Journals / Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 30

FEMICIDE: Conceptualization and Problematic Perspectives

Kadın Cinayetleri: Kavramsallaştırma ve Sorunlu Yaklaşımlar

Pages
89–100
Publication Date
2013-03-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Deriving from Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy’s work (1991) on the issue, the paper examines and criticizes the classical perspectives which shape the approaches assumed by official institutions and the public in general.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper centres on the conceptualization of a social phenomenon of homicide against women, namely “femicide”, which has been announced by the Ministry of Justice with the growth rate of 1,400 percent in seven years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It focuses on the debates regarding the meaning and the content of the concept “femicide”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Deriving from Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy’s work (1991) on the issue, the paper examines and criticizes the classical perspectives which shape the approaches assumed by official institutions and the public in general.
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kadına yönelik şiddet · Kadın cinayetleri · Klasik yaklaşımlar

Abstract

This paper centres on the conceptualization of a social phenomenon of homicide against women, namely “femicide”, which has been announced by the Ministry of Justice with the growth rate of 1,400 percent in seven years. It focuses on the debates regarding the meaning and the content of the concept “femicide”. Doing this, the paper aims at pointing out the fact that the dominant classical approaches of the official institutions which are in charge of femicide cases are problematic as they do not consider the fact that femicides often occur within household. Deriving from Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy’s work (1991) on the issue, the paper examines and criticizes the classical perspectives which shape the approaches assumed by official institutions and the public in general.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Adalet Bakanlığı’nın “yedi yılda yüzde 1,400 artış oranı” ile ilan ettiği hızlı yükselişin işaret ettiği bir toplumsal olgunun kavramlaştırılmasına, “kadın cinayetleri”nin ad, anlam ve içeriğine dair tartışmalara odaklanmaktadır. Bunu yaparken çalışma, bu cinayetleri önlemekle görevli kurumlara hakim olan, kadınlara yönelik şiddetin en çok hane içinden geldiği ya da herhangi bir mekan ve zaman aralığı tanımaksızın gerçekleşmekte olduğu gerçeğinden uzak olan sorunlu klasik yaklaşımları eleştirmekte ve bu bağlamda, ilgili kurumların çözüm önerilerinin, cinayetleri önlemede etkisiz kalacağına işaret etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada kadın cinayetlerine yönelik klasik yaklaşımlar Rosemary Gartner ve Bill McCarthy’nin (1991) ilgili makalelerinin ve konu üzerine yapılmış araştırmaların ışığında eleştirmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gazioğlu, Y. D. D. E. (2013). FEMICIDE: Conceptualization and Problematic Perspectives. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 30, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.56071

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. Ayhan, İrem (2007), Kentte Suç Oranının Ekonomik, Sosyal ve Mekansal Değişkenlerle Modellenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitü- sü, İzmir.
  2. Benson, Michael - Simpson, Sally (2009), White Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective, Rout- ledge, New York.
  3. Bravo, Soledad Rojas (2008), “Femicide in Chile”, Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability – Conference Papers on Femicide, April 14-16, Washington DC, s. 95-102.
  4. Caputi, Jane – Russell, Diana E.H. (1990), “Femicide: Speaking the Unspeakable”, Ms., Vol. 1(2), s. 34-37.
  5. Carcedo, Ana (2008), “Femicide in Central America 2000-2006”, Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability – Conference Papers on Femicide, April 14-16, Washington DC, s. 39-45.
  6. Corry, John (1801), The Satirical Review of London at the Commencement of the Nineteenth Century, London, G. Kearsley.
  7. Dawson, Myrna – Gartner, Rosemary (1998), “Differences in the Characteristics of Intimate Femicides: The Role of Reationship State and Relationship Status”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 2 (4), s. 378-399.
  8. Gartner, Rosemary - McCarthy, Bill (1991), “The Social Distribution of Femicide in Urban Cana- da, 1921-1988”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 25(2), s. 287-311.
  9. Gruenewald, Paul - Freisthehler, Bridget - Remer, Lillian - LaScala, Elizabeth - Treno, Andrew (2006), “Ecological Models of Alcohol Outlets and Violent Assaults: Crime Potentials and Geospatial Analysis”, Addiction, Vol. 101, s. 666-677.
  10. Holmén, Magnus – Ljungberg, Daniel (2009),” What do Academics do?: An Opportunity Pers- pective on University Literature”, http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper. php?id=5972&cf=32 (12.10.2011).
  11. Husseini, Rana (2008), “Honor-Related Crimes in Jordan”, The Jordan Times, 3 December 2008.
  12. Pola, Maria Jesus (2008), “Feminicide in the Dominican Republic”, Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability – Conference Papers on Femicide, April 14-16, Washington DC, s. 49-55.
  13. Quinet, Kenna (2011), “Prostitutes as Victims of Serial Homicide: Trends and Case Characteris- tics from 1970-2009”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 15(1), s. 74-100.
  14. Russell, Diana E. H. (1990), Rape in Marriage, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
  15. Russell, Diana E. H. – Harmes, Roberta A. (2001), Femicide in Global Perspective, New York, Teac- hers College Press.
  16. Russell Diana E. H (2008), “Femicide: Politicizing the Killing of Females”, Strengthening Unders- tanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability – Conference Papers on Femicide, April 14-16, Washington DC, s. 26-31.
  17. The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition, Volume 5) (1989), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
  18. Tegenu, Tsegaye (2006), “Revisiting Youth Bulge Countries, Deprivation Hypothesis and Oppor- tunity Perspective”,
  19. http://www.aigaforum.com/articles/Revisiting_Youth_Bulge.pdf (15.10.2011).
  20. Türk Yılmaz, Burcu (2008), Faili Meçhul Cinayetlerde Mağdur Profili, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Li- sans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Adli Tıp Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İs- tanbul.
  21. Widyono, Monique (2008), “Conceptualizing Femicide”, Strengthening Understanding of Femici- de: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability – Conference Papers on Femi- cide, April 14-16, Washington DC, s. 7-25.
  22. Jones, Dorian (2001) “Türkiye’de Kadın Cinayetleri Hızla Artıyor”, http://www.voanews. com/turkish/news/Turkiyede-Oldurulen-Kadn-Says-Hzla--Artyor-117606393.html (15.10.2011). Gazeteler
  23. Bianet (29 Temmuz 2011), “Kadına Karşı Şiddet İçin Kelepçe ve Buton”, http://bianet.org/bia- net/bianet/131808-kadina-karsi-siddet-icin-kelepce-ve-buton, 10.05.2013
  24. Hürriyet (t/y), “Yanlış İnanış: Aile İçi Şiddet Sanıldığı Kadar Yaygın Değildir”, http://dosyalar. hurriyet.com.tr/aileici/aileicisiddet2.asp, 10.05.2013
  25. Ntvmsnbc (2 Mart 2011), “Emniyetten Kadınlara Uyarı”, http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/ news/138462.asp, 12.05.2013
  26. Ntvmsnbc (24 Kasım 2009), “Kadın Cinayetleri Binde 1400 Artış Gösterdi”, http://www. ntvmsnbc.com/id/25024737/, 11.03.2013
  27. Sabah (23 Eylül 2011), “Ürküten Rapor”, http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yasam/2011/09/23/urkuten- rapor, 11.03.2013