Masculinities and Femicide

Abstract

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.

Full text

Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 71
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
70
James W. Messerschmidt
University of Southern Maine, U.S.A.
Masculinities and Femicide1
Abstract
Keywords
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: mschmidt@maine.edu
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 denit 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 inequality—socialist 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 agency—their 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
itself.
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.13.3.05

Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 73
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
72
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 femininity—that 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
Reformulation
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 • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 75
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
74
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-
equality.
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.
Application
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 • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 77
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
76
confrontat ion in the privatized seing 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 ever “own”
her.
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.
Conclusion
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
perpetrated.
James W. Messerschmidt Masculinities and Femicide

Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 79
©2017 QSR Volume XIII Issue 3
78
Acker, Joan. 1989. “The Problem with Patriarchy.” Sociology
23:235-240.
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
19:260-272.
Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power. Sydney: Allen and
Unwin.
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
Press.
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):
553-564.
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:
56-76.
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 .
References
Messerschmidt, James W. 2017. “Masculinities and Femicide.” Qualitative Sociology Review 13(3):70-79. Retrieved Month, Year
(hp://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/archive_eng.php).
James W. Messerschmidt Masculinities and Femicide