Association of Socioeconomic Factors to Domestic Violence and Murder of Women: The Case of Yucatán, México
- 1 “Dr. Hideyo Noguchi” Regional Research Center, The Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mérida, Mexico
Abstract
Registration of deaths classified as femicide, is an issue that occupies a breach of law, and that in this matter inconsistencies and absences in the information generated persist and persist in popular culture a strong stigma that various social groups and affected (victims) lead to underreporting of gender violence. Documentary research that conducted to determine the association of geographic areas and social factors related to violence to women occurred in the state of Yucatan during 2004 to 2014. Of the major findings of this study are: there are significant differences in the presence of domestic violence with the economic sector with a value of the test statistic of 13,500 with two degrees of freedom, a significant difference with a P -value of 0.001 ( P -value < 0.05) was obtained, and P-value 0.000 ( P -value < 0.05) for the murders of women. Geospatial distribution shows that the municipalities highest number of cases reported are found in large cities, and related to the three sectors of economic activity. Geographical distribution is North, South and East of the state. We conclude that it is required to have a surveillance system for the prevention of gender violence, also provide therapy to both men and women who have lived or have used violence systematically and taught by trained and sensitive to provide such care staff, and thus prevent deaths from gender violence.
- Asakura, H. (2004). Are We Overcoming the Gender? Symbolic Order and Feminine Identity. Sociological Studies, 22, 719-743.
- Bauman, Z. (2001). The Individualized Society. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.
- Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2003). The Individualization. Institutional Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences.
- Berlanga, M. (2015). Femicide: The Value of Women’s Bodies in the Current Latin American Context. Pelican, 1. http://pelicano.ucc.edu.ar/ojs/index.php/pel/article/view/18/11
- Bourdieu, P. (2009). Male Dominance. Translated by Jorda, J., 2nd Edition, Spain: Editorial Anagrama, 159 p.
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1987). The Ecology of Human Development. Barcelona: Polity Press.
- Cantera, L. M. (2004). Beyond Gender. New Approaches of “New” Dimensions and Directions of Intimate Partner Violence. Athenea Digital, 6. http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=53700636
- Carvallo, P. M. (2006). Gender, Postmodernism and International Relations. The Feminine Identity in the Discourse of the International Organizations. Confines of International Relations and Political Science, 2, 89-100.
- Carvallo, P. M. (2007). The Epistemological Turn of Globalization. Confines of International Relations and Political Science, 3, 115-119.
- Colás, P. (2007). The Construction of Gender Identity: Theoretical Approaches to Support Research and Educational Intervention. Journal of EducationalResearch, 25, 151-166.
- Corsi, J. (1999). Male Intimate Partner Violence. Buenos Aires: Ed.
- Del Valle, T., & Maqueira, V. (2006). The Right to Free and Safe Mobility: Women, Globalization and Human Rights (pp. 245-291). Madrid: Ediciones Chair.
- Doménech, M., & Iniguez, L. (2002). The Social Construction of Violence. Athenea Digital, 2. http://blues.uab.es/athenea/num2/domenech.pdf
- Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (2005). Violence against Women: Statistical Overview, Challenges and Gaps in Data Collection and Methodology and Approaches to Overcome Them.
- Fernández, J. (2011). A Century of Research on Masculinity and Femininity: A Critical Review. Psicothema, 23, 167-172.
- INEGI (2011). ENDIREH. http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/Proyectos/Encuestas/Hogares/especiales/endireh/endireh2011/default.aspx