities and fem-
ininities. Connell’s initial formulation of the con-
cept of “hegemonic masculinity” concentrated on
that form of masculinity in a given historical and
society-wide seing that legitimates unequal gen-
der relations between men and women, masculin-
ity and femininity, and among masculinities. Con-
nell argued that hegemonic masculinity is always
constructed in relation to various subordinated
masculinities, as well as in relation to women. Both
the relational and legitimation features were central
to Connell’s argument, involving a particular form
of masculinity in unequal relation to a certain form
of femininitythat is, “emphasized femininity”
which is practiced in a complementary, compliant,
and accommodating subordinate relationship with
hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, the achieve-
ment of hegemonic masculinity occurs largely
through discursive legitimation (or justication),
encouraging all to consent to, unite around, and
embody such unequal gender relations. For Con-
nell, then, there exists a “t” between hegemonic
masculinity and emphasized femininity that dis-
cursively and materially institutionalizes men and
masculinity as more powerful than women and
femininity (Connell 1987; 1995).
Connell emphasized that hegemonic and non-he-
gemonic masculinities are all subject to change be-
cause they come into existence in specic seings
and under particular situations. Moreover, in the
case of the former, there often exists a struggle for
hegemony whereby older versions may be replaced
by newer ones. The notion of hegemonic masculin-
ity and non-hegemonic masculinities then opened
up the possibility of change towards the abolition
of gender inequalities and the creation of more
egalitarian gender relations.
Connell’s perspective found signicant and enthu-
siastic application from the late 1980s to the early
2000s, being utilized in a variety of academic areas
(Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). However, and
despite considerable favorable reception of Con-
nell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity and no-
tion of multiple non-hegemonic masculinities, her
perspective nevertheless aracted criticism that
focused almost exclusively on the concept of he-
gemonic masculinity. For example, concerns over
the underlying concept of masculinity itself were
raised, arguing that it may be awed in various
ways; questions regarding who actually represents
hegemonic masculinity were advanced; it was not-
ed that hegemonic masculinity simply reduces in
practice to a reication of power or toxicity; and
nally, it was suggested that the concept maintains
an allegedly unsatisfactory theory of the mascu-
line subject (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005).
James W. Messerschmidt
In a paper published in 2005, Connell and Messer-
schmidt responded to these criticisms and refor-
mulated the concept of hegemonic masculinity in
numerous ways. That reformulation rst included
certain aspects of the original formulation that em-
pirical evidence over almost two decades of time
indicated should be retained, in particular, the re-
lational nature of the concept (among hegemonic
masculinity, emphasized femininity, and non-he-
gemonic masculinities) and the idea that this re-
lationship is a paern of hegemony—not a paern
of simple domination. Also well supported histor-
ically are the seminal ideas that hegemonic mas-
culinity need not be the most powerful and/or the
most common paern of masculinity in a partic-
ular seing, and that any formulation of the con-
cept as simply constituting an assemblage of xed,
“masculine” character traits should be thoroughly
transcended. Second, Connell and Messerschmidt
suggested that a reformulated understanding of
hegemonic masculinity must incorporate a more
holistic grasp of gender inequality, which rec-
ognizes the agency of subordinated groups (e.g.,
women and gay men), as much as the power of
hegemonic groups, and includes the mutual condi-
tioning (or intersectionality) of gender with other
social inequalities, such as class, race, age, sexuali-
ty, and nation. Third, Connell and Messerschmidt
asserted that a more sophisticated treatment of
embodiment in hegemonic and non-hegemonic
masculinities was necessary, as well as conceptu-
alizations of how hegemonic masculinity may be
challenged, contested, and thus changed. Finally,
Connell and Messerschmidt argued that, instead
of simply recognizing hegemonic masculinity at
only the society-wide level, scholars should ana-
lyze existing hegemonic masculinities empirically
at three levels: rst, the local (meaning construct-
ed in arenas of face-to-face interaction in schools,
organizations, and immediate communities); sec-
ond, the regional (meaning constructed at the so-
ciety-wide level); and third, the global (meaning
constructed in such transnational arenas as world
politics, business, and media).
Scholars have since applied this reformulated
concept of hegemonic masculinity in a number
of ways, from specically examining hegemonic
masculinities at the local, regional, and global lev-
els; through demonstrating how women and sub-
ordinated men, under certain circumstances, may
actually contribute to the cultivation of hegemon-
ic masculinity; to demonstrating how hegemonic
masculinities may be open to challenge and possi-
bly reproduced in new form; and to analyzing how
neoliberal globalization impacts the construction
of hegemonic masculinities in several countries
in Asia, Africa, and Central and Latin America
(Messerschmidt 2012).
It emerges clearly from these and other studies that
scholars are now conducting impressive research
on how specic, unequal, structured gender rela-
tionships between men and women, between mas-
culinity and femininity, and among masculinities
are legitimated—they are capturing certain of the
essential features of the all-pervasive reproduction
of unequal gender relations. Indeed, this research
documents the continued signicance of the con-
cept of hegemonic masculinity and simultaneously
Masculinities and Femicide
Qualitative Sociology Review • 75
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
inspires additional gender research that further ex-
tends our knowledge in similar and/or previously
unexplored areas. Nevertheless, problems remain.
Problems Remain
Almost 18 years ago, the American sociologist, Pat
Martin (1998), raised the issue of inconsistent ap-
plications of the concept of hegemonic masculinity,
observing insightfully that some scholars equated
the concept with a xed type of masculinity, or
with whatever type of masculinity happened to
be dominant at a particular time and place. More
recently, the Australian sociologist, Christine Bea-
sley (2008), labeled such inconsistent applications
“slippage,” arguing that “dominant” forms of mas-
culinity—such as those that are the most cultur-
ally celebrated or the most common in particular
seings—may actually do lile to legitimate men’s
power over women and, therefore, should not be
labeled hegemonic masculinities. American sociol-
ogist, Mimi Schippers (2007), had similarly argued
that it is essential to distinguish masculinities that
legitimate men’s power from those that do not.
Martin’s, Beasley’s, and Schipper’s insights unfor-
tunately continue to ring true, as there remains
a fundamental tendency among some scholars to
read hegemonic masculinity as a static character
type and to ignore the whole question of gender
relations, and thus the legitimation of gender in-
equality. Furthermore, some scholars continue to
equate hegemonic masculinity with: 1) particular
masculinities that simply are dominant—that is,
the most culturally celebrated or the most common
in particular seings—but do not legitimate gender
inequality, or 2) those masculinities practiced by
certain men—such as politicians, corporate heads,
and celebrities—simply because they are in posi-
tions of power, ignoring once again questions of
gender relations and the legitimation of gender in-
A New Formulation
Permit me now to turn to my most recent work on
hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities that
builds on my 2005 co-authored paper with Con-
nell and addresses seriously the criticisms of Mar-
tin (1998), Beasley (2008), and Schippers (2007). As
previously mentioned, to elucidate the signicance
and salience of hegemonic masculinities, gender
scholars must distinguish masculinities that legiti-
mate gender inequality from those that do not, and
I have now begun to accomplish this. For example,
in my most recent book, Masculinities in the Mak-
ing, I distinguish “hegemonic masculinities” from
dominant,” dominating,” and positive” forms
of masculinities (Messerschmidt 2016). I dene
hegemonic masculinities as those masculinities con-
structed locally, regionally, and globally that legit-
imate an unequal relationship between men and
women, masculinity and femininity, and among
masculinities, and that hegemonic masculinities
must be culturally ascendant to provide a rationale
for social action through consent and compliance.
Dominant masculinities are not always associated
with and linked to gender hegemony, but refer to
(locally, regionally, and globally) the most cele-
brated, common, or current form of masculinity in
a particular social seing; dominating masculinities
refer to those masculinities (locally, regionally, and
globally) that also do not necessarily legitimate
unequal relationships between men and women,
masculinities and femininities, but rather involve
commanding and controlling particular interac-
tions, exercising power and control over people
and events: calling the shots” and “running the
show.” While dominant and dominating masculin-
ities may sometimes also be hegemonic, dominant
and dominating masculinities are never hegemon-
ic if they fail to legitimate unequal gender relations
in a cultural context. Positive masculinities are those
masculinities (locally, regionally, and globally)
that contribute to legitimating egalitarian relations
between men and women, masculinity and femi-
ninity, and among masculinities.
Research on such dominant, dominating, and pos-
itive masculinities is signicant because it enables
a more distinct conceptualization of how hegemon-
ic masculinities are unique among the diversity of
masculinities, and because drawing a clear distinc-
tion between hegemonic and dominant and domi-
nating masculinities will enable scholars to recog-
nize and research various non-hegemonic yet pow-
erful masculinities, and how the laer dier from
hegemonic masculinities, as well as how they dier
among themselves.
Furthermore, identifying gendered practices that
do not legitimate patriarchal relations should be
considered valuable, in the sense of recognizing
and pinpointing possible positive masculinities and
thus gender practices and relations that feminists
support: positive masculinities that challenge gen-
der hegemony and consequently have crucial impli-
cations for social policy.
In closing, then, let me now apply this new formu-
lation of masculinities just outlined to two diering
types of femicide: intimate partner femicide and so-
called “honor” femicide. I begin with intimate part-
ner femicide.
Intimate Partner Femicide
For men who eventually commit femicide against
their intimate female partner, the evidence in-
dicates that, over the course of the relationship,
the eventual perpetrator aempts increasingly to
dominate his partner through physical baering.
In other words, when a femicide is the outcome,
the baering has usually been progressively per-
sistent and severe (Campbell et al. 2007). Men who
engage in intimate partner femicide assume they
have the right to dominate their partner violently
and, overwhelmingly, female partners are beaten
for issues centering on, for example, household la-
bor, possessiveness, and sexual jealousy (Adams
2007; Goussinsky and Yassour-Borochowi 2012).
Therefore, the eventual perpetrator is constructing
a wholly dominating masculinity, whereby he is
commanding and controlling the relationship, he
is exercising power and authority over his partner,
and he is employing physical violence to call the
shots and run the show.
However, intimate partner femicides usually oc-
cur when the man concludes that he is losing
his power to dominate and control what he sees
as his possession. Intimate partner femicides are
almost always immediately preceded by a major
James W. Messerschmidt Masculinities and Femicide
Qualitative Sociology Review • 77
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
confrontat ion in the privatized seing of the home
that they usually both share (Dobash and Dobash
2015). Moreover, the confrontat ion most likely cen-
ters on the female partner acting independently of
his commands and requirements by engaging in
certain practices, such as aempts to end the re-
lationship, planning to move out of the house or
actually moves out, or establishing a new relation-
ship with another man. Her aempted or actual
separation and sovereignty in fact threaten and
challenge his masculine control directly; the con-
ict over his possessiveness of her as his own is
at once intensied, and the man ultimately ratio-
nalizes that, “If I can’t have her, no one can,” and
the result often is a femicide (Dobash and Dobash
2015). In other words, when he realizes that his
possession is vanishing, or actually has vanished
and will most likely not return, he becomes acute-
ly angry, enters into a resentful rage, and kills his
partner because, from his point of view, he has
been seriously wronged.
Intimate partner femicide reproduces the gender
inequality that the female partner has challenged
because the very act of femicide inscribes the fe-
male victim—who now embodies weakness and
vulnerability—as feminine and the perpetrator—
who now embodies strength and invulnerability—
as masculine, thereby constructing an “inferior”
partner and a “superior” perpetrator. For the per-
petrator, then, gender dierence and inequality are
re-established in his mind through intimate part-
ner femicide. The perpetrator restores his dominat-
ing masculinity by once again commanding and
controlling the violent interaction through exercis-
ing aggressive and dominating power over “his”
partner and the situation—he ultimately assures
hi mself that no one other than him will everown”
So-Called “Honor” Femicide
So-called “honor” femicide refers to the killing of
a female family member by a male family mem-
ber due to the belief that the female has alleged-
ly brought gendered dishonor upon the family. In
societies where so-called “honor” femicide occurs,
the mere perception that a woman has behaved
in a gendered way that supposedly “dishonors”
her family is sucient to set in motion a series of
events leading to a femicide (Dogan 2016; Grzyb
2016). For example, members of the extended fami-
ly may plan together how to respond to the oend-
ing revelation; an important aspect is the osten-
sible reputation of the family in their respective
community and the stigma associated with pos-
sibly losing social status within that community.
If it is determined that the family has been dis-
honored, then immediate retribution is exercised
to restore that alleged honor in order for the fam-
ily to avoid losing status in the community (Gill,
Strange, and Roberts 2014; Begikhani, Gill, and
Hague 2015).
A male member of the family will usually then be
chosen to carry out the killing; he will most likely
experience pressure from the family and/or com-
munity to reportedly restore the family honor, and
such men are celebrated for their “bravery” once
the femicide has been completed (Dogan 2016;
Grzyb 2016). The killing is broadcast throughout
the community and thus the perpetrator is pub-
licly constructed as a masculine hero within both
the family and the community (Gill, Strange, and
Roberts 2014).
The distinct character of this type of femicide
is that it takes place within the context of fami-
ly- and community-wide masculine control over
women and their bodies. This control of women is
achieved through the ever-present threat and fear
of violence, if a woman should construct bodily
practices that venture outside her predetermined
and policed femininity. In such a situation, “hon-
or” is simply code for hegemonic masculinity and
dishonor” is code for challenging that hegemon-
ic masculinity. In other words, the discourse of
“family dishonor” is a major aspect of gender he-
gemony embedded in the family and community,
but it is simultaneously a measure of the imper-
fection of that gender hegemony. So-called “hon-
or” femicide occurs when the men of the family
fear their control over the bodies of women is
breaking down because of women’s gendered
“transgressions. Gender antecedents by women
that ultimately lead men to engage in femicide
include, for example: 1) refusing to enter an ar-
ranged marriage; 2) being in a disapproved rela-
tionship; 3) having sex outside of marriage; 4) be-
ing the victim of rape; 5) dressing in inappropri-
ate ways; 6) engaging in same-sex sexuality; and
7) seeking a divorce, even from an abusive hus-
band. When a woman steps outside the bounds
of acceptable femininity, men turn to so-called
“honor” femicide to regain control and reproduce
hegemonic masculinity within the family and the
community. In such seings, hegemonic mascu-
linity has been compromised through the behav-
ior of the oending” woman and the femicide
at once restores that hegemonic masculinity and
thus gender inequality. “Honor” femicide thus re-
instates the compliant and accommodating notion
of femininity in such families and communities,
encouraging all to unite around unequal gender
relations—so-called “honor” femicide therefore
serves to legitimate, at the local level, an unequal
relationship between men and women, and mas-
culinity and femininity.
In this paper, I briey summarized feminist the-
orizing in the 1970s and 1980s that set the stage
for the emergence of the concept of hegemonic
masculinity. I then presented the criticisms lev-
eled against this concept and therefore the arrival
of new directions in scholarly work on hegemon-
ic and non-hegemonic masculinities. As part of
these new directions, I considered my most re-
cent work on hegemonic, dominant, dominating,
and positive masculinities. Further, given that the
concept of patriarchy fails to examine the dier-
ences among the category of “men (as well as
“women”), the concentration on gender diversi-
ty—and in this case, masculinities—provides that
distinction among men and masculinities, and
thereby advances a detailed conceptualization of
the contrasting masculinities involved in two dis-
tinct types of femicide; namely, intimate partner
femicide and so-called “honor” femicides. The
direct implication of this discussion, then, is that
examining masculinities will deepen comprehen-
sion about why dierent types of femicide are
James W. Messerschmidt Masculinities and Femicide
Qualitative Sociology Review • 79
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
Acker, Joan. 1989. “The Problem with Patriarchy. Sociology
Adams, David. 2007. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their
Intimate Partners. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Beasley, Christine. 2008. “Re-Thinking Hegemonic Masculin-
ity in a Globalizing World.” Men and Masculinities 11:86 -103.
Beechey, Veronica. 1987. Unequal Work. London: Verso.
Begikhani, Nazand, Aisha K. Gill, and Gill Hague. 2015. Hon-
our-Based Violence: Experiences and Counter-Strategies in Iraqi
Kurdistan and the UK Kurdish Diaspora. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Campbell, Jacquelyn C. et. al. 2007. “Intimate Partner Homi-
cide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy.” Trau-
ma, Violence, and Abuse 8(3):24 6 -269.
Connell, Raewyn. 1985. “Theorizing Gender. Sociology
Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power. Sydney: Allen and
Connell, Raewyn. 1995. Masculinities. Ca m brid ge: Polit y Press .
Connell, Rawyn and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hege-
monic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.Gender & Soci-
ety 19:829-859.
Dobash, R. Emerson and Russell P. Dobash. 2015. When Men
Murder Women. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dogan, Recep. 2016. “The Dynamics of Honor Killings
and the Perpetrators’ Experiences.” Homicide Studies 20 (1):
53 -79.
Dworkin, Andrea. 1979. Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
New York: Plume.
Dworkin, Andrea. 1987. Intercourse. New York: Free Press.
Eisenstein, Zillah, (ed.). 1979. Capitalist Patriarchy and the
Case for Socialist Feminism. New York: Monthly Review
Gill, Aisha K., Carolyn Strange, and Karl Roberts, (eds.).
2014. “Honour” Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Prac-
tice. New York: Palgrave.
Goussinsky, Ruhama and Dalit Yassour-Borochowitz. 2012.
“‘I Killed Her, But I Never Laid a Finger on Her’—A Phe-
nomenological Difference between Wife-Killing and
Wife-Battering.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17(6):
Grzyb, Magdalena A. 2016. “An Explanation of Honour-Re-
lated Killings of Women in Europe through Bourdieu’s
Concept of Symbolic Violence and Masculine Domination.”
Current Sociology 64(7):1036-1053.
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1979. Sexual Harassment of Working
Women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the
State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, Pat. 1998. “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Wom-
an? Reflections on Connell’s Masculinities.” Gender and Soci-
ety 12(4):472-474.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime. Lan-
ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Messerschmidt, James W. 2012. “Engendering Gendered
Knowledge: Assessing the Academic Appropriation
of Hegemonic Masculinity. Men and Masculinities 15:
Messerschmidt, James W. 2016. Masculinities in the Making.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Radford, Jill and Diana E. H. Russell, (eds.). 1992. Femicide:
The Politics of Woman Killing. New York: Twayne.
Rowbotham, Sheila. 1981. “The Trouble with ‘Patriarchy.’
Pp. 364-373 in People’s History and Socialist Theory, edited by
R. Samuel. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schippers, Mimi. 2007. “Recovering the Feminine Other:
Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony.” Theory
& Society 36:85-102 .
Messerschmidt, James W. 2017. “Masculinities and Femicide.” Qualitative Sociology Review 13(3):70-79. Retrieved Month, Year
James W. Messerschmidt Masculinities and Femicide
... This aspect underscores that the sensemaking of the crime (and also the meanings involved in GBV in general) as inseparable from cultural context. At the same time, the foundations of the crime are linked to hegemonic masculinity (Messerschmidt, 2017), the legitimacy of certain stories to instigate and sustain harmful actions (Presser and Sandberg, 2015). ...
Femicide has received growing attention as an important social issue in Argentina and other Latin American countries. Currently, most of the sociological, psychological, criminological, and public health research available on the topic focuses on victims rather than perpetrators and has tended to be quantitative or from an etic perspective. Understanding how perpetrators make sense of violence and the femicide to contextualize, justify, or legitimize their crimes is crucial in preventing future crimes. A secondary analysis of thirty-three narrative interviews of convicted femicide perpetrators in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires was conducted. Interviews were coded in MAXQDA20 and analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive codes surrounding gender and violence. Three themes were salient in the analysis: violence as a resource triggered by abandonment; violence as denied harm-doing, justified contextually; and violence as the emotional transfer of pain. Threat of abandonment and necessity to physically communicate emotional turmoil emerged as themes where adherence to traditional gender norms was mechanized into violence. Few participants characterized themselves as violent men although they were all serving sentences for violent crimes. Violence was normalized and frequently justified by perpetrators. Participants viewed themselves exceptionally and contested the meaning of femicide and gender-based violence (GBV). This analysis offers recommendations for primary violence prevention and GBV interventions to center young men and potential perpetrators of intimate partner violence and femicide. In doing this, the burden of femicide prevention shifts from victims to perpetrators and the society at large.
... It should be understood with the dimension of gender-based violence (Gazioğlu, 2013). Men murder women to re-establish their weakened authority (Messerschmidt, 2017, as cited in Kaya & Ural 2018, pp. 358, 359). ...
Full-text available
This paper presents a Turkey-wide analysis of 1,000 femicide cases, collected from 100 newspapers between 2010 and 2017. The study seeks to contribute to the international femicide literature by highlighting the background and reasons for these murders, as characterized by the newspapers. The methodology involved frequency and chi-square analysis of the data retrieved from 100 newspapers collected from the homepage of The study reveals that a woman’s intimate partner is the perpetrator in the highest number of femicide cases. The most common motives for femicides in international micro-level studies are (1) possessiveness and jealousy and (2) loss, separation, or divorce. The present study found these to be the first- and third-highest motives for femicide in Turkey. The motives of femicides can be interpreted in the macro-level analysis as women’s resistance to men’s domination; their demand for control over women escalates to murdering the woman as a form of backlash.
... La masculinidad hegemónica (Connell y Messerschmidt, 2005) ha demostrado ser un concepto con enorme potencial heurístico para comprender el femicidio. Las normas de género refuerzan la distribución desigual del poder entre géneros, y los varones utilizan la violencia, entre otras prácticas, para reafirmar su control situacional (Fleming et ál., 2015;Kimmel, 2019;Messerschmidt, 2017;Segato, 2014). De esta forma, el ejercicio de violencia debe ser comprendido en tanto estrategia activa en el ejercicio de poder dentro de una sociedad. ...
Full-text available
El carácter estructural que tiene la violencia hacia las mujeres y, en particular, el fe-micidio en América Latina ha sido demostrado por los estudios de género, los estudios sociales de la violencia y diversas ramas de la criminología, entre otras áreas de conoci-miento. No obstante, las perspectivas y visiones del mundo de quienes ejercen la violencia han sido ejes comparativamente poco explorados, más aún cuando se trata de femicidios. En este artículo nos preguntamos —en el marco de un estudio cualitativo biográfico con enfoque socio-narrativo y hermenéutico— por los modos en los que los varones que han cometido femicidio íntimo en Buenos Aires (Argentina) hablan y se refieren a las mujeres en sus narrativas. Para ello analizamos 19 entrevistas narrativas hechas a varones conde-nados por femicidio en el Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires y realizamos un análisis intertestimonial a partir de un proceso inductivo de codificación temática. Las narrativas acerca de las mujeres se organizaron en torno a tres grandes temas: la amenaza, el control y el contexto. La recurrencia de estos temas, su función estructurante de los relatos y el alcance que tienen en las racionalizaciones indican su centralidad para comprender el proceso de legitimación y neutralización de la violencia. En las narrativas las referencias a una amenaza colectiva contra el yo de los entrevistados y el uso discursivo del contex-to sociopolítico son ejes salientes para pensar la interfaz entre masculinidad, violencia y cambio social. Destacamos que el cambio social en torno al estatus de las mujeres es utilizado por los varones como factor explicativo y legitimador de la violencia, lo cual es un resultado poco explorado en la literatura especializada. Discutimos la importancia de indagar en las perspectivas de los perpetradores y la centralidad de analizar la interacción entre sus narraciones y los discursos prevalentes en la sociedad.
... Tanto Kimmel (2019b) como Messerschmidt (2004Messerschmidt ( , 2017 indican que las experiencias de independencia e impermeabilidad son centrales para comprender la violencia letal en la medida en que explican la reafirmación y justificación de acciones que defiendan estos posicionamientos. Así, "la violencia es restaurativa, al llevar la situación a un momento previo a la sensación de vulnerabilidad y dependencia" (Kimmel, 2019b, p. 177). ...
¿Quiénes son los varones que cometen homicidios? ¿Cómo son sus vidas y qué eventos las marcan? ¿Qué sentido le dan a la muerte violenta? Y, ¿cómo experimentan el momento del crimen? Desde una perspectiva microsociológica y narrativa, este libro indaga sobre los relatos de vida de varones cisgénero que produjeron la muerte de otros varones en peleas y enfrentamientos en el Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires. La propuesta teórica y empírica de este libro es tanto el resultado de una vacancia académica en comprender las vidas de perpetradores de violencia letal, como también una respuesta a la parcialización disciplinar en el campo de estudios de la violencia. Esta investigación surge del interés por integrar diferentes dimensiones que permitan complejizar este fenómeno. Las vidas previas al evento, la dinámica experiencial durante los enfrentamientos y las explicaciones del acto son, de este modo, tres modos de abordar, desmenuzar y estudiar qué ocurre en la vida de estos varones. Esta tesis doctoral explora y examina los sentidos con los que se gestiona el haber cometido un homicidio y, a su vez, da cuenta de la lectura estoica con la que los varones reconstruyen los enfrentamientos. El hecho de que el homicidio no siempre sea experimentado como un giro biográfico, que los conflictos entre varones seas vividos como inevitables y viscerales, y que los varones empleen diferentes historias para justificar, racionalizar, neutralizar y, en algunos casos, legitimar el matar son algunos de los resultados que esta tesis explora. Las preguntas y respuestas sobre el campo de la violencia que aquí se desprenden tienen como intención contribuir a las miradas que se han encargado de comprender las condiciones de posibilidad sociales y subjetivas de la violencia letal. Este libro se encuadra en la profunda convicción de hacer visibles los modos dominantes en que las identidades masculinas se vinculan, a la vez que producen y reproducen ciertos sentidos sobre la agresión física cómo práctica legítima, viable o “inevitable” para abordar conflictos interpersonales.
... Kadınlar eril otoritenin (aile, eş, partner vs.) belirlediği kurallar karşısında "uygunsuz" davranışlar sergilediğinde eril iktidar krizleri yaşanır ve sembolik şiddet pratikleri, tahakküm biçimi olarak uygulanır. Başka bir deyişle, iktidar krizi yaşayan erkekler kendi itibarlarını, tahakkümlerini ve otoritelerini yeniden tesis etmek için kadınlara şiddet eğilimi gösterirler (Messerschmidt, 2017). Kadın cinayetleri ve erkek tahakkümü ile ilgili araştırmalar yapan Messerschmidt (2017, s. 75) de erkeklerin yitirilen iktidar yapılarını yeniden tesis etmek, hükmetmek ve kontrol etmek için artan bir oranda kadınlara şiddet uyguladıklarını ifade eder. ...
The study compares incidents of intimate femicide-suicide (IFS) to incidents of intimate femicide without suicide (IFWS) that occurred in Italy between 2015 and 2019 and examines the influence of situational, sociocultural, and individual characteristics. Findings from the multivariate analysis show that incidents of IFS are more likely than incidents of IFWS to involve the use of firearms and the death of multiple victims. Furthermore, incidents of IFS are less likely than incidents of IFWS to involve previous instances of domestic violence and less likely to involve a perpetrator who was unemployed at the time of the incident.
Femicide is a key global indicator of progress towards gender equality. The occurrence of some but not all five gender dimensions in the indicators of violence used to measure progress towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 5, 11 and 16 are analysed as resulting from the tension between divergent feminist strategies that focus either on women-only or on mainstreaming intersecting inequalities. The tension between universalist and particularist projects underlies the contestations over the construction of these gendered indicators. The analysis develops a conceptualisation of indicators as assets in order to capture the social relations of power involved (rather than as boundary objects), supported by platforms (which can be public as well as corporate) and generated by dynamic epistemic systems (rather than stable epistemological infrastructures).
Full-text available
This paper argues that that to have gender is not having certain reproductive anatomy, but is instead the social meaning of sex. Gender has now become a social construct imposed upon the human person, thwarting their ability to identify as the social gender they subscribe to. Because we seek to identify and organize persons into socio-sexual hierarchy, the gender revolution of the twenty-first century, especially through the identification of personal pronouns, poses al arger question, greater than one of gender orientation. While sociologists are addressing the recent effects of personal pronoun usage, the purpose of this inquiry is to acknowledge the lack of new research material in philosophy and gender/queer theory, an interdisciplinary field that requires attention. I propose a reevaluation of the problems of gender identity along with the intersection of free will and biological determinism and to fill in the gaps in previous thinking surrounding social construction, the self, and personhood—all questions prompted by the gender revolution.
This chapter takes an intersectional feminist perspective towards interpersonal violence, namely domestic violence and abuse, and homicide. Drawing on (Collins, Ethnic and Racial Studies 21:917–938, 1998; Collins, Ethnic and Racial Studies 40:1460–1473, 2017), it analyses violence as something which binds systems of domination together. As part of the discussion, it explores debates about carceral feminism and whether it is better to find alternatives to criminal justice approaches to domestic violence and abuse.
Full-text available
This article aims to explain the lethal violence against women observed in certain contexts in recent years. It analyses the phenomenon of female homicide victimization through the lens of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic violence. The principal manifestation of homicide of female victims explored in this article are honour killings in migrant communities in Europe, a culturally specific form of gender-related homicide. The concept of symbolic violence partially explains the honour-related violence within the framework of patriarchal theories and emphasizes the function of direct violence against women as a patriarchal backlash in a situation of structural changes in gender relations. Applying Bourdieu’s theory to honour killings in Europe will explain the dynamics of violence against women in a situation where symbolic patriarchal power is undermined, due to new structural conditions, and offer guidelines on context and agent-focused approaches to tackling the phenomenon.
In this interdisciplinary collection leading experts and scholars from criminology, psychology, law and history provide a compelling analysis of practices and beliefs that lead to violence against women, men and children in the name 'honour'.
‘Honour’-based violence is a form of intimate violence committed against women (and some men) by husbands, fathers, brothers and male relatives. A very common social phenomenon, it has existed throughout history and in a wide variety of societies across the world, from white European to African cultures, from South and East Asia to Latin America. The most extreme form of Honour-based violence - ‘honour’ killing - tragically remains widespread. Over the last decade, national and international efforts, including new policy development and activist campaigns, have begun to challenge the practice. Based on a pioneering and unique study, conducted collaboratively by the Centre for Gender and Violence Research, University of Bristol, the University of Roehampton and Kurdish Women’s Rights Watch, this book is at the forefront of this new and challenging policy direction. © Nazand Begikhani, Aisha K. Gill and Gill Hague 2015. All rights reserved.
As a final part of a trilogy based on the same data set, this article adds to the growing body of knowledge on homicides against women by examining and identifying patterns, dynamics, and perpetrators’ experiences in honor killings. In-depth interviews conducted with a sample of the perpetrators provide further insight into the factors behind the perpetrators’ behavior, and the chain of events that may have been part of the context of the murder. Unlike two previous articles by this author, by exploring in as much detail as possible what was felt, lived, and experienced by the perpetrators in such cases, the author here attempts to identify concepts, patterns, and social dynamics that emerge from the accounts of the prisoners serving their sentences in Turkish prisons. The perpetrators’ perspectives are used to address whether special explanations are needed to explain the whole dynamics of honor killings.