Search

As a further tribute to feminist scholar Jessie Bernard, in this paper, we review the entire collection of the National Council on Family Relations' Jessie Bernard Outstanding papers awarded to feminist junior scholars spanning from 1990 to 2018. In so doing, we showcase Jessie Bernard's devotion to mentoring young scholars as we highlight evolving feminist family scholarship of student/new professionals. In this paper, we sought to:(a) honor Jessie Bernard's intellectual legacy, (b) celebrate contributions of young feminist family scholar's work, and (c) explore how the award collection maps on to wider feminist theoretical debates and empirical shifts within feminist family science over the past three decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories play an important role in guiding intimate partner homicide (IPH) prevention research and practice. This study is the first systematic review of theories employed to explain why someone might kill their intimate partner. This review used rigorous methods to locate and synthesize literature that described explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Using set search terms, we systematically searched 15 databases and repositories for theory-focused documents (i.e., theory papers or analyses) published in English from 2003 to 2018. Eighteen documents met these inclusion criteria and identified 22 individual theories that seek to explain why people might kill their intimate partners. These theories fell within four broader theoretical perspectives: feminist, evolutionary, sociological/criminological, and combined. Key tenets and focal populations of these 22 theories were identified and organized into a compendium of explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Potential strengths and limitations of each of the four perspectives were described. Review findings underscored the likely importance of addressing gender as well as risk and protective factors at all levels of the social ecological model in efforts to understand IPH perpetration. The review findings highlighted the need for both integrated theories and a broader conceptual organizing framework to guide work aimed at IPH perpetration prevention to leverage the strengths of disparate theoretical perspectives. With the goal of informing future research, a preliminary iteration of such a framework is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals that combine features of both genders–gender blends–are sometimes appealing and sometimes not. Heretofore, this difference was explained entirely in terms of sexual selection. In contrast, we propose that part of individuals’ preference for gender blends is due to the cognitive effort required to classify them, and that such effort depends on the context in which a blend is judged. In two studies, participants judged the attractiveness of male-female morphs. Participants did so after classifying each face in terms of its gender, which was selectively more effortful for gender blends, or classifying faces on a gender-irrelevant dimension, which was equally effortful for gender blends. In both studies, gender blends were disliked when, and only when, the faces were first classified by gender, despite an overall preference for feminine features in all conditions. Critically, the preferences were mediated by the effort of stimulus classification. The results suggest that the variation in attractiveness of gender-ambiguous faces may derive from context-dependent requirements to determine gender membership. More generally, the results show that the difficulty of resolving social category membership–not just attitudes toward a social category–feed into perceivers’ overall evaluations toward category members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]