{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024356103023516238, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025195968645016797, 'mean_word_length': 5.170984455958549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Healing from the War

acknowledge that this overrepresentation “may be sheerly the product of their greater involvement with and scrutiny by public agencies.” They also hasten to point out that surveys of the general population report this disproportionate representation. They cite evidence of correlations between child abuse and poverty, male-dominated families, and the “subculture of violence” that allegedly is “typically associated with family life in the lower classes,” as further substantiation for their contention. They conclude that “a generalized indictment of lower-class lifestyles is certainly not justified by these findings. Rather a sensitivity to the greater problems faced by the lower classes and the lower-class child’s heightened risk of harmful mistreatment is sorely needed.” The problem with this analysis is that it does not take into account the likelihood that middle-class persons may be less disposed toward responding to surveys on sensitive subjects such as abuse. Additionally, even if they do participate in such surveys. middle-class respondents are probably less likely to admit to antisocial behaviors or activities. They have more to lose by such admissions. Also, they are no less vulnerable to stress than their lower-class counterparts are, although the nature of the stressors may be different. Given existing knowledge, it seems premature to implicate class as a risk factor. More research needs to be done. In the interim, all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status, should be deemed at risk of sexual abuse. In an attempt to explain the dynamics of sexual victimization of children, the authors take a commendable ‘‘eclectic, resource-based’’ approach to theory-building. With regard to father-daughter incest, they examine the “four levels of actors’ milieus” society, neighborhood, family, and the father-daughter dyad. They also examine the role of certain factors that militate against incest perpetration, even though risk factors may be present and the potential high for the abuse to occur. The authors highlight risk factors for incest revealed by two research projects they conducted and note that these factors both are related to and add to those identified in other research efforts. They are careful to point out that none of the factors “can be confidently interpreted as a causal agent.” However, questions can be raised with respect to the data source and sample sizes of both studies. Both are based on “clinical” samples drawn from sexual-abuse reports filed with public welfare departments in Mississippi and Virginia. One sample contained only 15 cases; the other 163. In the latter sample, socioeconomic data were plagued with missing or unknown values, the proportion of which ranged from 19 percent to as high as 65 percent across different variables. With such serious methodological limitations, the generalizability and utility of the findings are severely restricted, even though they appear consistent with other research findings. Nevertheless, the issues addressed are pertinent and the authors’ discussions are helpful in furthering our understanding of the complexities of incest. A section on the therapeutic issues and empirically based intervention and treatment strategies and goals is a helpful inclusion in this book. Written by Kinly Sturkie, a social worker, this section is invaluable in bringing a balanced perspective to an otherwise intellectual analysis of incest as a social problem. Overall, this book is a welcome addition to the literature on incest.