Based on “amelioration,” “backlash,” and routine activity/lifestyle theories, the present study tested the impacts of both absolute and relative gender equality on female homicide victimization. The present cross-national examination developed several regression models by employing female homicide victimization data from the World Health Organization for 124 countries. Women’s absolute educational status and relative social status indices displayed significant relationships with female homicide victimization rates. However, significant associations of these two variables with female homicide victimization disappeared when important control variables—such as the gross domestic product, income inequality, and ethnic heterogeneity—were introduced in the regression models. Thus, the findings suggest that the relationship between gender equality and female homicide victimization is, at best, spurious.
AlesinaA.DevleeschauwerA.EasterlyW.KurlatS.WacziargR. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 155-194.
2.
ArnoldR.KeaneC.BarnS. (2005). Assessing risk of victimization through epidemiological concepts: An alternative analytic strategy applied to routine activities theory. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 42, 345-364.
3.
AustinR.KimY. S. (2000). A cross-national examination of the relationship between gender equality and official rape rate. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 204-221.
4.
AvisonW. R.LoringP. L. (1986). Population diversity and cross-national homicide: The Effects of inequality and heterogeneity. Criminology, 24, 733-749.
5.
BennettR. R.LynchJ. P. (1990). Does a difference makes difference? Comparing cross-national crime indicators. Criminology, 28, 153-228.
6.
BlauJ. R.BlauP. M. (1982). The costs of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review, 47, 114-129.
7.
BrewerV. E.SmithM. D. (1995). Gender inequality and rates of female homicide victimization across U.S. cities. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 175-190.
8.
BursikR. J.GrasmickH. G. (1993). Economic deprivation and neighborhood crime rates, 1960-1980. Law & Society Review, 27, 263-284.
9.
ButchartA.EngstromK. (2002). Sex- and age-specific relations between economic development, economic inequality and homicide rates in people aged 0–24 years: A cross-sectional analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80, 797-805.
10.
ChafetzJ. S. (1984). Sex and advantage: A comparative macro-structural theory of sex stratification. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
11.
ChamlinM. B.CochranJ. K. (2006). Economic inequality, legitimacy, and cross-national homicide rates. Homicide Studies, 10, 231-252.
12.
ChonD. S. (2002). The relationship between national homicide rates and medical cares. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publisher.
13.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
14.
DeWeesM. A.ParkerK. F. (2003). The political economy of urban homicide: Assessing the relative impact of gender inequality on sex-specific victimization. Violence and Victims, 18, 35-54.
15.
EschholzS.VieraitisL. M. (2004). Race-specific gender equality and rape: A further test of feminist hypotheses. Critical Criminology, 12, 195-219.
16.
EzellM. E.Tanner-SmithE. E. (2009). Examining the role of lifestyle and criminal history variables on the risk of homicide victimization. Homicide Studies, 13, 144-173.
17.
GartnerR. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92-106.
18.
GartnerR.BakerK.PampelF. C. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization. Social Problems, 37, 593-612.
19.
HindelangM. J.GottfredsonM. R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
20.
HuangW. S.WellfordC. (1989). Assessing indicators of crime among international crime data series. CJPR, 30, 28-48.
21.
KayaY.CookK. J. (2010). A cross-national analysis of physical intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 51, 423-444.
22.
KposowaA. J.BreaultK. D.HarrisonB. M. (1995). Reassessing the structural covariates of violent and property crimes in the USA: A county level analysis. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 79-105.
23.
MartinK.VieraitisL. M.BrittoS. (2006). Gender equality and women’s absolute status: A test of the feminist models of rape. Violence Against Women, 12, 321-339.
24.
MoniruzzamanS.AndersonR. (2005). Age- and sex-specific analysis of homicide mortality as a function of economic development: A cross-national comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33, 464-471.
25.
NadanovskyP.Cunha-CruzJ. (2009). The relative contribution of income inequality and imprisonment to the variation in homicide rates among Developed (OECD), South and Central American countries. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1343-1350.
26.
NeapolitanJ. L. (1994). Cross-national variation in homicide: The case of Latin America. International Criminal Justice Review, 4, 4-22.
27.
NeapolitanJ. L. (2003). Explaining variation in crime victimization across nations and within nations. International Criminal Justice Review, 13, 76-89.
28.
O’BrienR. M.StockardJ. (2006). A common explanation for the changing age distributions of suicide and homicide in the United States, 1930 to 2000. Social Forces, 84, 1539-1557.
29.
PazzaniL. M. (2007). The factors affecting sexual assaults committed by strangers and acquaintances. Violence Against Women, 13, 717-749.
30.
PetersonR. D.BaileyW. C. (1992). Rape and dimensions of gender socioeconomic inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 162-177.
31.
PizarroJ. M.DeJongC.McGarrellE. F. (2010). An examination of the coverage of female homicide victimization and offending. Feminist Criminology, 5, 51-72.
32.
PrattT. C.GodseyT. W. (2003). Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-national test of an integrated theoretical model. Criminology, 41, 611-643.
33.
RussellD. E. H. (1975). The politics of rape: The victim’s perspective. New York, NY: Stein & Day.
34.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
35.
SandayP. R. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-national study. Journal of Social Issue, 37, 5-27.
36.
SchwendingerJ. H.SchwendingerH. (1983). Rape and inequality. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
37.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
StankoE. A. (1985). Women, crime, and fear. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 539, 46-58.
39.
SteinR. E. (2010). The utility of country structure: A cross-national multilevel analysis of property and violent victimization. International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 35-55.
40.
StrausM. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relation to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 7-24.
41.
SugarmanD. B.StrausM. A. (1988). Indicators of gender equality for American states and regions. Social Indicators Research, 20, 229-270.
42.
UludagS.ColvinM.HusseyD.EngA. L. (2009). Democracy, inequality, modernization, routine activities, and international variations in personal crime victimization. International Criminal Justice Review, 19, 265-286.
43.
The United Nations. (2004). Demographic yearbook. New York, NY: United Nations Publishing Services.
44.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2004). Human development report. Available from http://www.undo.org
The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999-2001). Uniform crime reporting program data (United States): Supplementary homicide reports. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
47.
VieraitisL. M.BrittoS.KovandzicT. 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.
48.
VieraitisL. M.KovandzicT. V.BrittoS. (2008). Women’s status and risk of homicide victimization: An analysis with data disaggregated by victim-offender relationship. Homicide Studies, 12, 163-176.
49.
VieraitisL. M.WilliamsM. R. (2002). Assessing the impact of gender inequality on female homicide victimization across U.S. cities: Racially disaggregated analysis. Violence Against Women, 8, 35-63.
50.
WaymanJ. C. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: What it and how can I use it?Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Educational Research, Chicago, IL (April 21-25).
51.
WhaleyR. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society, 15, 531-555.
52.
WhaleyR. B.MessnerS. F. (2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Studies, 6, 188-210.
53.
The World Health Organization. (2002-2004). World health statistics annual. Geneva, Switzerland. Available from www.who.int
54.
XieM.HeimerK.LauritsenJ. L. (2012). Violence against women in US Metropolitan areas: Changes in women’s status and risk, 1980-2004. Criminology, 50, 105-143.
55.
YodanisC. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655-675.
