Search

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This initial paper, from a planned series, presents an introductory survey of interspousal violence from 562 Calgary couples. Assumptions from conflict and exchange theories guide the analyses which focus on selected structural and interactional factors. Questionnaires and interviews from both partners provide the responses for both single-item indicators and scales, built through factor analysis, which are analyzed using simple percentages and Pearson's zero order coefficients. Three types of violence, husband-to-wife, wife-to-husband, and mutual, are investigated and found to be pervasive. All occur in every SES, educational, and income level. Although age, marital status, length of marriage, and number of children are associated with interspousal violence, the strongest relationships are classified as interactional. These include aggression, marital conflict, and work strain. Although violence is negatively correlated with marital satisfaction, significantly large proportions of highly satisfied couples report conjugal violence. Such evidence lends support to the dialectic notion that love and affection exist simultaneously with conflict and violence.

The article presents a paper which is concerned with the relationship between skill level and left/right orientation toward worker-management relations. The paper begins with a description of a backcloth of contradictory hypotheses on this relationship in the literature. Then the relationship is explored for samples of craft and non-craft workers drawn from two different plants in Edmonton, Alberta. Relationships between skill level and left/right orientation showed different directions for workers from the different plants. Alternative interpretations of the results are discussed. Results showed that the relationship of skill level and left/right orientations did not seem to generalize across companies. The picture of workers' consciousness that emerges from this study of craft and non-craft workers is an extremely murky one and if results are consistent with any of the available theoretical perspectives on worker beliefs, it is the notion that workers, regardless of skill level, do not subscribe to highly consistent sets of beliefs of either a left or right orientation.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on sexual permissiveness of women in the North America. There has been a distinct increase in sexual permissiveness, in terms of both attitudes and behavior, and this increase is restricted to women. It is also quite apparent that illegitimacy is experiencing a parallel increase: in the United States the illegitimacy ratio increased from 5.6 in 1961 to 8.4 in 1966 and 10.7 in 1970, while in Canada these increases were from 4.5 in 1961 to 7.6 in 1966 to 9.0 in 1972, and in Alberta the increases were from 6.2 in 1961 to 10.5 in 1966 to 11.8 in 1972. In any case, the illegitimacy ratios in 1972 in Canada and in Alberta were about twice as high as they were a decade earlier, in Canada as a whole, one out of every eleven live births is illegitimate, while in Alberta the figure is about one out of eight. This movement has emphasized full equality of women's rights with those of men, including sexual and employment rights. Associated with these contemporary developments is an increased interest among some unwed mothers in keeping and raising their babies which has been reported in a variety of ways in the daily press.

The article is the author's response to Peter R. Sinclair's comments on author's literary work. Sinclair makes some minor points with which the author disagrees, although his main point strikes me as sound: a new interpretation of Social Credit is needed. He also outlines some strategies for further research which are believed to be valuable. Sinclair states that the author has challenged the conventional view of Alberta's class structure and the distribution of Social Credit votes by reviewing what is now known about these issues, implying that the author had access to some relatively new materials not available to earlier researchers. The author states that election results used were available in 1935, the census materials in 1936. No new materials of this kind have become available, although the existing ones have appeared in different publications over the years. He also states that his assertion that Social Credit received disproportionate support from the petite bourgeoisie was based on higher rates of voting for Social Credit in small towns and rural areas. The author has shown that in 1935 only 11 of 27 small towns had a Social Credit vote that exceeded the provincial average.