Agoff C, Rajsbaum A, Herrera C

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 307-314
PDF size: 91.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To identify personal, cultural, and institutionalfactors that hinder the solution to domestic violence. Material and Methods. In Quintana Roo, Coahuila, and Mexico City, 26 indepth interviews with women currentlysuffering from intimate partner violence and others whohad already found a solution were carried out, between Mayand November 2003. Results. Among women’s explanations to violence, it was possible to distinguish betweencauses (non intentional violence) and motives (intentional violence). Associated with these explanations, issues related to tolerance emerge, as well as attribution of responsibility. Moreover, the social ties of the women contribute tothe acting out of gender roles and the justification or tolerance of conjugal abuse. Conclusions. The dominant valuesand norms of gender in society, shared by abused womenand the community, are responsible for the perpetuation ofintimate partner violence.

REFERENCES

1. INSP/Secretaría de Salud. Encuesta Nacional sobre Violencia contra las Mujeres. ENVIM. Cuernavaca: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, 2003.

2. OPS/OMS. Informe mundial sobre la violencia y la salud. Pub. Científica y Técnica n°588. Washington DC: OPS/OMS, 2003.

3. Heise L, Pitanguy J, Germain A. Violencia contra la mujer: la carga oculta sobre la salud. Washington D.C.: OPS, 1994.

4. Mannheim K. Strukturen des Denkens. [Estructuras del pensamiento]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1980.

5. Bourdieu P. La dominación masculina. Barcelona: Anagrama, 2000.

6. Hoff L A. Violence issues: an interdisciplinary curriculum guide forhealth professionals. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1994.

7. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

8. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage, 1990.

9. Go V, Johnson S, Bentley M, Sivaram S, Srikrishnan A, Celentano D, etal. Crossing the threshold: engendered definitions of socially acceptabledomestic violence in Chennai, India. Cult Health Sex 2003; 5: 393-408.

10. Eisikovits Z, Winstok Z, Fishman G. The first Israeli National Surveyon Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women 200410:729-748.

11. Güezmes A, Palomino N, Ramos M. Violencia sexual y física contra lasmujeres en el Perú. Estudio multicéntrico de la OMS sobre la violencia depareja y la salud de las mujeres. Lima: OMS /Centro de la Mujer PeruanaFlora Tristán /Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, 2002.

12. Heise L. Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women 1998; 4: 262-291.

13. Stets J, Straus MA. The marriage license as a hitting license: Acomparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting and married couples. En: Straus MA, Gelles RJ, comp. Physical violence in American families: Riskfactors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1990.

14. Yllo K, Straus MA. Interpersonal violence among married andcohabiting couples. Fam Relat 1981; 30: 339-347.

15. American Medical Association. Diagnostic and treatment guidelineson domestic violence. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1994.

16. Hucpey JE. Social support: Assesing conceptual coherente. Qual Health Res 1998; 8: 304-318.

17. Bourdieu P. Le capital social: notes provisoires. Actes Rech Sci Soc 1980; 30:36.

18. Portes A. Social capital: its origins and applications in modernsociology. Ann Rev Sociol 1998; 24: 1-24.

19. Rose LE, Campbell J. The role of social support and family relation ships in women’s responses to battering. Health Care Women Int 2000; 21: 27-40.

20. De Barbieri T. Sobre la categoría género: una introducción teórico-metodológica. Isis Internacional 1992; 17: 111-128.