“A Dad Can Get the Money and the Mom Stays at Home”: Patriarchal Gender Role Attitudes, Intimate Partner Violence, Historical Oppression, and Resilience Among Indigenous Peoples

Abstract

Research has shown that gender role attitudes influence a number of health-related outcomes, including intimate partner violence (IPV). Yet the gender role attitudes of Indigenous peoples – a population that experiences persistent health and violence disparities – have received scant scholarly attention. Using the Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT), the purpose of this mixed methodology was to qualitatively explore U.S. Indigenous peoples’ gender role attitudes and quantitatively examine how key social determinants of health, including IPV perpetration, historical oppression, and resilience, relate to gender role attitudes. This research integrates qualitative and quantitative data from two Southeastern tribes with a total of 563 unique data sources. Regression analysis revealed male sex and IPV victimization were associated with higher patriarchal gender role attitudes, while historical oppression and resilience were associated with lower patriarchal gender role attitudes. Resilience was also associated with lower “victim blaming.” Ethnographic team-based data analysis methods revealed qualitative themes of patriarchal gender role attitudes and gendered socialization processes. This work highlights how key aspects of the FHORT might explain Indigenous peoples’ patriarchal gender role attitudes, suggesting the need to redress historical oppression and patriarchal roles through decolonization.

Research has shown that gender role attitudes influence a number of health-related outcomes including intimate partner violence (García-Cueto et al., 2015; Sonis & Langer, 2008). Yet, the gender role attitudes of Indigenous peoples – a population that experiences persistent health and violence disparities (Burnette & Figley, 2017b) – have received scant scholarly attention (LaFromboise & Heyle, 1990; Portman, 2001). To address this gap in the literature, the purpose of this mixed-methods study is to contribute to an in-depth understandings of Indigenous peoples’ gender role attitudes (our scope is limited to American Indians, but these populations can include Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and original inhabitants of Pacific Island flagship territories) and explore how key social determinants of health, including intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration, historical oppression, and resilience, relate to gender role attitudes. Examining gender role attitudes amongst this population is important because historical oppression may contribute to patriarchal gender role attitudes that perpetuate gender inequalities and associated health and violence disparities within Indigenous populations (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017a).

Research has consistently shown that gender role attitudes stemming from patriarchal beliefs are associated with IPV risk (Allen et al., 2009; McCarthy et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2006). Examining the potential link between gender role attitudes and IPV is urgent for Indigenous peoples who experience among the highest rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the world (National Institute of Justice, 2016; Rosay, 2016). Indeed, Indigenous women experience high rates of IPV victimization in the forms physical and psychological violence (55% and 66%, respectively) in their lifetime, which is 1.6 times and 1.3 times higher, respectively, than for non-Hispanic White women (Rosay, 2016). Perpetrators of IPV are also more likely to attribute blame to victims than non-perpetrators (Bryant & Spencer, 2003). Yet, there is a dearth of research examining the relationship between gender role attitudes, “victim blaming,” and IPV within Indigenous communities (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2015b). Inattention to these potential risk factors for IPV among Indigenous peoples is a continued form of historical oppression that perpetuates broader inequalities. The invisibility of Indigenous challenges stymies the knowledge needed to uphold a trust responsibility for the U.S. government to safeguard the lives of heterogeneous Indigenous peoples based on their politically sovereign status (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2015b; Committee on Indian Affairs, 2007).

Due to the imposition of patriarchal values on Indigenous peoples through colonization (Guerrero, 2003) and the ongoing experience of historical oppression (Burnette & Figley, 2017b), Indigenous gender role attitudes and the prevalence of IPV must be considered within this sociohistorical context. Using the culturally and contextually grounded Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT; Burnette & Figley, 2017b) to interpret findings and formulate hypotheses, this sequential mixed methods study qualitatively explored gender role attitudes within two Indigenous tribes and then quantitatively examined how gender role attitudes and victim blaming are related to sex, historical oppression, resilience, and IPV victimization within the same two tribes. Understanding connections between gender role attitudes and social determinants of health is a promising pathway to reducing and preventing health disparities.

Theoretical Background: The FHORT

The FHORT helps to contextualize the imposition and internalization of patriarchal gender role attitudes amongst Indigenous people. The FHORT is an Indigenous-grounded theoretical framework developed to understand and explain violence against Indigenous women (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017a; Burnette & Figley, 2017b). The FHORT’s eco-systemic perspective characterizes wellness (harmony across physical, social, psychological, and spiritual domains) as a balance of interrelated ecological risk and protective factors related to IPV (Burnette & Figley, 2017b). According to this framework, oppression is a form of dehumanization that prescribes restrictive roles onto those who are oppressed. Historical oppression is defined as “the chronic, pervasive, and intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized into the daily lives of many Indigenous people” (Burnette & Figley, 2017b, p. 38), and is a societal-level risk factor that has contributed to IPV (Burnette & Figley, 2017b). For centuries, Indigenous people responded to oppression with incredible resilience (recovering from adversity) and transcendence (overcoming oppression; Burnette & Figley, 2017b). When examining gender role attitudes amongst Indigenous peoples, egalitarian tendencies may attest to their resilience and transcendence of historical oppression. In conceptualizing this study through the lens of the FHORT, we draw attention to the potential relationships between gender role attitudes and the FHORT concepts of historical oppression, resilience, and IPV.

Theorizing Patriarchal Gender Role Attitudes through the FHORT

Gender role attitudes prescribe what is considered appropriate gendered behavior and transmit values about appropriate work-life balance and gender divisions within a particular society (Knight & Brinton, 2017). Gender roles are commonly conceptualized on a spectrum from “traditional” (hereafter, we use the term “patriarchal” so as not to be confused with the “traditional” terminology in Indigenous communities, which means subscribing to historical cultural beliefs and practices) to egalitarian, and are frequently operationalized by examining paid labor (employment), family labor (household responsibilities and childcare), and household decision making (Giele & Holst, 2003; Sweeting et al., 2014; Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001). Generally speaking, patriarchal gender role attitudes prioritize men and promote gender essentialism (portraying gendered roles as intrinsic and fixed traits), while more egalitarian gender role attitudes equally value men’s and women’s family roles, and endorse greater flexibility in role divisions (Knight & Brinton, 2017).

Patriarchal attitudes toward gender roles often emphasize and reinforce men’s power over women, as they are rooted in an oppressive patriarchal system designed to uphold male supremacy. Both men and women can hold patriarchal gender role attitudes that reinforce dominant ideologies of masculinity and femininity. In a patriarchal context, men are socialized to conform to “hegemonic masculinity” – a cultural ideal of what it means to be a man that often centers on authority, control, violence, and domination (Peralta, 2007; Peralta et al., 2011). Hegemonic masculinity has been linked to gender and alcohol-related violence (Peralta, 2007; Peralta et al., 2011). Scholars have also identified links between patriarchal gender roles, IPV, and historical oppression (Heise, 1998; Pence et al., 1993).

Patriarchal gender role attitudes and hegemonic masculine ideals have been imposed upon, and perpetuated within, Indigenous communities (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b). According to the FHORT, the manifestation of Western patriarchal gender roles in Indigenous communities is a form of internalized oppression (internalizing patriarchal and oppressive ideology), and, for Indigenous communities, patriarchal gender roles and gender-based violence should be considered a product of the ongoing legacy of colonization (Deer, 2009; Duran et al., 1998; LaFromboise & Heyle, 1990; Oetzel & Duran, 2004). Prior to colonization, many Indigenous societies exercised egalitarian gender roles (LaFromboise & Heyle, 1990). Many tribes demonstrated egalitarian and female-centric values and structures through matrilineal tribal organization, flexible gender roles, low rates of gender-based violence, and positions of high status for women (Burnette, 2015a, Liddell et al., 2021). These egalitarian norms reflect commonly held Indigenous values of harmony and cooperation that helped ensure their survival Liddell et al., 2021). When European colonizers made contact with Indigenous peoples, these egalitarian gender structures were viewed as threatening to men and deliberately targeted (Guerrero, 2003; Mihesuah, 1996). According to the FHORT, this form of internalized oppression has led to prescriptive, patriarchal gender roles for men and women (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b).

The colonial tactics of threats of violence, legal restrictions of rights, forced migrations, boarding schools, the imposition of Christianity, and forced inter-marriage likely contributed to the development of patriarchal gender role attitudes in Indigenous communities (Deer, 2009; LaFromboise & Heyle, 1990; Mihesuah, 1996; Murray, 1998; Vinyeta et al., 2015; Weaver, 2009). Due to this patriarchal context, previous research has conceptualized Indigenous experiences of IPV as an ongoing form of historical oppression (Burnette, 2015a; Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017a), often transmitted across generations (Dalla et al., 2010; Tehee & Esqueda, 2008). However, more research is needed to understand how patriarchal gender role attitudes may relate to social determinants of health, including IPV and other forms of historical oppression, as well as resilience. Moreover, how resilience relates to gender roles attitudes is poorly understood.

Patriarchal Gender Role Attitudes: Victim Blaming.

The tendency to blame victims of domestic violence for the abuse they experience is an outgrowth of patriarchal gender role attitudes. In other words, victim blaming is one way patriarchal gender role attitudes may manifest. Victim blaming is more common when IPV is viewed as a common experience and acceptable, indicating community norms and values have a strong influence on victim blaming (Gracia & Tomás, 2014). Interviews in one Indigenous community revealed participants felt IPV was very common in their community, which may lead to higher rates of victim blame (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017a). Women are more likely to be blamed and experience guilt and shame when they defy patriarchal gender roles, especially by those with high rates of benevolent sexism, or the idealization of women who conform to patriarchal gender roles (Viki & Abrams, 2002). Thus, in addition to examining gender role attitudes that people implicitly hold, tendencies to victim blame may indicate more explicit bias.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this mixed methodology was to use the FHORT to quantitatively examine how key outcomes of the FHORT – historical oppression, IPV, and resilience – relate to gender role attitudes and victim blaming, and qualitatively examine participants’ gender role attitudes. The overarching questions for this mixed methods study were: (a) How do the independent variables of sex, IPV victimization, historical oppression, and resilience relate to the dependent variables of gender role attitudes and victim blaming (quantitative); (b) What are Indigenous peoples attitudes toward gender roles (qualitative)? Our quantitative hypotheses were: (1) Indigenous women will be less likely to report patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming tendencies than men; (2) Higher IPV victimization will be associated with higher patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming; (3) Higher historical oppression will be associated with higher patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming; and (4) Higher perceived resilience will be associated with lower patriarchal gender role attitudes (i.e. more egalitarian attitudes) and lower victim blaming.

Methods

Research Design Overview

This research employs an exploratory, sequential mixed-methods design. First, we conducted qualitative data collection and analysis, which informed subsequent quantitative data collection and analysis. We integrate qualitative and quantitative findings, which adds value to the study by linking qualitative findings to key quantitative outcomes. A mixed-methods design is appropriate given the study’s goals of contributing to in-depth understandings of participants’ gender role attitudes (qualitative portion) and exploring how gender role attitudes relate to historical oppression, IPV, and resilience amongst this population (quantitative portion).

Both the qualitative and quantitative study components followed a critical ethnographic approach, deemed appropriate for research with vulnerable groups because of its close attention to power relations and dynamics (Carspecken, 1996). The rigor of critical ethnographies is high because of the triangulation of multiple types of data (Carspecken, 1996). Data were collected as part of a broader critical ethnography study designed to identify and investigate IPV and Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) abuse, and the risk and protective factors for these issues (McKinley et al., 2019). This particular study focuses on gender role attitudes and their relationships with other variables for two Indigenous groups located in the Southeast. To increase cultural sensitivity, recommendations from the Burnette et al.,’s (2014) “Toolkit for Ethical and Culturally Sensitive Research with Indigenous Communities” were used and followed.

Setting

Data were collected with two tribes in the Southeastern United States, the identities of which are kept confidential to respect tribal agreements made with these tribes and to follow best practices for conducting research with Indigenous communities (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019). The two tribes have been given the pseudonyms “Inland Tribe” and “Coastal Tribe.” An important distinction between the two tribes is that the Inland Tribe has federal recognition, whereas the Coastal Tribe has been recognized at the state but not at the federal level. The Inland Tribe is located inland from the Gulf of Mexico on their permanent tribal homeland held in trust by the U.S. government.

As a federally recognized, reservation-based tribe, the Inland Tribe receives funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as certain federally-protected benefits and rights, including the right to self-government. The protected status of the Inland Tribe allows it to provide and operate its own schools, healthcare services, criminal justice system, and other tribal services. The Coastal Tribe is located nearer to the Gulf of Mexico and is not recognized at the federal level. Without recognition, the Coastal Tribe has no protected homeland and has a limited ability to provide services for its members. Members of the Coastal Tribe reside in urban and suburban areas. As a result of historical oppression, both tribes have experienced and continue to experience the consequences of racism, educational discrimination, and chronic poverty.

Participants and Other Data Sources

This mixed-methods study includes several sources of data: ethnographic observations, focus groups, family interviews, individual interviews, and an online survey. Across the two tribes, a total of 436 individuals participated in qualitative data collection through 254 individual interviews, 27 focus groups (with 217 total participants), and 64 family interviews (with 163 total participants). Participants from the same two tribes (including but not limited to qualitative participants) were invited to participate in quantitative data collection in the form of a survey that included questions focusing on outcomes related to the FHORT (historical oppression and resilience), gender role attitudes, victim blaming, and IPV. A total of 127 participants across the two tribes completed the survey. It is important to note that because the survey was anonymous, we are unable to report the total number of unique participants in this study (i.e. it is unknown how many participants from the qualitative portion also participated in the quantitative portion of the study). However, this study included a total of 472 unique data sources (254 individual interviews, 64 family interviews, 27 focus groups, and 127 surveys).

Research Team Description.

The first author served as the Principal Investigator (PI) for this study. Participants were recruited from the Coastal Tribe and the Inland Tribe. While not a member of either tribe, the PI has worked with the two focal tribes for more than a decade using community-based participatory research approaches, developing and implementing recommendations for culturally sensitive research. The PI is experienced with both qualitative and quantitative research, and practiced reflexivity throughout the research process in alignment with the critical ethnographic methodology.

A team of research assistants worked under the PI’s guidance and supervision using a collaborative analysis approach recommended for cultural sensitivity (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019) and ethnographic data (Guest & McQueen, 2008). The PI conducted initial coding with the assistance of two tribal and two non-tribal research assistants. Continued analysis was performed with the collaboration of five PhD students who study Indigenous issues and who were trained by the PI to be part of the research team. Tribal members also worked closely with the PI, assisting with data collection and analysis. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) comprised of 11 tribal leaders also worked with the PI to guide the research process.

Participant Recruitment and Selection.

Participants for both qualitative and quantitative data collection were recruited through distributing fliers, both online and in-person, through recruitment with tribal agencies, and through word of mouth (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019). Individual interviewees were compensated with $20 gift cards for local department stores, and families were compensated with $60 gift cards. Survey participants were entered into a random drawing to win a $50 gift card, which over half of participants won.

A convenience sample was deemed appropriate for quantitative data as this was an exploratory study with a unique population. Inclusion criteria were: (a) being an enrolled member of either the Coastal or Inland Tribe, and (b) being an adult (18 years of age or older). The survey was available online from April to October of 2016. About 80% (or n = 127) of the 161 participants who began the survey completed it. Participant demographics for qualitative and quantitative samples are provided in Table 1. The survey included measures and items related to culturally-relevant risk and protective factors identified in qualitative research.

Table 1.

Qualitative and Quantitative Participant Demographics for Primary Data

Participant Demographics	Qualitative (n = 436)	Quantitative (n = 127)
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Key Outcomes
Resilience		3.9 (.7)
Historical Oppression		31.8 (12.3)
Gender Role Attitudes		15.4 (4.7)
Victim blaming		11.7 (5.3)
Age range 21–80 years	40 (X)	46 (X)
	n (%)	n (%)
Inland Tribal Nation	52%	63%
Coastal Tribal Nation	48%	37%
Males	34%	18%
Females	66%	82%
Married (yes)	29%	40%
Children (number) range = 0–14	2.6 (2.3)	3.8 (2.4)
Education
High school equivalent or less	48%	27%
Some college/associate’s	38%	50%
Bachelor’s degree or higher	14%	23%
Household
Single		12%
Couple		16%
Single-parent		20%
Two-parent		39%
Blended/Extended		14%
Full-time employment		66%
Fairly difficult to pay bills		54%
Annual household income
< $25,000		30%
$25,001–$50,000		30%
> $50,001–$75,000		40%
Community type
Reservation/tribal communities		83%
Nearby/off-reservation		17%

Note. N = 563. Extended families include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Blended families include stepparents and stepchildren. Adapted table reprinted with permission from (McKinley & Miller Scarnato, 2020).

For qualitative data, purposive sampling strategies were used aiming for maximum variation. To include a range of experiences across the life-course, qualitative data was collected with subsamples of elders (ages 56 and above), adults (ages 24 to 55), and youth participants (ages 11 to 23). In addition, a subsample of professionals working in behavioral health and psychological services, who specialize in working in violence-related fields, were included due to their specialized knowledge of the study phenomena. Potential participants were included if they were (a) an enrolled member of one of the focal tribes who was at least 11 years old, or (b) a professional working with these tribes as previously described. In line with the critical ethnographic methodology, we aimed for and achieved qualitative sample sizes of 30–50 participants in each participant subsample (elders, adults, youth, professionals). Qualitative data collection took place from June 2014 to July 2015. Sites of data collection included participants’ homes and tribal agencies. Qualitative data collection continued until saturation was met.

Data Collection

Data Collection Procedures.

Prior to data collection, we obtained University Institutional Review Board approval, in addition to tribal council approval. Qualitative data were collected in the form of individual interviews (n = 254), focus group interviews (n = 217 individuals across 27 groups), family interviews (n = 163 individuals from 64 family interviews), and ethnographic observations.

In the quantitative portion of this study, tribal members participated in an online survey using Qualtrics. Quantitative data was collected through self-report and was cross-sectional. The survey included demographic items, and the following measures were used to collect data about each of the variables: We measured gender role attitudes (dependent variable) using the Gender Role Attitudes Scale (GRAS), victim blaming (dependent variable) using the Domestic Violence Blame Scale (DVBS), IPV victimization (independent variable) using the Partner Victimization Scale (PVS), historical oppression (independent variable) using the Historical Oppression Scale (HOS), resilience (independent variable) using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and sex (independent variable) using a single item (“What is your sex?” with options Male and Female). Measures are further described in Table 2.

Table 2.

Table of Key Outcome Measures

Variable and measure	Items	Response set	Example items	Scoring	Reliability
Age	—	Raw age	—	—	—
Income	—	< $15,000 $15,001–$25,000 $25,001–$50,000 $50,001–$75,000 > $75,001	—	—
Gender	—	0 = female 1 = male	—	—	—
Marital Status	—	0 = unmarried 1 = married	—	—	—
IPV: Partner Victimization Scale (PVS)	6	0 = no 1 = yes	Not including horseplay or joking around, my partner pushed, grabbed, shook me, or hit me.	Added: Total scores 0–6, higher scores indicating more victimization/ perpetration.	α = .87
Psychological Resilience: CD-RISC	10	0 = not at all true 4 = true nearly all of the time	I am able to adapt when changes occur; Having to cope with stress can make me stronger.	Added: Total scores 0–40 with higher scores indicating higher levels of resilience.	α = .94
Historical Oppression: HOS	10	0 = not at all 5 = a lot	As a result of historical events how much do you think members of your tribe have: taken out frustrations on each other and hurt each other through violence; kept each other down.	Added: Total scores 0–50 with higher scores indicating higher levels of historical oppression.	α = .98
Gender Roles: GRAS [adapted]	7	1 = totally disagree 5 = totally agree	The husband is responsible for the family so the wife must obey him; a woman must not contradict her partner; a father’s main responsibility is to help his children financially; mothers should make most of the decisions on how to bring up their children.	Added: Total scores 7–35, higher scores indicated higher patriarchal gender role attitudes.	α = .72
Domestic Violence Blame Scale DVBS [adapted]	8	1 = strongly disagree 4 = strongly agree	Some women deserve to be hit because of the way they act; women who are too bossy sometimes deserve to be hit to be taken down a notch.	Added: Total scores 8–36, higher scores indicated higher blaming of domestic violence on females.	α = .94

Note. CD-RISC = Connor-Davidson Resilience Questionnaire (Connor & Davidson, 2003); DVBS = Domestic Violence Blame Scale (Bryant & Spencer, 2003); GRAS = Gender Role Attitude Scale (García-Cueto et al., 2015); HOS = Historical Oppression Scale (McKinley et al., 2020); PVS = Partner Victimization Scale (Hamby, 2016).

To encourage cultural sensitivity, all qualitative participants had the choice to use a tribal interviewer for their interviews if they preferred (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019). However, because participants expressed concerns about confidentiality in their tight-knit communities, they felt most comfortable speaking with a non-member, and the first author collected all data (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019). Semi-structured interview guides, aimed at a fifth-grade comprehension level, were created based on the insight of cultural insiders and the key research questions of the study. Interviews used a life history approach, which is appropriate and recommended for research with Indigenous groups (Burnette et al., 2014, McKinley et al., 2019; Carspecken, 1996). Example questions related to the focus of this study included: “How would you describe female and male roles in the community? How have these changed or remained the same over time? What challenges have you felt related to your male or female role?” On average, individual interviews lasted 64 minutes, family interviews 70 minutes, and focus groups 57 minutes.

Recording and Transforming the Data.

Quantitative data was imported into SPSS (Version 27) for analysis. Listwise deletion was used for missing data, which was missing at random (Kang, 2013). All qualitative data was digitally-recorded using an audio-recorder. Interview and focus group recordings were transcribed by a professional transcription agency, and checked for accuracy. Transcripts were imported into NVivo (qualitative data analysis software) for analysis, using separate databases for each tribe.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis.

The focus of this inquiry was on the relationships between historical oppression, resilience, IPV, and gender outcomes with DVB and patriarchal GRAS toward women. After first determining there were no multicollinearity issues amongst independent variables, bivariate relationships among independent variables derived from the FHORT (IPV victimization, historical oppression, and resilience) and the dependent variables (patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming) were analyzed. Only outcomes found to be significantly correlated with the outcomes of interest were retained in the regression models. Thus, demographics such as education, income, marital status, and age were excluded from the final models. We used multiple regression analysis to explore the main effects of the predictor variables as they relate to gender role attitudes and victim blaming through two separate models. The first model tested relationships between independent variables and the dependent variable of patriarchal gender role attitudes, and the second model tested relationships between independent variables and the dependent variable of victim blaming.

Qualitative Data Analysis.

Ethnographic team-based data analysis methods with Indigenous and non-Indigenous research assistants were used for the analysis of the qualitative data. This approach facilitates cultural sensitivity and is recommended for research with Indigenous groups (Burnette et al., 2014; Guest & MacQueen, 2008; McKinley et al., 2019). Research team members engaged in biweekly meetings to discuss the research project and analysis throughout the study. Reconstructive thematic analysis was used, as it is rooted in critical theory in alignment with the critical ethnographic approach (Carspecken, 1996). Through this process, transcripts were read and recordings were listened to multiple times to encourage immersion in the data. Following this, a hierarchical coding scheme of themes was created through a process of low-level analysis and coding. This hierarchical structure was created through a collaborative process designed to elicit both explicit and implicit meanings. Cohen’s kappa coefficients indicated the interrater reliability of this study was extremely high (at 90 or higher; McHugh, 2012). The focus of this article is on gender role attitudes. These themes were coded over 200 times among Inland and Coastal Tribe participants. Themes related to gender roles and attitudes are reported for both tribes, and we describe the tribe, gender, and subsample category of each participant in the results.

Mixed-Methods Analysis.

Mixed-methods analysis was conducted through an iterative process, with qualitative findings informing the quantitative analysis through this exploratory sequential design. Themes identified in qualitative findings were used to select covariates to further explore through quantitative analysis. Qualitative and quantitative findings are therefore connected sequentially. We first present quantitative findings exploring relationships between gender role attitudes and other identified variables of interested, followed by qualitative findings to provide an in-depth and nuanced exploration of gender role attitudes amongst study participants. This mixed-methods analysis explores gender role attitudes amongst Indigenous peoples – filling a gap in the literature – and further explores how concepts drawn from the FHORT may help explain the gender role attitudes espoused by participants.

Validity, Reliability, and Methodological Integrity

As part of the rigor of this study, member checks were performed with all participants. During member checking, all participants were given a transcript of their life history interview, a summary of study findings, and an opportunity to discuss the findings, or request changes with the PI. None of the participants disagreed with the findings, and many added to the findings. Results were disseminated by the PI at community and tribal events over 10 times. Quantitative measures were developed with the communities, pilot tested with tribal members, and despite having a relatively small sample, predicted outcomes with robust results.

Quantitative Results

We used regression analysis to examine relationships between the independent variables of sex, IPV victimization, historical oppression, resilience, and the dependent variables of patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming. At the bivariate level, the independent variables were significantly associated with the dependent variables of patriarchal gender role attitudes in the expected directions, except for historical oppression. While we hypothesized that higher levels of historical oppression would be associated with higher patriarchal gender role attitudes (Hypothesis 3), our analysis showed that those reporting higher levels of historical oppression were less likely to espouse patriarchal gender role attitudes, and this relationship was statistically significant. Supporting our other three hypotheses, females and those who reported higher levels of resilience were less likely to espouse patriarchal gender role attitudes while those who reported experiencing IPV victimization were more likely to espouse patriarchal gender role attitudes. Each of these relationships was statistically significant, as shown in Table 3. For Model 1, which focused on patriarchal gender role attitudes as the dependent variable, the regression produced an adjusted R² of .17, F(4, 111) = 5.78, p < .0001 (see Table 3). A total of 17% of the variability in patriarchal gender role attitudes was accounted for by this model with male sex, higher IPV victimization, lower perceived historical oppression, and lower resilience being associated with higher levels of patriarchal gender role attitudes.

Table 3.

Regression Models for Gender Role Attitudes and Victim Blaming

Variable	Model 1: GRAS		Model 2: DVBS
	B (SE)	Beta	B (SE)	Beta
Female	−2.69 (1.06)**	−.22	−1.48 (1.3)	−.11
IPV Victimization	2.13 (.87)*	.23	.01 (1.1)	.00
Historical Oppression	−.07 (.56)*	−22	.01 (.04)	.02
Resilience	.−1.2 (.57)**	−.25	−1.56 (.7)*	.70
R 2		.17		.02
F		5.78***		1.47

Note.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

GRAS = Gender Role Attitude Scale (García-Cueto et al., 2015); DVBS = Domestic Violence Blame Scale (Bryant & Spencer, 2003)

When analyzing the relationships between these predictor variables and victim blaming, only one variable was statistically significant – resilience – with higher levels of reported resilience associated with lower patriarchal gender role attitudes, as hypothesized. Model 2 of the multivariate linear regression produced an adjusted R² of .02 and was not significant as a model. The lack of significance in the victim blaming model may be due to low sample size, social desirability bias, or less likelihood of reporting victim blaming in general. This lends further support to the limitations of this measure of victim blaming due to its overt nature and the potential for social desirability bias, limiting its usefulness.

Our quantitative findings examined how sex, IPV victimization, historical oppression, and resilience related to gender role attitudes and victim blaming. Results demonstrate that male sex and higher IPV victimization are statistically significant predictors of patriarchal gender role attitudes, but not victim blaming. Higher levels of historical oppression and resilience were associated with more egalitarian gender role attitudes. These findings support the idea that key social determinants of health are related to gender role attitudes amongst Indigenous peoples.

Qualitative Results

The following themes emerged from this analysis of participants’ gender role attitudes: (a) “A Dad Can Get the Money and The Mom Stays at Home” – Patriarchal Gender Role Attitudes, with the sub-theme (i) “What She Does in the House . . . What He Does Outside of the House” – Gendered Labor Divisions and (b) “My Mama Raised Girls Different from Her Boys” – Gendered Socialization Processes.

“A Dad Can Get the Money and the Mom Stays at Home” – Patriarchal Gender Role Attitudes

Participants in both tribes espoused patriarchal gender role attitudes—that a man’s primary role is to provide for his family, while women are expected to fulfill the role of caretaker. As a woman from the Coastal Tribe summarized in a focus group, “A dad can get the money and the mom stays at home.” A woman from the Inland Tribe also emphasized segregated gender roles, stating, “The woman should keep the house clean and cook, and prepare whatever the husband needs. The husband is the one that takes care of the house and pays the bills.”

Many participants emphasized the importance of men’s work outside the home to financially support their families. In a family interview, a father from the Coastal Tribe who was raised by his grandparents described his grandfather’s role:

When I was growing up, my grandfather and grandmother was the one who raised me. So, they had custody of us. My grandpa always did provide for us, no matter if he was working on engines or [working on the sea].

Providing for one’s family was an important role for men to fulfill and was highly valued within both tribes. An elder man from the Inland Tribe took pride in these roles: “I always know that man is [the] provider. They’re [the] provider. Children. They provide [for] the children. Both girl or boy provide them stuff what they want.” Men’s ability to financially support the family was seen as paramount, and sometimes meant men juggled multiple jobs, as a professional woman from the Coastal Tribe explained: “My dad, he kind of floated between a couple of different jobs, depending on how things were working.” Securing whatever employment was available to provide for the family was an important role for men. Echoing this, an elder woman from the Inland Tribe shared her expectations for her sons: “Well, provide . . . if they’re married, I want them to take care of the wife, and then if they have kids, I want them to take care of the kids. And be…well-off.” As the previous quote attests, men, especially fathers, were expected to secure gainful employment to take care of their families, and be self-sufficient in doing so. A professional man from the Inland Tribe explained:

I’ve worked with a lot of males and, and their number one goal is to provide for their family. . . . And when they don’t have a job, they get very frustrated and very angry, you know, because it hurts them . . . as being a man. . . .“I’m not a man unless I can provide for my wife, my girlfriend, my kids . . . my family.” You see. “And if I don’t do that, I’m a failure.” See? So, they really tie that in pretty closely.

Thus, attitudes toward masculinity were very much connected to a man’s ability to fulfill the role of provider; supporting one’s family financially was considered a marker of success as a man. As these quotes demonstrate, men’s main responsibility was to help the family financially.

While men supported their families by providing income, women were generally expected to stay home and care for their families. In a focus group, a professional Inland tribe woman shared:

Everybody’s got their own opinion and they can raise their family how they choose but to me, it’s if you choose to have a family, you shouldn’t choose to have a career that takes you away from your family. I mean, it’s one thing if you’re- if you have to go somewhere maybe once, even twice a year. But when you’re leaving to go somewhere almost every month . . . not to me. It’s – to me it’s either you’re going to have this full professional career or you’re going to have a family. Because – I guess that’s where people would call it old-fashioned thinking, but I believe the mom should take care of. . . . The mom is supposed to take care of the kids and the dad’s supposed to take care of the family.

This speaker felt women needed to sacrifice career aspirations to fulfill the role of caretaker and allow men to serve as providers. Similarly, an elder Coastal Tribe man believed women should only work outside the home if it did not interfere with their primary role as a caretaker:

I’m not saying they can’t work, but to me [a women’s role] [is] to keep the house great and all that. . . . To me that’s that role. If you’ve got a job fine, because [my] soon-to-be-ex, she had a job and I was working. As far as when you have kids to take care of the kids, [I] think that’s something they [women] should do instead of, “Oh well, we’ll have a babysitter” . . . They should do it because that’s their job.

Youth participants also conveyed their knowledge of these different roles. When asked what was important for a mom to do, one Inland Tribe girl stated, “Your mom’s there to help you when you need it and take care of you and wash your clothes and stuff like that.” Another girl from the Inland Tribe related, “[A mother is] supposed to take care of her kids, give her what she needs.” In a focus group with boys from the Inland Tribe, participants described the role of a mother as “moral support . . . encouragement . . . the soft side . . . role model.” These youth speakers emphasized the expectation that a mother’s role is caring for her children’s physical and emotional needs.

“What She Does in the House . . . What He Does Outside of the House” – Gendered Labor Divisions. In addition to describing the patriarchal roles of men as providers and women as caretakers, participants from both tribes expressed household tasks tended to be allocated by sex/gender. Both men and women indicated men and boys were expected to perform tasks outside of the home, whereas women and girls were generally expected to focus on indoor tasks. A professional woman from the Inland Tribe described this indoor/outdoor dichotomy in her family growing up:

My mom, she was the caretaker. She made sure the kids, like all of us kids were fed, all of us kids were clean, she was in charge of the domestic duties. . . . He [father] helped . . . he did the outside work.

This gendered allocation of tasks was described by several speakers. In a family interview, an Inland Tribe man described his household growing up: “We [men] cut grass . . . took garbage out, you know, and stuff like that, but she [mother] did all the stuff, inside.” A boy from the Inland Tribe also emphasized men’s outdoor duties in describing a father’s role: “Do the hard, outside work . . . and keeps things straight.”

While men focused on tasks outside of the home, women focused on managing domestic life. In a family interview, one Inland Tribe woman described her role in this way:

I’m a domestic engineer. . . . Apologies to millions of women . . . until you’ve been a mother . . . I wouldn’t trade it for anything but – [I do] cleaning, laundry . . . shopping, bill-paying too. . . . But he [husband] does the, you know, like outside work.

The term chosen by this speaker—“domestic engineer”—attests to the many household tasks for which she was responsible as a mother.

Several women noted the importance of maintaining this gendered division of labor. An elder woman from the Coastal Tribe described her mother’s perspective on women’s roles: “I remember growing up . . . my mom would always say a woman’s place is in the home.” Indeed, an elder woman noted in a family interview that gendered roles were so entrenched in her family, flexibility in roles was not permissible:

A man and a woman . . . they have their roles they have to play . . . they’ve been taught, “You have to do this, do that,” and when I was growing up . . . in tradition . . . man is supposed to be the head of the house . . . and woman’s supposed to be the . . . homemaker. . . . My mom don’t believe in my dad coming in the kitchen and doing . . . her work. . . . That’s a disgrace to her.

This statement shows the importance of maintaining separate tasks for men and women, which was viewed as a sign of respect for each of the distinct roles. One Inland Tribe professional man noted strict gender roles for men and women were beginning to change, albeit with difficulty:

They were pretty defined roles there . . . males and females, what they did . . . as far as responsibilities and expectations of each other. . . . That’s been a challenge . . . to help each gender develop different roles and all instead of just the one that they’ve had for so many years around. Males learning how to cook, you know. . . . Or to clean up.

This speaker’s statement shows gendered responsibilities and expectations are deeply rooted in the community. As a Coastal Tribe woman recalled, there was never any doubt as to which tasks were allocated to which gender; when asked who cared for children growing up, she said:

It was mostly my mom and my sisters. My dad really never babysat or did anything. Back then, it was, this is what she does in the house, and this is what he does outside of the house. My dad, although he was a loving caring father, he didn’t have to, because my mom took care of all her motherly duties. If she couldn’t, or didn’t, which that was very rare, then my older sisters would get called in and say, “Hey can you come help me with this?”

As this speaker described, in the rare event her mother was not able to fulfill her duties, the norm was for her daughters, rather than her husband, to help out.

Mirroring the allocation of tasks for men and women, boys and girls also had different household obligations growing up. Boys were expected to do outdoor chores and help their fathers, while girls helped their mothers indoors. A woman from the Coastal Tribe described chores for girls in her family: “We were so involved with everything there was to do in the house. We’d have to help clean. In fact, we had to do the cleaning, which was mostly me because I was the oldest girl.” The same participant shared that her mother enforced these different tasks for boys and girls, stating, “Growing up, my mama would not allow my brother to wash dishes, would not allow him to do laundry, nothing like that. It was only the girls.” Instead, she continued, “My brother, he would help my daddy [with] like mechanic work and stuff like that, work on the boat, work on the truck, just stuff on the outside pretty much.” Through the chores assigned to them, children learned what tasks were expected of each gender. When asked what chores they completed growing up, an Inland Tribe woman stated, “Everything. Cooking, cleaning, babysitting, washing clothes . . . [the boys did things] outside.”

Household obligations for girls and boys were distinct—and not necessarily equal. One Coastal Tribe woman felt boys’ responsibilities were more difficult because they had to assist their fathers outside, stating, “The boys had the hard day. They was [sic] going to work with my daddy.” However, another Coastal Tribe woman felt boys had less responsibility and fewer expectations than girls overall, stating, “[The boys] had something different to do. . . . They had the yard work. I did too but . . . I used to tell my mamma and my daddy, ‘Y’all should have more than one girl,’ I said, ‘Because the boys, they lazy.’” An Inland Tribe woman in a family interview felt similarly, sharing girls had greater responsibilities:

My grandma was kind of like that with my brother. You know, we did his dishes, we did the laundry. We mopped and cleaned and, I don’t know, right now I’m thinking about what did . . . he really do? Maybe he took out . . . the trash . . . that kind of thing . . . my grandmother was all for the woman you know, taking care of the house and all of that.

As this participant reflected, girls and boys learned from the tasks assigned to them in their families that expectations for boys and girls were different.

As this theme illustrates, participants espoused patriarchal beliefs about gender roles and their associated tasks, with separate spheres and responsibilities demarcated for men and women. In alignment with patriarchal gender role attitudes, many participants conveyed the belief that men’s and women’s roles were fundamentally different with men serving as protectors and providers who worked outside of the home and women serving as family caretakers whose work took place inside the home. These patriarchal gender role attitudes were evidenced by participants across genders, ages, and tribes.

“My Mama Raised Girls Different from Her Boys” – Gendered Socialization Processes

In addition to being assigned different chores growing up, children were taught about the different roles for men and women from an early age through socialization processes that occurred during childhood. Participants reported boys and girls were raised differently, beyond differences in household tasks, as stated by a woman from the Coastal Tribe: “My mama raised girls different from her boys. . . . Boys were allowed to do more different things than what the girls were.” Many speakers described learning about patriarchal gender role behaviors from their mothers and other female family members. An Inland Tribe girl shared how her mother encourages her to dress in a feminine manner: “My mom will talk about me, about dressing like a girl. . . . She thinks I dress like a boy too much.” For this speaker, her mother’s comments about her style of dress conveyed she should conform to gendered expectations. Teaching children gender roles and their associated tasks was a way of preparing them for the future, as an Inland Tribe woman described: “I learned washing dishes early, cleaning early, cooking early, biscuits had to be made. More of the house stuff and more being ready for what’s going to happen in the future.” As this statement shows, learning to perform these tasks was a part of girls’ preparation for the future. Similarly, a woman from the Inland Tribe described what she learned as a girl during a family interview:

It was my aunt . . . she taught us like how to like, cook, clean and basically like when we grow older, we’re going to be a wife and we’re going to be a mother, or actually a wife, and you know, that’s basically the thing that she taught us.

This speaker expressed that her aunt taught her these tasks to help her successfully fulfill the role of a wife.

Learning gendered roles and associated tasks was viewed as part of children becoming adults. A woman from the Inland Tribe felt young people should learn their roles before starting families of their own, stating:

For the women’s part it’s important to teach the younger ones to learn how to cook. How did my grandma always say it? She’d always say “if you aren’t going to go cook for your man, somebody else will” . . . I think it’s important for them [young women] to learn how to cook before having sex.

She went on to describe what men should learn before procreating: “Men need to learn how to do yard work as well before having sex.” This woman believed these gendered tasks should be mastered before sexual activity occurred that might result in children.

Participants also related that parents had differing expectations for girls and boys and sometimes treated them differently. An Inland woman shared her girlhood experiences with her grandmother, who felt the need to instill religious values in girls but not boys, stating:

My grandma dragged us to church. . . . Even if we didn’t wanna go. The thing about grandma was she never took the boys, but she always made sure she took the girls. . . . It was the girls that were, that needed church . . . and the boys were . . . left unattended.

While girls were learning to become future wives, homemakers, and caretakers, boys seemed to enjoy more freedom during childhood. A Coastal Tribe woman explained differences between her and her brother:

My brother did not have to work. He was with him [Dad], he never had to work. I was working at a snowball stand when I was 12 years old, 13 years old, babysitting and getting paid for it and everything. Plus, the sports, plus schoolwork and getting good grades. He didn’t have that. My dad would just kind of go buy him whatever, make sure that he was happy so that he would stay with him. . . . He didn’t have any responsibilities either. There was nothing that he had to do. He had to go to school. That was it.

She went on to speculate about why parents treat boys and girls differently:

I think maybe they focus so much on females and making sure that they want them to be a certain way, and they don’t realize that by not doing the same thing with the sons, it’s kind of a bad effect on them, because they should have responsibility too. . . . I always say my brother’s never seen what a man is supposed to do, like work.

This participant felt girls being raised with greater responsibilities than boys disadvantaged everyone. Similarly, an Inland Tribe woman described the sense that boys were more privileged and valued than girls, stating:

Well, not just for my brother but I can tell even with my uncles as well . . . males, it just seemed like males were more, their role was more important than the female roles. They were more, I don’t know, maybe more so nurtured versus girls . . . I always grew up thinking he [brother] was more important than me growing up actually.

These quotes suggest boys enjoyed a more privileged and carefree childhood, while girls were expected to learn responsibility.

Reaffirming this idea, participants also learned through their upbringing that certain recreational activities and tribal roles were reserved for men. A professional woman from the Inland Tribe discussed what she learned about medicine men:

Oh, us girls couldn’t. It was supposed to be the guys . . . and he [relative] said he can pass it on to other family members that are boys, but some of them didn’t want to because . . . [they] say that, you know, if you give it to somebody, they have to cherish it, and if they don’t, it can backfire and hurt them real bad . . . [Only men do it] because men are more stronger than women [sic] . . . and they can overcome a lot of things . . . the obstacles, and whatever’s in the way. . . . But the woman [sic], they kind of fragile and it will hurt them real bad . . . if the woman tries to be a medicine man.

This speaker’s statement shows her belief in essential differences between men and women that make men more capable of handling the esteemed but difficult role of medicine man, demonstrating gendered socialization processes rooted in patriarchal gender role attitudes.

This theme demonstrates the ways in which families and tribal communities transmitted patriarchal gender role attitudes and associated labor divisions through gendered socialization processes for children. Participants within both tribes described boys and girls being raised differently within their families, demonstrating how children are socialized into their respective gender roles from an early age. Through family practices and norms, children learned the differing expectations for men and women in their tribes.

Discussion

Our quantitative analysis explored possible explanations for the patriarchal gender role attitudes participants described by examining sex, IPV victimization, historical oppression, and resilience as potential predictors of such attitudes. Gender roles attitudes were examined through the GRAS, which measured patriarchal gender beliefs such as whether boys and girls have the same household chores, whether wives were to obey husbands, whether men were the primary financial provider, whether women were the caretaker, and whether boys and girls should be brought up differently (García-Cueto et al., 2015) – items that seemed to mirror our qualitative findings.

We found statistically significant relationships between patriarchal gender role attitudes and sex, IPV victimization, historical oppression, and resilience. Participants reporting higher IPV victimization reported higher patriarchal gender role attitudes (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b). While Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct from the general U.S. population and have unique histories of colonization and oppression, these findings suggest that the patriarchal environment of the broader U.S. society may play an influential role in shaping participants’ gender role attitudes. Male privilege and the normalization of violence against women within a patriarchal context seem to be related to patriarchal gender role attitudes. Historical oppression, however, was negatively associated with patriarchal gender role attitudes, suggesting that those who have experienced greater levels of historical oppression demonstrate more egalitarian gender role attitudes. While further research is needed to understand this relationship, we can speculate based on previous research that experiences of historical oppression may increase one’s support for gender equality (Duran, et al., 1998; Portman, 2001).

Additionally, we found that resilience, a key outcome related to well-being, was negatively associated with patriarchal gender role attitudes and victim blaming – meaning that participants with higher resilience were less likely to hold patriarchal gender attitudes and victim blame. These findings are consistent with extant literature on violence against Indigenous women, which has indicated female-centered and egalitarian gender roles were supplanted by patriarchal roles as a form of historical oppression (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Deer, 2009; Duran et al., 1998; Oetzel & Duran, 2004). Indeed, tactics of colonization paralleled those found in IPV relationships (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). According to the FHORT, this finding suggests that resilient individuals may have been able to overcome the imposition and internalization of patriarchal gender role attitudes, instead tending toward more egalitarian views (Burnette & Figley, 2017b). Prescriptive and limiting patriarchal beliefs may undermine feelings of mastery and self-efficacy, undercutting one’s sense of self and an ability to overcome adversity (Burnette, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Notably, the DVBS, although negatively associated with resilience, was not as robust in its association with key variables. More subtle measures of patriarchal views may be better measurement tools, as victim blaming is socially unacceptable, resulting in social desirability bias (Hafer et al., 2019).

Qualitative results also revealed several themes related to participants’ gender role attitudes. First, participants espoused the patriarchal attitude that men (and especially fathers) are primarily responsible for economically supporting the family, whereas women were charged with caregiver responsibilities (Allen et al., 2009; Knight & Brinton, 2017; McCarthy et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2006). Women were expected to prioritize their families over their careers, while the opposite was true for men. Consistent with extant research, these roles were further delineated by participants’ descriptions of men and boys performing outside work and chores and women and girls performing indoor duties (Allen et al., 2009; Knight & Brinton, 2017; McCarthy et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2006). Beyond household chores, participants described distinct socialization processes for boys and girls. These findings align with many of the items on the GRAS, suggesting participants in these communities subscribe to patriarchal gender norms. While these findings are consistent with extant literature examining patriarchal gender role attitudes, they make a unique contribution to the literature on Indigenous gender roles. As much research in this area has focused on White, Eurocentric populations, this study fills a glaring gap in the literature examining the gender role attitudes of Indigenous peoples in the U.S. While Indigenous peoples have not always subscribed to gendered work divisions and essentialized notions of gender differences and roles, our qualitative findings demonstrate patriarchal gender role attitudes amongst at least a segment of this population today.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Examining gender role attitudes through the FHORT contextualizes such roles in a culturally relevant framework developed with Indigenous peoples in mind, particularly with the lens of historical oppression, resilience, and IPV. While this exploratory study found evidence of patriarchal gender role attitudes amongst our participants, it does not reflect the heterogeneity of Indigenous peoples. Results of any qualitative or convenience sample study are not generalizable or representative of heterogenous Indigenous communities. Further, our analysis explored bivariate and multivariate relationships between variables of interest, but further research is needed to explain, predict, and suggest causality between the variables tested. Moreover, this research occurred in the Deep South, where patriarchal views may be more prominent. Tribes in other areas may hold different gender role attitudes. Gender role attitudes should be examined across social contexts, tribal nations, and populations for a more complete understanding. Future research can explore gender attitudes in other communities and regions. Results are based on self-reported, cross-sectional data. Longitudinal and representative data would bolster and extend knowledge of how gender roles and their associates vary across groups and over time. Analyzing potential interactions between variables would also help increase understandings of how IPV victimization, sex, historical oppression, and resilience relate to one another as well as gender role attitudes and victim blaming.

Practice Implications

The quantitative and qualitative findings of this study suggest patriarchal gender role attitudes have been internalized in these communities and must be challenged to decrease violence and promote resilience among Indigenous peoples. Patriarchal gender roles constrain Indigenous women and girls and may increase their risk of IPV victimization, emphasizing the need for decolonizing practices that recognize the roots of and redress such patriarchal attitudes. Culturally congruent interventions and programs that offer community members the opportunity to reflect on the harmful impacts of historical oppression, including the internalization of patriarchal gender role attitudes, are needed. Such practices support the self-determination of Indigenous peoples and may help reduce violence and improve resilience in these communities. The continued inequities related to violence against Indigenous women indicate that the United States is falling short of upholding its trust agreement to provide for their well-being. This work indicates measuring more subtle attitudes may be optimal for valid and credible results, rather than explicitly asking about overt oppression (Hafer et al., 2019; Venema, 2018; Viki & Abrams, 2002).

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first rigorous mixed-methodology study that connects Southern Indigenous peoples’ gender role attitudes with social determinants of health (historical oppression, IPV victimization, and resilience) that may explain such attitudes. It is important to understand gender role attitudes in context because they are undeniably influenced by the social climate that varies by region (Baunach & Burgess, 2013). This work measures key aspects of the FHORT, connecting the patriarchal gender role attitudes imposed by colonization with the roots of historical oppression to IPV and resilience. Gender inequality and gender roles are situated within the patriarchal norms imposed through historical oppression (Allen et al., 2009; Knight & Brinton, 2017; McCarthy et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2006). Results of this inquiry indicate the colonial project of dehumanization—a process that prescribes oppressive roles to women to be in the service of men and depicts them as objects—has been internalized by participants in some Indigenous communities (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017a). This could be particularly poignant given the social climate of the Deep South and may vary by region (Baunach & Burgess, 2013). This dehumanization is likely related to the disproportionate levels of IPV evidenced in these communities.