Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "przemoc wobec kobiet" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3
    Tytuł:
    Kobietobójstwo - kryminologiczna charakterystyka zjawiska
    A Criminological Description of Femicide
    Autorzy:
    Grzyb, Magdalena
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698588.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2014
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    kobietobójstwo
    kryminologia feministyczna
    przemoc wobec kobiet
    femicide
    criminology
    Opis:
    The Polish word for “femicide”, kobietobójstwo, is a composite of two concepts and words, viz. the English word femicide and feminicidio, a term used in the Spanish-speaking world. Femicide was initially a gender-neutral term and essentially referred to the killing of any woman regardless of circumstances, i.e. it did not need to be related to the social and cultural gender role of women or be driven by misogyny or contempt for the female condition. There is an ongoing debate as to whether the term “femicide” denotes any instance of a woman being killed or whether it should be limited to cases where the perpetrator is a man and/or where being a woman is a contributing factor. As the term “femicide” was introduced into academic discourse by feminists in the 20th century, it would seem obvious that the connection between a woman’s death and her sex and status is a fundamental component of the concept of femicide in a given community. Feminists proposed the term as an alternative to the neutral “homicide”, so as to emphasize the hateful and/or misogynistic nature of certain killings of women. Femicide was meant to be an example of a hate crime. Structural inequality and the inferior social standing of women are salient factors in any analysis of the cultural phenomena and practices that can be classified as femicidal. Femicide is not so much a separate manifestation of gender-related violence as an extreme one. It is a reproductive mechanism of the oppression of women and takes the form of various practices. As with all violence against women, femicide is deeply rooted in the historically unequal relations between the sexes and the systematic discrimination against women. Femicide should therefore be defined as the killing of women because they are women, but not necessarily by men. This definition is close to the views that Rashida Manjoo, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, expressed in her report of May 2012. Manjoo enumerates femicidal practices that she refers to as “gender-related killings of women.” The list includes both intentional (direct) killings of women committed by specific perpetrators and practices that indirectly cause women to die because they are women. These practices stem from the unequal relations between men and women and the oppression of women. Femicide, then, denotes both murder and manslaughter. It could be said that in international and feminist discourse, femicide is regarded as a set of cultural practices with a common denominator around the world, viz. they all cause women to die because they are women. These practices are not limited to voluntary and involuntary killings of women, but include practices that often cause women to die because of their social and cultural conditions.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 2014, XXXVI; 75-107
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    ‘We condemn abusing violence against women’. The criminalization of domestic violence in Poland
    „Potępiamy nadużywanie przemocy wobec kobiet”. O kryminalizacji przemocy domowej w Polsce
    Autorzy:
    Grzyb, Magdalena
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1375553.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2020-09-30
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    domestic violence
    violence against women
    Istanbul Convention
    penal law
    criminal justice
    Polska
    przemoc domowa
    przemoc wobec kobiet
    Polska
    prawo karne
    konwencja stambulska
    Opis:
    One can often hear Polish politicians saying there is no violence against women in Poland, since Polish men respect their women and women hold a strong position in Polish culture. The conviction rates for domestic abuse in Poland are indeed low, though the attrition rates are high. Every year, for approximately 75,000 registered cases of domestic violence, there are roughly 10,000 convictions. Most of the prison sentences are conditionally suspended. Protective orders or other punitive measures are seldom handed down. There is a visible reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system to punish and correct domestic abusers. One of the reasons is that domestic abuse provisions in the Polish Penal Code (Article 207 of the Polish Penal Code from 1997) criminalises a very different behaviour than is defined in the Counteracting Family Violence Act from 2005. Another, possibly even greater, reason is the culture of sentencing (both in general and of domestic abuse) within the Polish judiciary and the very strong conservatism of Polish decision-makers and society. The protection of family values by legislators and the judiciary is often enforced at the expense of the victims’ right to life and to a life free from violence. This article discusses the Polish system for preventing domestic violence, which was set up in 2005 and the construction and jurisprudence of crime described in Article 207 of the Polish Penal Code. In particular, the question of culpability raises many problems when it comes to prosecution. First, we must compare Article 207 with the definition of ‘family violence’ specified inthe Counteracting Family Violence Act and the Istanbul Convention. Then, I will explain how such an understanding and interpretation of Article 207 translates into the dynamics of sentencing and penal decision-making and the virtual ineffectiveness of both penal provisions (the lack of deterrent effect) and the system of counteracting family violence designed by lawmakers.
    One can often hear Polish politicians saying there is no violence against women in Poland, since Polish men respect their women and women hold a strong position in Polish culture. The conviction rates for domestic abuse in Poland are indeed low, though the attrition rates are high. Every year, for approximately 75,000 registered cases of domestic violence, there are roughly 10,000 convictions. Most of the prison sentences are conditionally suspended. Protective orders or other punitive measures are seldom handed down. There is a visible reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system to punish and correct domestic abusers. One of the reasons is that domestic abuse provisions in the Polish Penal Code (Article 207 of the Polish Penal Code from 1997) criminalises a very different behaviour than is defined in the Counteracting Family Violence Act from 2005. Another, possibly even greater, reason is the culture of sentencing (both in general and of domestic abuse) within the Polish judiciary and the very strong conservatism of Polish decision-makers and society. The protection of family values by legislators and the judiciary is often enforced at the expense of the victims’ right to life and to a life free from violence. This article discusses the Polish system for preventing domestic violence, which was set up in 2005 and the construction and jurisprudence of crime described in Article 207 of the Polish Penal Code. In particular, the question of culpability raises many problems when it comes to prosecution. First, we must compare Article 207 with the definition of ‘family violence’ specified inthe Counteracting Family Violence Act and the Istanbul Convention. Then, I will explain how such an understanding and interpretation of Article 207 translates into the dynamics of sentencing and penal decision-making and the virtual ineffectiveness of both penal provisions (the lack of deterrent effect) and the system of counteracting family violence designed by lawmakers.   Powszechnie przyjmuje się, że art. 207 kodeksu karnego kryminalizujący znęcanie się nad najbliższymi osobami jest formą kryminalizacji przemocy domowej w polskim ustawodawstwie karnym. Jednak czy tak jest w istocie? Gdy Polska ratyfikowała konwencję stambulską (Konwencja Rady Europy ws. zwalczania przemocy domowej i przemocy wobec kobiet, CETS 210) w 2015 r. uznano, że nasze ustawodawstwo odnośnie do przemocy domowej spełnia wymogi konwencji, jeśli chodzi o zintegrowane, kompleksowe i skoordynowane ogólnokrajowe strategie obejmujące środki mające na celu zapobieganie wszelkim formom przemocy objętych zakresem konwencji. Pod względem ścigania aktów przemocy domowej uznano, że art. 207 jest wystarczającym instrumentem prawnokarnym, by zadośćuczynić wymogom konwencji. W artykule przedstawię polski system przeciwdziałania przemocy w rodzinie ustanowiony w ustawie z 2005 r. oraz zarysuję wzajemne relacje między systemem z ustawy o przeciwdziałaniu przemocy w rodzinie a regulacjami prawnokarnymi, a dokładnie to, czy zachowanie stypizowane w art. 207 k.k. pokrywa się z ustawową definicją przemocy w rodzinie. Te relacje bardzo wyraźnie obrazują liczby, które pokazują, że państwo polskie nie jest specjalnie responsywne na przemoc domową, a owa niska responsywność tylko po części wynika z niedoskonałych przepisów prawa, a w ogromnej części z pewnej inercji podmiotów stosujących prawo, archaicznej wykładni znamion omawianego przestępstwa i braku woli politycznej.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 2020, XLII/1; 163-183
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Równość płci i przemoc wobec kobiet. Próba wyjaśnienia tzw. paradoksu nordyckiego
    Gender Equality and Violence Against Women. Understanding the So-called Nordic Paradox
    Autorzy:
    Grzyb, Magdalena
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698786.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2018
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    przemoc wobec kobiet
    równość płci
    „paradoks nordycki”
    badania wiktymizacyjne
    hegemoniczne męskości
    odmiany patriarchatu
    Bourdieu
    violence against women
    gender equality
    “Nordic paradox”
    victimisation survey
    hegemonic masculinities
    varieties of patriarchy
    Opis:
    According to the prevailing assumption, the main cause of violence against women isa structural inequality between men and women. That idea is common in internationalhuman rights discourse, widely accepted on political level and enforced by severalscientific studies. The structural nature of violence against women means that it isgender-based violence and one of the crucial social mechanisms by which womenare forced into a subordinate position compared with men. It is a manifestationof historically unequal power relations between men and women which have led todomination over, and discrimination against, women by men, and have prevented fulladvancement of women.Logically thinking, achieving gender equality would lead to the elimination ofviolence against women. Respectively, in societies with greater gender equality, wherewomen enjoy better rights, have a better footing towards men, greater legal protectionand access to power, they also should be less vulnerable to violence based on theirgender. The most gender-equal countries in the world are Scandinavian countries –Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland.Yet, the recent EU-wide victimisation survey on violence against women (FundamentalRights Agency 2014) produced startling results. It turned out that the highestrates of violence against women (in almost every single aspect, intimate partner violenceand non-partner violence) were reported in the Nordic countries, particularly in Sweden,whereas countries considered traditional and conservative, e.g. the Mediterraneancountries or Poland, revealed a lower prevalence of violence against women. The FRAresults on Scandinavian countries were coined the “Nordic paradox”.The main problem is this: is really gender equality a factor reducing or increasingthe likelihood of violence against women’s victimisation? Is the subordinate positionof women typical of more conservative societies a protective factor against violenceagainst women? And are actually the FRA study results sufficiently reliable to drawsuch conclusions?The first section of the paper discusses the FRA results regarding the Scandinaviancountries and presents it against a larger picture of gender equality indicators. Thenext section examines the possible explanations for differences between countriesoffered by the authors, which are mainly methodological and contextual ones, such as:cultural acceptability to talk with other people about experiences of violence againstwomen, higher levels of disclosure about violence against women in more gender-equalsocieties, patterns of employment or lifestyle or levels of urbanisation, differencesbetween countries in the overall levels of violent crime and drinking habits in particularsocieties.The third section reviews the previous research findings, looking at the relationshipbetween gender equality or women’s status and violence against women. There are twochief hypotheses tested in the studies: the ameliorative hypothesis (violence againstwomen will fall along with greater gender equality) and the backlash hypothesis (ifwomen remain in their subordinate position, men are less threatened and less likely toresort to violence against them). Overall, the studies showed mixed results, dependingon the used measures. Furthermore, most of the them were conducted on the US data,and their application to the European context is doubtful.The final section presents some theoretical explanations from the critical sociologyfield. The three most relevant theories suitable to explain the “Nordic paradox” andthe relationship between gender equality and relatively high rates of violence againstwomen include the variety of patriarchy theory of G. Hunnicutt, the hegemonic masculinities of R.W. Connell and J. Messerschmidt and the symbolic violence ofP. Bourdieu. All of these theories critically frame the use of violence by men as a meansof upholding their superior position towards women.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 2018, XL; 221-261
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies