Prisoners' ambivalent sexism and domestic violence: a narrative study

Lay Understandings of the Structure of Intimate Partner Violence in Relationships: An Analysis of Behavioral Clustering Patterns

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common and has a lasting negative impact on the health and well-being of victims and survivors. People's mental frameworks (schemas) of IPV are central in allowing them to identify and respond to IPV. Early recognition of IPV is essential to reducing the cumulative harm caused by repeated instances of abusive behaviors. In relationships with IPV, abuse typically starts with relatively less harmful behaviors, which may be ambiguous in isolation, and escalates. The present research examines the content of lay people's IPV schemas to gain insight into their understanding of the presentation and progression of IPV. Participants (N = 168) were presented with two exemplars each of three different relationship types (nonabusive, nonphysically abusive, and physically abusive) resulting in a total of six exemplars. They were also presented with a list of behaviors that comprised nonabusive, nonphysically abusive, and physically abusive actions. For each exemplar, participants selected the behaviors they considered most likely to co-occur with the exemplar behavior. They then rated the abusiveness of the behavioral clusters they had created. Results indicate that participants distinguish nonabusive, physically abusive, and nonphysically abusive clusters. Nonphysically abusive behavior clusters are seen as less abusive than physically abusive behavior clusters, with nonphysically abusive behaviors more likely to be grouped with nonabusive behaviors.

Gender Beneath the Skull: Agency, Trauma and Persisting Stereotypes in Neuroepigenetics

Epigenetics stands in a complex relationship to issues of sex and gender. As a scientific field, it has been heavily criticized for disproportionately targeting the maternal body and reproducing deterministic views of biological sex (Kenney and Müller, 2017; Lappé, 2018; Richardson et al., 2014). And yet, it also represents the culmination of a long tradition of engaging with developmental biology as a feminist cause, because of the dispersal of the supposed 'master code' of DNA among wider cellular, organismic and ecological contexts (Keller, 1988). In this paper, we explore a number of tensions at the intersection of sex, gender and trauma that are playing out in the emerging area of neuroepigenetics - a relatively new subfield of epigenetics specifically interested in environment-brain relations through epigenetic modifications in neurons. Using qualitative interviews with leading scientists, we explore how trauma is conceptualized in neuroepigenetics, paying attention to its gendered dimensions. We address a number of concerns raised by feminist STS researchers in regard to epigenetics, and illustrate why we believe close engagement with neuroepigenetic claims, and neuroepigenetic researchers themselves, is a crucial step for social scientists interested in questions of embodiment and trauma. We argue this for three reasons: (1) Neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential capacities of biological materials such as genes, neurotransmitters and methyl groups, and how they influence memory formation; (2) Neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Eliot, 2021; Nelson, 2021; Walby, 2013); (3) In spite of the gendered assumptions we find in neuroepigenetics, there are fruitful spaces - through collaboration - to be conceptualizing gender beyond culture-biology and nature-nurture binaries (Lock and Nguyen, 2010). To borrow Gravlee's (2009: 51) phrase, we find reason for social scientists to consider how gender is not only constructed, but how it may "become biology" via epigenetic and other biological pathways. Ultimately, we argue that a robust epigenetic methodology is one which values the integrity of expertise outside its own field, and can have an open, not empty mind to cross-disciplinary dialogue.