Violence against women occurs frequently around the world, between 7 and 36% of women
reported having experienced sexual abuse or some form of violence (UN 2006). At the
same time 59% of women report have been victims of sexual aggression by her intimate
partner before age 15. Street harassment is a type of violence against women that
deprives them of accessing essential basics needs, sociocultural events, enjoyment,
and impacts their mental and physical health. One type of sexual harassment that is
frequently trivialized is sexual harassment in the streets (Bowman 1993).
The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UNW 2014) explains that street harassment is a type of violence that restricts the victim’s
movement, reducing their ability to attend school and work. Stop Street Harassment
(SSH 2015) defines street harassment as an encounter between the perpetrator and the
victimized person, in which the first one performs unwanted comments, gestures and
forced actions without consent. Such actions are performed in terms of the ways the
perpetrator perceives the gender, sex, gender expression or sexual orientation of
the victim.
Street harassment represents a form of violence against the victimized person and
may lead to significant experiences of psychological distress (Ekore 2012). Street harassment usually occurs between a man and a woman, the man being the perpetrator
and the victim a woman (Candidate 2015). Bowman (1993) states that the potential victim of street harassment is any woman who is sexually
developed, but not too old or beyond reproductive age, because stereotypically, an
older woman is not considered a beauty standard. Street harassment is considered as
“sexual terrorism”, a type of systematic control and domination that men use against
women through implicit violence (Kissling 1991).
Sexual terrorism and gender-based violence play a fundamental role in the subordination
of women (Ayres, Friedman & Leaper, 2009). This type of violence usually provokes in the victimized person from mild discomfort
to intense fear (Bowman 1993). Several studies report that street harassment generates feelings of terror for
women and reinforces their fear of being raped and other acts of terrorism (Davis 1994). McMillan, Nierobisz & Welsh (2000) mentioned that street harassment has a negative
impact on women and increases their fear to be in public places, which makes them
reduce their sense of security.
While for many women street harassment is an intrusion into personal space, a humiliating
experience, a potential threat a type of violence, and abuse against them (Kissling 1991; Packer 2008; Ekore 2012) that women and men differ in what constitutes street harassment. These individual
differences underscore the importance of studying this type of gender base violence
in the context of the cultural and societal structures that perpetuate male violence
against women. The origins of violence against women are based on a sociocultural
construction of gender, and power. Studies show that street harassment is one of the
most common types of violence against women in the world (Bowman 1993; Fredrickson & Roberts 1997). The victim’s response to street harassment is a very important component and can
be particularly susceptible to the influences of culture (Wasti & Cortina 2002).
A typical response to street harassment is to ignore the perpetrator. The less frequent
coping mechanism against street harassment is to report or face the perpetrator (Fairchild & Rudman 2008). When women have an active response against street harassment, the perpetrator usually
criticizes, shouts and can possibly physically attack the woman. Women who create
a habit of constantly ignoring the perpetrator can be considered as passive victims.
It has been found that perpetrators that are ignored tend to feel free to repeat the
harassment (Bowman 1993). When women often have an active reaction, it may be dangerous for them, because
the perpetrator may react aggressively, leading women to be at the crossroads to have
an active or passive reaction towards the harassment. This type of reaction can be
difficult to accept for men, because they are part of the group of power and the culture
in a society that is dominated by men. Although men can perceive street harassment
cases as isolated and rare, for women it is an experience of sexual terrorism and
violence against them that is chronic in nature and can lead to burnout (Candidate 2005).
Street harassment is a problem that occurs in many countries worldwide. For example,
the SSH (2014) conducted a national survey that interviewed 2,000 participants with the aim of studying
the prevalence of street harassment in the United States. This study found that 65%
of women surveyed have experienced some kind of street harassment. Within this group,
23% have been sexually touched, 20% have been followed, and 9% have been forced to
perform a sexual act such as oral sex or masturbation without their consent. Most
of the time the perpetrator is a man, but both men and women can be victimized by
street harassment. In the same study, 25% of men who have been harassed are part of
the LGBTQI community and the kind of harassment they experienced were homophobic and
transphobic insults.
McMillan et al. (2000) made a study with a sample of 12,300 Canadian women to
research the impact of street harassment and their perception of their sense of
security. The results indicated that 80% of women experienced street harassment
by an
unknown man, and that affected the way they perceived their safety on the streets.
The
UNW (2015) together with the European Union conducted a study of street harassment
in
Chile. The results indicated that 85% of the Chilean women have experienced some
kind of
street harassment. Also, Vallejo & Rivarola
(2013) developed a study in Peru where they interviewed 800 women, the
results showed that 60% of women have experienced street harassment and over 80%
were
between 18 and 29 years old. In general, these reports indicate that women are
at a
considerable risk of being victimized by men, and street harassment is the type
of
violence they use against women. Although street harassment may vary with race,
economic
status, or ethnicity of the victimized person, as well as the history of interactions
between genders that she might had have, women tend to be victims of other type
of
violence such as sexism and objectification (Bowman
1993).
Sexism and gender stereotypes
Glick & Fiske (1996) explain that sexism is a multidimensional construct that incorporates not only hostility
towards women, but two attitudes sets such as sexists: benevolent sexism and hostile
sexism. Benevolent sexism are the stereotypical and specific attitudes towards women
according to the gender roles that society imposes, whereas hostile sexism are, the
type of prejudices, hostile affections, and negative stereotypes towards women (Glick & Fiske 1996). When men and women are exposed to benevolent and sexist stereotypes, only women
get high levels of self-monitoring, body shame, and appearance management.
These stereotypes remind women their subordination to men, positioning women as things
and objects that need care and protection of men (Calogero 2013). Some argue that street harassment and other coercive behavior are part of larger
dimension of hostility towards women (Ayres et al. 2009; Bowman1993; Kissling 1991). Accordingly, although sexist hostility plays an important role in the perception
of street harassment, ambivalent sexism is a predictor of tolerance towards it.
Sexism is linked to the root of culturally stereotypical traditional gender roles;
there are reasons to believe that those who adopt traditional gender roles are more
tolerant of street harassment (Rusell & Trigg 2004). Gender stereotypes imposed by
society to women could affect their perception and reaction to street harassment because
stereotypes are enforced according to men’s perspective and interactions. These stereotypes
affect men’s perception so they can’t understand women’s needs and don’t respect their
rights (Davis 1994). In modern society the gender stereotypes imposed on women are as sex objects, while
for men are as sex predators. These stereotypes are promoted through television, movies,
advertising and magazines, particularly in media’s focus on teens (Jewell & Spears 2013). Media and communications manage sexual objectification through visual presentation
of bodies and content that highlights the importance of appearance (Aubrey 2006). Studies, additionally, indicate that the media often portray a limited and often
elusive standard of women’s physical beauty and link this standard with women’s sexual
identity and worth. When women have exposure to sexually objectifying media they can
give more importance to beauty and appearance to define their individual’s own self-worth
(Szymanski, Moffitt & Carr 2011). Grabe, Shibley & Ward (2008) affirm that repeated exposure to media content leads viewers to begin to accept media
portrayals as representation of reality. Consuming sexually objectifying and self-objectifying
television, movies advertising and magazines can also increase self-objectification
on girls and women. Culture affects media representation of girls and women through
stereotypes and values them as sex objects. These stereotypes can possible limit women’s
self-perception and can impact their notion regarding the importance of appearance
(Gordon 2008). Street harassment is based on the cultural domination of women, although women
and men share the same culture, women are subordinate because the culture is sexist
(Davis 1994).
Objectification and self-objectification
Fredrickson & Roberts (1997) affirm that objectification occurs when women or any part of their bodies, or some
sexual functions are separated from them, reducing them only to the state of instruments
or things. In the other hand self-objectification occurs when people appraises their
own bodies from the perspective of a third person, focusing only on the observables
attributes of the body rather than the perspective of the first person, which focuses
on non-observables privileges and attributes (Noll & Fredrickson 1998).
Several studies have shown that women who adopt the point of view of self-objectification,
is because they have lived in a society that legitimizes sexist ideologies and gender
roles in a culturally chauvinistic society (Calogero 2013; Fairchild & Rudman 2008). This is why street harassment can trigger both physical and psychological damage
to a woman, because when a man makes an inappropriate comment or stares at a woman’s
body part it reinforces the objectification of women. Thus women dehumanize themselves
and they learn through their experiences to associate emotions of humiliation and
worthlessness as part of their sexual identity (Candidate 2005).
Davidson, Gervais & Shred (2013) conducted a study with 495 college women where they measured the impact related to
street harassment and the objectification and self-objectification. The study reveals
that while less known is the perpetrator to the victimized person, more likely the
victim self-objectify. On the other hand, the authors explain that self-objectification
has a ripple effect that leads not only to victim self-objectification, but also objectify
others, therefor affects women’s world vision.
Socioeconomic status and sexual harassment
Kearl (2014) ruled a study which indicated that people of color, low income, and people who self-identified
as lesbians, gay, bisexuals, or trans were disproportionally affected by street harassment.
According to (Fredrickson & Roberts 1997), women of the aforementioned groups face an additional negative position as racism,
classism, homophobia and transphobia. Women develop a coping mechanism where looks
are more important to them so men can treat them better. These strategies are not
necessarily conscious or deliberate. Society external pressure through subtle exposure
of street harassment makes them seek to improve their physical beauty voluntarily
or even naturally. This makes them self-objectify themselves, and makes them have
less perception of street harassment and more acceptance of it (Bowman 1993).
Gender based violence in the Dominican Republic
In the last 10 years, Dominican Republic has experienced one of the highest rates
of gender-based violence compared to previous years. In 2015, 93 women were killed
while 61 were killed in 2014. Existing data state that 6,608 gender based violence
cases has been reported in 2015 (Procuraduría General de la República 2015). However,
national statistics systems aren’t trustworthy, characterized by reports absence,
and conflicting information can be found. There’s anecdotal evidence provided by non-profit
organizations (NGOs) that claim that gender-based violence’s figures are higher than
reported (Oficina Nacional de Estadistica 2014). In the Dominican Republic have been
carried out several studies about sexual harassment without regard of street harassment.
The Ministerio de la Mujer de la República Dominicana (2010) prepared a study on sexual
harassment and moral harassment at work, where they conducted surveys in 19 public
institutions and 38 private companies located in Santo Domingo. The results indicate
that 31.9% of the women working in the public sector have experienced sexual harassment,
and 31.4% of the women working in the private sector were victimized by sexual harassment
in the Dominican Republic. The difference between the groups was not significant.
Legislation on sexual harassment
There’s no law in the Dominican Republic that penalizes street harassment, but there’s
an article in the Labor Code that penalizes sexual and moral harassment. The Article
49.9 of the Labor Code of the Dominican Republic explains that the employer cannot
take any action that is considered sexual harassment, as well as intervene or support
in the case of his representatives. Despite the aforementioned, there’s no sanction,
which means that the inspectors cannot take any act against the employers. On the
other hand, the penal code promulgated Law 2497 on Interfamily Violence, which includes
sexual harassment, this law defines sexual harassment in its article 333-2 as the
order, threat, obtain favors of a sexual nature, performed by a person who abuses
his duties; this infraction entails a year of imprisonment and from RD$5,000 to RD$10,000
of fines (Ministerio de la Mujer 2010).
According to Bowman (1993), there are few studies on street harassment because there are few legal remedies
in this regard; it is almost impossible to legally subject a stranger to street harassment
because it disappears immediately, and it is unlikely that lawmakers will support
any law against such violence. The United Nations Human Rights (2015) passed a Law
30314, which explains that sexual harassment in public places should be prevented
and punished. It also explains that street harassment is a type of violence against
women, and as all public and private entities must adhere to this Law. In the United
States, all states have laws that penalize harassment, but not all specifically target
street harassment, for example, in the state of Hawaii implemented Harassment Act
711-1106, which explains that if a man continues talking to a person in the streets
even though a woman tells him to stop; if a person insults, harasses and uses offensive
words, or puts offensive physical contact to other person; can be reported to the
authorities (Hawaii State Legislature 2006).
The first country in Latin America to create a law against street harassment was Peru.
This law explains the responsibilities of its public institutions to prevent and punish
such violence. It mentions that it is the obligation of the Ministry of Education
to create a curriculum for teaching and prevention of it, at the same time, mentions
that the Ministry of Transport and Communications must issue notices against street
harassment on public transport. It mentions that this law does not have penal sanctions,
but fines (Congreso de la República de Perú 2015).
While it is true that governments in different parts of the world are aware that street
harassment involves sexual terrorism in the form of implicit oppression of women,
and that they are taking various actions in this regard. In many cases, the victim
does not realize that he or she is a victim of street harassment, as it is culturally
an “accepted” fact. The studies and surveys conducted are biased, if the alleged victim
does not find out that she has been violated. Likewise, it is important to know if
the victim, even though she knows she is a victim, accepts harassment as part of “being
a woman”.
Objectives and hypotheses
As street harassment is a form of implicit violence that develops through cultures
that are based on gender stereotypes, hostile and benevolent sexism, it mainly affects
women and girls. They learn that the female body is a sexual object and were created
to please men; in this way they learn to self-objectified and objectified others.
The present study seeks to establish the relationship between perceived sexual harassment
on the street, the self-objectification of women and their reaction to harassment.
Specifically, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The greater acceptance of street harassment, the greater the self-objectification.
Hypothesis 2: The greater the socioeconomic and educational level of women, the less their acceptance
of street harassment.
Hypothesis 3: We hope that a greater effort to avoid street harassment is related to a decrease
in self-objectification.
Method
Participants
This study was carried out with women who work both in the cleaning area and in the
administrative area at a private university in Santo Domingo. Based on a non-probabilistic
sampling for convenience, 46 women with a range between 19 and 54 years old (M = 33.15,
S = 9.13) participate voluntarily in this research. All the participants were of Dominican
nationality, being 56.5% single, 26.1% in free union and 17.4% married. 65.2% said
they had children compared to 30.4% who said they did not have children, 4.3% did
not answered the question. Regarding the educational level of the participants, 21.7%
reached the middle school, 23.9% high school, 39.1% college, a 8.7% specialty or master
degree and 6.5% did not respond. Finally, the level of income reported was higher
for incomes between RD$6,000 and RD$12,000 with 41.3%, then those with incomes higher
than RD$50,000, with a 17.4%, followed by 13.0% for incomes of RD$12,000 to RD$20,000,
10.9% for income between RD$20,000 and RD$30,000, 8.7% for income of less than RD$6,000
and 8.7% for income between RD$30,000 and RD$50,000.
Instruments
Participants were given a sociodemographic questionnaire that assessed aspects such
as age, marital status, and number of children, educational level and income level.
In addition, the participants completed a battery of instruments composed of the following
scales:
-
Domestic violence myth acceptance scale (DVMAS), developed by Peters (2006) and translated
into Spanish by the author of this research, was used to measure the acceptance of
domestic violence myths. The scale has 18 items divided into 4 sub-scales called personality
fault (7 items), behavioral fault (5 items), exoneration (3 items) and minimization
(3 items). The full scale features an Alpha Cronbach of .81, while the subscales range
from .64 to .88.
-
Objectified body consciousness scale (OBCS), developed by McKinley (1996) and translated into Spanish by the author, was used to measured self-objectification.
It consists of 24 items divided into 3 sub-scales of 8 items: vigilance, shame towards
the body and belief control; with reliabilities of .89, .75 and .72, respectively.
The full scale has a reliability of .93.
-
Sexual harassment was measured using the Sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ), developed
by Fitzgerald (1995) and translated into Spanish by the author. It has 23 items divided into 4 sub-scales:
sexist hostility (4 items), sexual hostility (8 items), unwanted sexual attention
(6 items) and sexual coercion (5 items), with reliabilities of .83, .91, .85 and .95,
respectively.
In all scales the items were answered based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
Not agree (1) to Completely agree (5). In addition, scales were elaborated by the author to measure the constructs
of efforts to avoid unwanted sexual experiences (9 items), acceptance of street harassment (31 items), victimization of street harassment (12 items) and frequency of harassment sexual orientation (21 items). The items of these scales were elaborated from a focal group of 8 people,
who suggested indicators of street harassment.
Table 1 presents the descriptive results and skills for the instruments used, both the total
scales and their sub-scales. The least reliable scales are those of sexist hostility
(( = .49), considered as unacceptable; and minimization (( = .53), considered to be
poor. The other scales are in ranges ranging from questionable to good (( = .61 to
(= .89). Among the most reliable scales are the acceptance of street harassment ((
= .89) and frequency of street harassment (( = .89), developed for the purposes of
this research.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and reliability for used scales.
Scale
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
Mean
|
DT
|
ɑ
|
S1. Age
|
19
|
54
|
33.15
|
9.131
|
-
|
B1. Personal guilt
|
1
|
5
|
3.19
|
.807
|
.61
|
B2. Behevioral guilt
|
2
|
5
|
2.59
|
.847
|
.78
|
B3. Exoneration
|
1
|
5
|
3.26
|
1.199
|
.76
|
B4. Minimization
|
1
|
5
|
2.97
|
.999
|
.53
|
BT. DVM acceptance
|
2
|
5
|
3.00
|
.773
|
.85
|
C1. Sexist hostility
|
1
|
5
|
3.11
|
1.025
|
.49
|
C2. Sexual hostility
|
1
|
5
|
3.24
|
1.032
|
.82
|
C3. USA
|
1
|
5
|
3.33
|
1.181
|
.69
|
C4. Sexual coercion
|
1
|
4
|
1.86
|
.787
|
.62
|
CT. Sexual experiences
|
1
|
4
|
2.88
|
.786
|
.87
|
DT. EAUSE
|
1
|
5
|
2.42
|
.715
|
.67
|
ET. SH acceptance
|
1
|
4
|
2.32
|
.643
|
.89
|
FT. Victimization against SH
|
2
|
4
|
2.65
|
.624
|
.84
|
GT. SH frequency
|
2
|
4
|
2.48
|
.511
|
.89
|
H1. Body shame
|
1
|
4
|
2.09
|
.704
|
.64
|
H2. Feeling control
|
1
|
5
|
3.20
|
.876
|
.75
|
H3. Self-monitoring
|
1
|
5
|
3.02
|
.817
|
.81
|
HT. Self-objectification
|
1
|
4
|
2.77
|
.627
|
.80
|
Procedures
The educational center where the study was conducted was chosen for convenience. After
having the approval of the ethics committee of the institution to carry out the research,
the battery was developed to be used. In the first instance, the offices responsible
for personnel involved in the investigation were contacted, then contacted directly
and obtained their informed consent, which guarantees the confidentiality of their
information, as well as the voluntary nature of their participation. They could withdraw
at any time without any consequence. Finally, the participants completed the battery,
which was numbered and stored to maintain confidentiality. Due to the type of information
that the battery handles, the participants were given a flyer with information on
how to get therapeutic help in case they needed it.
The managed battery information was tabulated and stored for analysis in SPSS version
20 database (for Mac). After obtaining the descriptive results, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient (() was used to calculate the reliability of the scales, which was interpreted
according to the guide provided by George and Mallery (2003), which suggests that (≥ .90 can be considered as excellent, ( ≥ .80 as good, ( ≥
.70 as acceptable, (≥ .60 as questionable, ( ≥ .50 as poor, and (< .50 as unacceptable.
Finally, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the degree of
relationship between the different variables. According to Cohen (1998), values of | r | ≥ .50 indicate high correlations, | r | ≥ .30 median correlations,
and, | r | ≥ .10 low correlations.
Results
Correlations between variables
Table 2 shows the correlations between some sociodemographic variables and the totals in
the scales used. First, with regard to hypothesis 1 that higher street harassment (SH) is associated with greater self-objectification,
the results indicate a low positive correlation between SH acceptance and self-objectification (r = .29, p < .05). On the other hand, SH acceptance shows a high positive correlation
with the acceptance of myths of domestic violence (r = .58, p < .01) and with age (r= .52, p < .01).
Table 2
Correlations between sociodemographic variables and total scales.
|
S1
|
S2
|
S3
|
BT
|
CT
|
DT
|
ET
|
FT
|
GT
|
HT
|
S1. Age
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S2. Education level
|
-.57**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S3. Socioeconomic level
|
-.32*
|
.65**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BT. DVM acceptance
|
.23
|
-.51**
|
-.56**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CT. Sexual expiriences
|
-.04
|
-.27
|
-.04
|
-.01
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT. EAUSE
|
-.10
|
.28
|
.33*
|
-.16
|
-.06
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
ET. SH acceptance
|
.52**
|
-.51**
|
-.39**
|
.58**
|
-.03
|
.01
|
1
|
|
|
|
FT. SH victimization
|
-.28
|
.46**
|
.32*
|
-.29*
|
-.15
|
.48**
|
-.06
|
1
|
|
|
GT. SH frequency
|
.10
|
-.24
|
-.13
|
.37*
|
.42**
|
.16
|
.19
|
-.12
|
1
|
|
HT. Self-objectification
|
.15
|
-.36*
|
-.28
|
.43**
|
.10
|
-.48**
|
.29*
|
-.23
|
.24
|
1
|
The results also support hypothesis 2, which states that a lower acceptance of SH is related to a higher educational and
economic level, indicating a high negative correlation with the educational level (r = -.51, p < .01) and negative with the socioeconomic level (r = -39, p < .01). Likewise, the educational level and the economic level correlated
negatively with the acceptance of domestic violence myths (r = -.51, p < .01 and r
= -.56, p < .01, respectively). In addition, victimization of SH correlated positively
with the educational and socioeconomic level (r = .46, p < .01 and r = .32, p < .05,
respectively).
Referring to hypothesis 3, which argued that a greater effort to avoid street harassment would be related to
lower self-objectification, the results show a mean negative relationship between
the effort to variable to avoid unwanted sexual experiences and self-objectification (EAUSE; R = -.48, p < .01), as well as a mean positive correlation with SH victimization (r = .48, p < .01). The last variable also showed a low negative correlation with
DVM acceptance (r = -.29, p < .05).
Interestingly, the age variable showed a high negative correlation with educational level (r = -.57, p <
.01) and mean negative correlation with socioeconomic status (r = -.32, p < .05).
Likewise, it shows a high positive correlation with SH acceptance (r = .52, p < .01).
Table 3 shows the correlations between the sub-scales of the instruments used. First, the
control feeling sub-scale, belonging to the self-objectification scale, shows a high positive correlation with the personal guilt sub-scales (r =.53, p < .01) and behavioral guilt (r = .53 p, < .01); (r = .39, p < .01) and minimization (r = .34, p < .05), belonging to the scale of acceptance DVM. Also, the self- monitoring sub-scale, on the self-objectification scale, shows mean positive correlations with
personal guilt scales (r = .41, p < .01) and behavioral guilt (r =.43, p < .01). However, it should be noted that the body-shame scale did not
show significant correlations with any of the other sub-scales.
Table 3
Correlations between scales and subscales used.
|
B1 |
B2 |
B3 |
B4 |
BT
|
C2 |
C3 |
CT
|
DT
|
ET
|
FT
|
GT
|
H2 |
H3 |
HT
|
B1. Personal guilt
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2. Behavioral guilt
|
.65**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B3. Exoneration
|
.52**
|
.51**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B4. Minimization
|
.45**
|
.56**
|
.49**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BT. Acceptance of DVM
|
.78**
|
.82**
|
.82**
|
.78**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2. Sexual hostility
|
.18
|
-.01
|
-.14
|
.28
|
.08
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3. USA
|
.07
|
-.03
|
-.02
|
.17
|
.06
|
.61**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CT. Sexual experiences
|
.05
|
-.12
|
-.14
|
.20
|
-.01
|
.85**
|
.82**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT. EAUSE
|
-.13
|
-.25
|
-.04
|
-.13
|
-.16
|
-.17
|
.17
|
-.06
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ET. SH acceptance
|
.47**
|
.35*
|
.62**
|
.35*
|
.58**
|
-.04
|
-.04
|
-.03
|
.01
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
FT. SH victimization
|
-.42**
|
-.32*
|
-.05
|
-.24
|
-.29*
|
-.19
|
-.04
|
-.15
|
.48**
|
-.06
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
GT. SH frequency
|
.35*
|
.23
|
.19
|
.42**
|
.37*
|
.51**
|
.48**
|
.42**
|
.16
|
.19
|
-.12
|
1
|
|
|
|
H2. Control feeling
|
.53**
|
.53**
|
.39**
|
.34*
|
.54**
|
.21
|
.03
|
.00
|
-.30*
|
.34*
|
-.25
|
.28
|
1
|
|
|
H3. Self-monitoring
|
.41**
|
.43**
|
.24
|
.29
|
.41**
|
.40**
|
.01
|
.18
|
-.61**
|
.10
|
-.38**
|
.23
|
.60**
|
1
|
|
HT. Self-objectification
|
.45**
|
.43**
|
.29
|
.25
|
.43**
|
.30*
|
.02
|
.10
|
-.46**
|
.29*
|
-.23
|
.24
|
.82**
|
.86**
|
1
|
The relationship between SH acceptance and self-objectification is specifically linked
to the control feeling sub-scales, showing a mean positive correlation with it (r = .34, p < .05). The acceptance
of SH showed a high positive correlation with the exoneration sub-scale (r = .62, p < .01) and mean positive with the minimization sub-scales (r = .35, p < .05), personal guilt (r = .47, p < .01) and behavioral fault (r = .35, p < .05), belonging to the DVM acceptance scale. On the other hand, the SH frequency shows a high positive correlation with sexual hostility (USA; r = .51, p < .01) and positive mean with unwanted sexual attention sub-scale (r = .48, p < .01), belonging to the scale of sexual experiences.
Finally, efforts to avoid unwanted sexual experiences show a mean positive correlation with SH victimization scale (r = 48, p < .01), a mean negative correlation with the control feeling sub-scale (r = -.30, p < .05) and high negative with the self-monitoring sub-scales (r = -.61, p < .01), belonging to the self-objectification scale.
Discussion
In a culture that legitimizes sexist ideologies and gender stereotypes towards women
(Calogero 2013), street harassment becomes a type of violence that has proved to be limiting to
women adequate performance in the society (UNW 2014). Self-objectification is a component that underlies this type of culture where the
female body is sexually objectified (Fredicson & Roberts 1997). The main objective
of this study was to investigate the relationship between the perception of street
harassment, the self-objectification of women and the reaction to street harassment.
In this sense, the general findings of this research suggest that the greater the
acceptance of street harassment, the greater the self-objectification of women. At
the same time, there is a relationship between the acceptance of violence’s myths
and the acceptance of street harassment. On the other hand, according to (Karl 2014),
the people who most accept street harassment are people of low socioeconomic status.
The results indicate that women with higher socioeconomic and educational level scored
less acceptance of street harassment and myths of violence. However, these women tend
to victimize more. It was also shown that, while women make more effort to avoid unwanted
sexual experiences, they have fewer possibilities to self-objectify. In spite of this,
these women also tend to have greater victimization. It was shown that women who make
more effort to avoid unwanted sexual experiences tend to have less acceptance of the
domestic violence myths. An interesting fact that should be highlighted in the results
of this research is that older women tend to have a greater acceptance of street harassment.
In the same order, it was observed that the more sense of control over their bodies,
the more they tended to experience more personal guilt and more behavioral guilt which
also related to the exoneration of the perpetrator and the minimization of domestic
violence myths. Also, it was shown that the more women self-monitor their bodies,
the more personal and behavioral guilt they experience. It is important to mention
that when a woman is exposed more frequently to street harassment she is more vulnerable
to sexual hostility and unwanted sexual attention. This agrees with (Gilck & Fisk1996),
that sexual hostility adversely affects the perception of women, making them more
tolerant of street harassment. Finally, it was shown that women who make an effort
to avoid unwanted sexual experiences tend to become more victimized by street harassment
and monitor their bodies less. The above results agree with the international literature
and explains that street harassment is an implicit type of violence that is part of
the continuity of violence and sexism against women which is linked to gender stereotypes
imposed by society. This study showed that gender stereotypes, and the power group
(men) play an important role in the tolerance of street harassment (Rusell & Trigg
2004).
Limitations
The following research is not without limitations. First, the size of the sample was
small to be representative of the population of Santo Domingo, according to the international
literature it is more likely that street harassment occurs in large cities (Bowman 1993). On the other hand, the short time during which the research was carried out prevented
the elaboration of a parallel social experiment as planned. The lack of studies on
the subject limited the creation of a standardized instrument and had to join several
pre-existing ones, where the researcher had to make an instrument to measure specific
and contextualized street harassment.
Recommendations
It is recommended to conduct a research at a national level that takes into account
street harassment and to use a statistically representative sample to be aware of
this type of violence that affects the majority of women and girls in the world as
expressed in the literature and this study demonstrates. With scientific research
like this one, what is intended is to change public policies in favor of the general
population, we also recommend that efforts be initiated to work on a bill that penalizes
street harassment so the culture stops allowing it as natural behavior. In addition,
an instrument that can measure street harassment in the Dominican Republic should
be created and standaraized in order to improve citizen security and prevent this
type of violence. Ending street harassment requires an effort by all, not only as
individuals, but also an effort as a community and as a society. To make these changes
we must involve boys and men by educating community leaders, stat leaders, lawyers,
entrepreneurs and ministries of education so that we can create safer places.