Meyer-Emerick, Nancy

The purpose of this study of policymaking on violence against women in the United States was to examine beliefs about the causes of violence against women through alternative theoretical lenses in order to compare competing theories of problem definition. An initial multidisciplinary review of the roots of the problem indicated that public policy on violence against women, specifically the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, was limited in its response. The primary components of VAWA were to further criminalize violent physical abuse and educate law enforcement and the courts to address violence after it had occurred. The application of three competing theoretical perspectives on socio-cultural beliefs about sexuality, the limits of government, and sexual violence as a means of maintaining male domination yielded new information about the nature of the problem. With this information, interviews were conducted with the federal policymakers who drafted VAWA, local practitioners in programs pertaining to violence against women, and focus groups with citizens, survivors and perpetrators of domestic violence. This dialogue provided a check on the researcher's biases and unique perceptions on sexuality, intimate violence and the role of government. A written questionnaire using pertinent questions from the 1992 National Election Studies was used to determine whether the opinions of the focus groups were representative of national opinion on these issues. The research confirmed the working hypothesis that VAWA was limited due to the socio-cultural nature of the problem. The participants identified some common misperceptions about intimate violence. The research also revealed a difference between men's and women's trust of government. The participants' testimony moderately supported the proposal that male dominance is preserved through sexual violence. The study implies that policymaking on violence against women must address the roots of the problem in the socio-cultural system where people obtain their beliefs. This may not be possible through government policy because the state is limited in its ability to change that system.