attention to showing how various types of inequality and government policies contribute to major social problems such as violence against women in public housing. Further, CIR has co-sponsored three Trapped by Poverty/Trapped by Abuse Conferences, which have included several papers on public housing presented by critical criminologists.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN PUBLIC HOUSING?

          Given their findings, it is not surprising that Ireland et al. (2003) suggest moving families out of large public housing developments and into smaller ones. Many other researchers and policy analysts offer similar solutions, especially those informed by crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Will this strategy reduce the amount of crimes committed by adolescents living in public housing? Since the world is multivariate, one thing we know for sure is that this initiative alone will do little, if anything, to reduce acts of woman abuse committed by adults and adolescents alike because architectural design does not address the main causes of this problem. These are:  unemployment, gender status inconsistency, poverty, patriarchal male peer support, and the adherence to the ideology of familial patriarchy (Bourgois, 1995; DeKeseredy et al., 2003; Raphael, 2001; Renzetti & Maier, 2002; Websdale, 2001).

          For example, a smaller housing development is obviously not going to reduce the stress caused by unemployed men’s inability to live up to the culturally defined role of breadwinner, and being an economic provider is still fundamental to most men’s identity (Conway, 2001; DeKeseredy, Alvi, & Schwartz, 2003; Edin, 2000). Again, these men feel an increased need to dominate their partners through abuse because “their normal paths for personal power and prestige have been cut off” (Raphael, 2001, p. 703). Moreover, unless male public housing residents acquire steady meaningful jobs, their lives will remain relatively unstructured and they will have ample time to spend with male peers drinking, doing drugs, and “talking about hard times” or “mourning for what has been…lost” (Conway, 2001, p. 186; Sernau, 2001). Note, too, that many male pubic housing residents’ male friends view wife beating and other variants of woman abuse as legitimate and useful techniques of reclaiming patriarchal authority (Raphael, 2001). In addition to explicitly stating that woman abuse is a valid way of “keeping women in their place,” they also serve as role models since many of them abuse their own partners (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002).

          Male adolescent public housing residents are usually exposed to different patriarchal male peer support dynamics. These boys may not be emotionally attached to women and do not intend to create a family, but many of them become active members of peer groups that pressure them to be sexually active, brag about their sexual relations, and praise them for convincing resistant women to have sex with them (Anderson, 1999; Wilson, 1996). If, however, these boys cannot not live up to their peers’ high expectations, they experience relative deprivation and become more likely to engage in sexual assault. Like college students and professional athletes, sexual assaults committed by adolescent and young adult male public housing residents are more strongly associated with the need to achieve status among their peers than biological factors (Benedict, 1998; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002; Godenzi et al., 2001). 

          Much more can and has been said about the pitfalls of CPTED as well as other gender-blind solutions to crime in public housing such as “fixing broken windows” (Kelling & Coles, 1997) and the “One strike and you are out” initiative. The most important point to consider here is that policy development requires taking gender seriously and, so far, most policies aimed at alleviating crime and its consequences in public housing do not. Note, too, that we do not totally reject reducing public housing density or moving people into other neighborhoods. Still, if this is to be done, then people should be integrated into mixed income neighborhoods characterized by stable quality employment, healthy public schools, and affordable public transportation (DeKeseredy et al., 2003; Raphael, 2001; Santiago et al., 1999; Wilson, 1996). This approach would not only reduce woman abuse, but would also curb other types of crime such as offenses identified by Ireland et al. (2003) and other public housing researchers (e.g., Popkin et al., 2000). So would state sponsored daycare, a higher minimum wage, and an educational curriculum designed to promote gender, race and class equality. Despite taking issue with some elements of the majority of the extant research on crime in public housing that intentionally or unintentionally ignores the gendered nature of crime, there is perhaps one thing all of us who conduct research on crime in public housing have in common: building tall “fortresslike” public housing developments that cram poor people together in socially and economically isolated urban areas is not an effective solution (Currie, 1993).   

 

                    

                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES