Is there a cultural / religious component to this too?

After all these years I'm unsure that DV is linked to culture and religion the way IMO it is strongly linked to education and empowerment. Abuse is higher where women are dependant and where they don't know or don't have rights to empower them. This is true for whether it is the United States, Africa or India. It all always seems to boil down to that. The inability to sustain on one's own hence the inability to assert power or respect in a relationship.

JoAT - I agree, and just added a sentence to show that. To my mind, the economic factors are the primary ones, and if there is a cultural component, it'll be smaller and not as coarse as religion. Something more about local subcultures.

how common is husband beating?

how common is husband beating?

I'm going to assume you mean that seriously, and you're not just being flip. Within the US, there are sometimes incidents of DV that involve both partners brawling.

Women are still more likely to get hurt in such incidents because of the strength differentials, but it is probably erroneous to believe that domestic violence in America always involves solely male on female violence.

How common is this sort of thing? There we end up in a highly politicized methodological thicket, one that has made pariahs out of some researchers. My suggestion to you is to google around for this, and make up your own mind. I don't want to derail this discussion here with another one.

what/where is Matlab?

I don't think this conversation will get anywhere without also tending to one of the elephants in the room; the question has to be asked and answered. Are men of color (through one or multiple reasons) more likely to engage in violence toward women. Once that question is answered, a lot of clutter will be cleared away. Without answering that question I think the discussion will involve indirect attributions and euphamisms

I'm going to assume you mean that seriously

good assumption. I was just curious, as whenever people talk about DV, they talk about man on woman violence. I have never seen any kind of research on the opposite. seems a little biased (or something). there maybe quite a few dudes suffering out there. no way of knowing.

Are men of color

I hate that distinction. wh!te vs. non-wh!te. it seems like it assumes all n0n wh!te people have a lot in common with each other, and wh!te people are somehow different from all of that mud.

My guess is that domestic violence in Bangladesh is high because women have relatively low levels of education and therefore few economic opportunities outside the home.

I would second this. It has everything to do with education (less educated = poor, for the most part).

This is probably endemic to any group that is poor/less educated - United States, Europe, India, or Bangladesh. The more economic mobility and education women have, the less likely they will be vicitims of abuse (It doesn't mean it won't happen, but the chances of it happening are far less).

Are men of color (through one or multiple reasons) more likely to engage in violence toward women.

Sahej - are they still men of color in countries where there are no men of pallor to compare them too? I always thought that phrasing made sense solely for diasporic communities in the western world and not for people in their countries of origin.

Substitute nations ruled by a colonial power in the 19th and 20th century and marginalized communities within nations for men of color

Suma - Matlab is here (look at the colored in section of the map). Unless of course you mean this Matlab.

Are men of color (through one or multiple reasons) more likely to engage in violence toward women.

Regardless of the statistic, the answer (just like most) probably has less to do with color rather than people of color being less educated and more poor than white people.

If one wants to do a comparison of domestic violence, one needs to compare people with the same level of education and poverty, taking samples from white, latino, black, and other populations.

Sahej - are they still men of color in countries where there are no men of pallor to compare them too? I always thought that phrasing made sense solely for diasporic communities in the western world and not for people in their countries of origin.

I think two things would argue against that;

1) colonialism was often justified in part as a way to ensure better protection for the rights of women

2) we are having this discussion in the diaspora

Like I said, the substitution above to me would make sense for the term men of color. If men of color are more likely to commit violence against women, what is the use of offering euphamistic reasons like economic or cultural factors. Frankly to me thats just a way to make us feel better about a situation that needs to change. My impression is that the widely-held view that men of color are more likely to engage in violence against women is heavily pre-deteremined by racism. But this post has a study to work off, maybe that is fruitful.

I shudder to think what they would find in North India. My guess is that we would beat out Peru-Sheru by 100% or more.

Based on my experience, Bengali culture is much less patriarchal and authoritarian than those of North India.

I haven’t had a chance to plough thru but here are some reliable resources:

This is the United Nations library on issues related to women for the world.
This is the Harvard School of public health that has does some reporting and tracking of Women’s issues in South Asia based on a partnership between Harvard and some reputable universities and centers in India.

Some dated information available here.

Just based on the chart above, one can see a difference between rural and urban areas. It wouldn't be stretch to say that people in rural areas are less educated, therefore more likely to engage in such conduct.

here's some figures for domestic violenve in the US on the NOW website:

Violence Against Women in the United States

MURDER. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING. Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT. Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

THE TARGETS. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.

IMPACT ON CHILDREN. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES. Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims. Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."

LEGISLATION. In 1994, the National Organization for Women, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and other organizations finally secured passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a recordbreaking $1.8 billion to address issues of violence against women. [Link]

Why skirt the effect of culture and patriarchy at all? If education and economic status are the key factors, how can we justify the abuse cases in silicon valley among South Asians? The profile is middle class, educated and fairly well to do and the reasons are sometimes as flippant as using the phone to call a family member or wanting to learn driving or not making idlis for breakfast. I do not have statistics at hand but I am sure you can get them from Maithri or Narika (two organizations in the Bay area that help women affected by abuse and violence), but I have heard several stories - how about we ask each other just to see how many of us have heard of domestic violence being perpetuated in our circles? I knew someone personally who was an engineer and well qualified, married to a physician here in the US who would get beaten black and blue for no reason at all. She managed to leave eventually - but it wasn't easy and most people within the community kept talking about how there might be 'two sides to teh story' and how the guys seemed so respectable, etc, etc. Unless we acknowledge the patriarchy and the chauvinism in our culture and recognize that such attitudes affect violence against women, we are not really moving the dialogue much.

Just based on the chart above, one can see a difference between rural and urban areas. It wouldn't be stretch to say that people in rural areas are less educated, therefore more likely to engage in such conduct

Yet literacy by itself is neutral. The ability to read by itself tells you nothing about a person's views on moral conduct. If literacy is a marker for access to food or jobs, or from freedom from oppression, then litercy means something. Otherwise, its a flawed assumptions that people need to be able to read in order to behave according to a moral code that prevents violence against vulnerable parties

Just based on the chart above, one can see a difference between rural and urban areas. It wouldn't be stretch to say that people in rural areas are less educated, therefore more likely to engage in such conduct.

Gujudude - there could be two mechanisms involved.
1. Perhaps education changes the mindset of men. In that case, we would expect to see increased education for men correlated with a decrease in DV.
2. Perhaps education increases opportunities for women. In that case, we would expect to see increased education for women correlated with a decrease in DV.

The two explanations produce similar observable implications where male and female education both increase together. However, where only male levels of education are rising, they have very different implications.

My bet is that it is the second explanation rather than the first.

ethiopia is not mostly christian. from cia factbook:

Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%

not making idlis for breakfast

I like idli's, but DAMN.......

my personal exp. (attenuated as it is since i don't move in brown circles) is that there is a inverse correlation between level and education and domestic violence. but, i do know of situations where the husband has a ph.d. and the wife has a secondary school education (or less), and these tend to be characterized by a lot of power imbalance and i hear rumors of violence. so i think the most predictive issue is economic/social power imbalance.

Unless we acknowledge the patriarchy and the chauvinism in our culture and recognize that such attitudes affect violence against women, we are not really moving the dialogue much.

I'm sure they play a factor, but if you compare low income/low education with higher income/higher education, holding all else constant, within these patriarchal societies with permeating chauvinistic attitudes, I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift towards lower rates (no one is saying non-existent).

ethiopia is not mostly christian. from cia factbook:

Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%

razib, pl explain what that has to do with DV. thx.

i'm talking about bangladeshis above btw.

oh, and matlab is a medium sized town. my grandfather practiced medicine there when my mom was a kid.

Unless we acknowledge the patriarchy and the chauvinism in our culture and recognize that such attitudes affect violence against women, we are not really moving the dialogue much.

I think in the diaspora its only relevent to think of "our" community as circumscribed by ethnicity in certain circumstances and not in a whole-sale way. Moreso than in a home country, a diaspora community is in some ways willfully created.

Is there a cultural / religious component to this too?

Both factors are involved I think. Sean Connery made this infamous comment back in the 60s "I don't think there is anything particularly wrong in hitting a woman, though I don't recommend you do it the same way that you hit a man." But atleast he didn't write a book endorsing the subject like this imam loser.

i think the most predictive issue is economic/social power imbalance.

I wonder if it's the relative gap or the absolute status of the woman (i.e. her lack of other opportunities). My guess is the latter, not the former.

Yet literacy by itself is neutral. The ability to read by itself tells you nothing about a person's views on moral conduct. If literacy is a marker for access to food or jobs, or from freedom from oppression, then litercy means something. Otherwise, its a flawed assumptions that people need to be able to read in order to behave according to a moral code that prevents violence against vulnerable parties

Yes, the ability to read in itself means nothing. How literacy (as Ennis states in post #21, both men and women) translates into economic opportunities where one needs to use literate skills as part of their livelyhood (blue collar vs. white collar) is why the urban-rural divide also makes sense to me. Urban economies are far more dynamic and require skills where literacy plays a big role in the quality of economic opportunities available to you.

With economics isolated (say you're only looking at middle class and rich people of all races), domestic abuse rates will plummet, but those who engage in such behavior may have cultural reasons/power more at the root cause, rather than being poor and undereducated.

With regards to the question on domestic abuse sustained by men, I read somewhere men were more likely to be abused verbally/psychologically (not physically). This makes sense too, since women do not have the same physical characteristics as men. The ability to deploy abusive tools, tipping the power balance into your favor would cater to each's strengths.

Why skirt the effect of culture and patriarchy at all? If education and economic status are the key factors, how can we justify the abuse cases in silicon valley among South Asians? The profile is middle class, educated and fairly well to do and the reasons are sometimes as flippant as using the phone to call a family member or wanting to learn driving or not making idlis for breakfast. I do not have statistics at hand but I am sure you can get them from Maithri or Narika (two organizations in the Bay area that help women affected by abuse and violence), but I have heard several stories - how about we ask each other just to see how many of us have heard of domestic violence being perpetuated in our circles?

I'd like to address this because I have experienced the same frustration. Education doesn't necessarily always help a man combat tendencies towards domestic violence if the environment he lives in makes it OK for him to be a batterer. I know someone personally who is going thru a divorce where she is educated as is her husband and he has lived here his whole life and he was constantly beating her and if not mentally abusing her everyday. This man held a job on wall street.

The thing I have come to realize is that it was happening in a home where his parents made it OK for him to be that way and he grew up in an environment where he simply was not taught to respect a woman. There is also socioeconomic power he had over here where he held the cards to her getting a greencard so she was at his mercy and it went to his head. I know several other such situations where it blows your mind that a man who is educated and part of the average middle class society and from the west would do this. I can't help but feel like it's poor upbringing.

However this is where I beg to differ with you. This is also true if the man is white or black or yellow if he has grown up in an environment that doesn't check his behavior.

....it wasn't easy and most people within the community kept talking about how there might be 'two sides to teh story' and how the guys seemed so respectable, etc, etc. Unless we acknowledge the patriarchy and the chauvinism in our culture and recognize that such attitudes affect violence against women, we are not really moving the dialogue much.

To be more clear, rather than invest time in changing a willfully created and small community that is resistant to change, why not just move out of that said community and into the wider culture? There are enough indians in the US that staying in a more patriarchal strand of desi culture is not neccessary. I would say in these instances the easiest way to prevent this abuse is helping people transition from isolation to wider interaction. Changing 50-100 families of a diaspora community in a given area to me seems less important than preventing isolation and facilitating more contact with the wider society.

Education doesn't necessarily always help a man combat tendencies towards domestic violence if the environment he lives in makes it OK for him to be a batterer

Education for the woman, on the other hand, reduces DV by allowing her to leave if she gets hit.

[I realize that we agree on both points, I'm just emphasizing them]

Thanks South Asian Woman. I know of a few DV cases involving highly-educated desi couples (both male and female are educated). I think there is even more underreporting in such circles than there is generally because of the stigma associated with DV.

I think it might be a bit simplistic to tie domestic violence to economic status. Lower status groups sometimes have more female-friendly customs than higher status ones, both in South Asia and elsewhere. Dalit and tribal groups often have fairly relaxed attitudes towards marital breakdown as well as less emphasis on patrilineality and patrilocality. There may be cases where an urban, well-to-do family that has shelled out shitloads of money for dowries will encourage their daughters to suck it up, while an adivasi family might not.

i will offer a personal story. my father slapped my mother in 1975 for criticizing his mother. she moved out and went back to her father's house. my father had to beg her to come back. if my mother hadn't had a family with resources to take her in, what would have happened?

Any rationale for choosing the countries that they did to poll?

Unless we acknowledge the patriarchy and the chauvinism in our culture and recognize that such attitudes affect violence against women, we are not really moving the dialogue much.

Patriarchy and Chauvanism are very vague terms. What deep seated aspects of our culture do you think should be modified? and how would that curtail violence? I'm definitely in the economic/social stance.

"Culture" and "religion" are not about to change unless on the order of decades. In a diaspora, where most of us are debating from, one can be more fluid about such things, and in my opinion this should be fostered. Let's face it that we are not about to change the "culture" and "religion" of South Asia, especially from the diaspora.

Due to the religious nature of Jainism, DV is uncommon in our community.
It does occur, but the % is probably miniscule compared to the whole society.

"To be more clear, rather than invest time in changing a willfully created and small community that is resistant to change, why not just move out of that said community and into the wider culture? There are enough indians in the US that staying in a more patriarchal strand of desi culture is not neccessary. I would say in these instances the easiest way to prevent this abuse is helping people transition from isolation to wider interaction. Changing 50-100 families of a diaspora community in a given area to me seems less important than preventing isolation and facilitating more contact with the wider society."

Sahej,

I agree completely that we should not just think of certain communities when we think of domestic violence -- of course this happens across all races - I just feel that we sometimes take the 'model minority' idea and apply it to DV i.e. saying that it doesn't happen more in our community because we are more literate/better educated...all I am saying is that its not necessarily true. Literacy and scoial status sometimes aren't the best indicators of moral behavior but an environment that encourages patriarchy and chauvinism might just be a reason for peopel to think that they can treat women badly. Also we are attributing way more agency to women in some situations when we talk about moving them away from isolation.....even with social networks and organizations in place, South Asian women don't easily talk about the abuse that they face..and this is where patriarchy and cultural expectations come in -- its very difficult for many women from the South Asian community to seek help and get out regardless of their level of education and socioeconomic status.

Good point. Another point to add, violence is an extreme end product, that is surely unjustifiable in any context. However, it makes sense to attempt to investigate root cause for problematic marriages, irrespective of whether they are violent or not. If there's any reformation that needs to take place, it's a culture which forces these male female unions - thereby creating stress conditions so high to bring certain awful, misguided people to the point of violence.

And for any cultural/society-wide change to take place, both men and women must agree to it, and support it. And who perpetuates the forced/arranged/assisted marriage system more than anyone?

forced/arranged/assisted marriage system

What's the connection between arranged marriages and DV?

Education for the woman, on the other hand, reduces DV by allowing her to leave if she gets hit.

I agree. It also has a domino effect in terms of changing attitudes in her children and immediate family. Send a boy to school and he will learn. Send a girl to school and the whole family learns.

Regarding domestic violence - growing up, I witnessed thousands of different incidents where directly or indirectly a boy gets preferential treatment. Sometimes its blatant putdowns and some times its subtle messages girls get about the in evitability of their future roles as wives and mothers.

While this exists to some extent everywhere, its a bigger problem in India. This lack of education and enpowerment delegates women to a subsidary role in most communities. Some communities have disproportionately high problems with in equality of women. Like Amba mentioned, this is absent in most lower classes among rural communities( atleast as per my personal experience). I think this is mainly because women play a signifcant role in a family's earnings giving them more power.

I think my own personal experiences contributed towards me being sort of a feminist now.

South Asian Woman,

I agree completely that we should not just think of certain communities when we think of domestic violence -- of course this happens across all races - I just feel that we sometimes take the 'model minority' idea and apply it to DV i.e. saying that it doesn't happen more in our community because we are more literate/better educated...all I am saying is that its not necessarily true. Literacy and scoial status sometimes aren't the best indicators of moral behavior but an environment that encourages patriarchy and chauvinism might just be a reason for peopel to think that they can treat women badly. Also we are attributing way more agency to women in some situations when we talk about moving them away from isolation.....even with social networks and organizations in place, South Asian women don't easily talk about the abuse that they face..and this is where patriarchy and cultural expectations come in -- its very difficult for many women from the South Asian community to seek help and get out regardless of their level of education and socioeconomic status.

To me you've got three things rolled up into this.

One is the model minority myth wherein affluence = good moral behavior. Thats a problem in itself

And then you've got it seems like social isolation

And third is desi patriarchy. Which by itself is dreadful and seems to equate women with property.

Thats a very complex mix and my point is that I don't think attacking this from the angle of the encouraging less social isolation is easiest. The other two things are deeply imbedded in society. The affluence = good moral character myth is a part of US and Indian society. And the women as property noxious idea is something in Indian society we are not likely to change from the Diaspora. But agencies like the ones you cited seem able to move people from these noxious but small environments. Thats my quibble with what you said originally. Other than that, DV is horrible in all cases, as is all violence done against the more vulnerable. All such actions demean all of us as people.

South Asian Woman:

Literacy and social status sometimes aren't the best indicators of moral behavior but an environment that encourages patriarchy and chauvinism might just be a reason for people to think that they can treat women badly.

Exactly. Literacy plays a big role in spreading awareness about DV....but it can't be directly used as a measure of DV.
We used to have a maid (back in India). She worked in 4-5 homes and earned appreciably higher than what her husband did. She was not educated while her husband had a high school diploma. This lack of education did not diminish her "bargaining power" in the relationship. She never took any shit from her husband and occasionally confronted him.

* don't think* should be *do think*

This is painful to put down, but in light of some of the comments, which seem to want to relegate DV to the realm of the poor and ill-educated, I should tell this. My mother was abused by my father on several occasions. She has a B.A. and had a good job, my father was a successful chem engineer. She didn't leave him because of me, and because of cultural expectations. She's a proud, independent and very liberated woman (for a desi woman of her generation), so if she didn't leave, I imagine plenty don't. When I turned eighteen, she divorced him. There are a lot of reasons women stay in bad relationships besides lack of money/education.

"forced/arranged/assisted marriage system

What's the connection between arranged marriages and DV?"

I concede it's tenuous, but I contend that arranged marriages are problematic in that they put two people in the same room together, before they are able to think of anyone else but themselves. This is likely to create an environment that is ripe for violence, assuming the person has a tendancy towards violence (taking into account their economic status, predispositions, etc..)

To me you've got three things rolled up into this.

One is the model minority myth wherein affluence = good moral behavior. Thats a problem in itself

And then you've got it seems like social isolation

And third is desi patriarchy. Which by itself is dreadful and seems to equate women with property.

Thats a very complex mix and my point is that I don't think attacking this from the angle of the encouraging less social isolation is easiest. The other two things are deeply imbedded in society. The affluence = good moral character myth is a part of US and Indian society. And the women as property noxious idea is something in Indian society we are not likely to change from the Diaspora. But agencies like the ones you cited seem able to move people from these noxious but small environments. Thats my quibble with what you said originally. Other than that, DV is horrible in all cases, as is all violence done against the more vulnerable. All such actions demean all of us as people.

Sahej,

I agree that there are several issues that are rolled up in one when we talk about DV in the South Asian community - and I in fact think that Narika and Maitri and such organizations provide tremendous service by trying to help the women but I've talked to some of people who volunteer there - its very, very difficult to get women to leave or reduce their isolation because they fear being ostracized for the rest of their life - either by their own families or by the communities. The economic issue that Razib's mother sitaution highlighted plays an important role too - if a woman has nowhere to go to, what does she do? There's also an issue of overt and covert power. I had a close friend in an arranged marriage with children who had a very menacing and prone-to-anger husband where she tried to leave 2-3 times but eventually decided to stay because she said that his family would 'find her anyway' and then her life would be hell. Again, this is an engineer here in the US. Her husband's family while very well educated is also extremely patriarchal.

Where I disagree with you is to say that we cannot affect patriarchy or change it in the community -- I think speaking out about it and having more open discussions help atleast in acknowledging the connection between DV and patriarchy issues in the community. If we have more discussions within the community, the next time a woman tries to leave people may understand it better or be more encouraging... - that along with the wonderful work done by several organizations should help with bringing about change.

This is painful to put down, but in light of some of the comments, which seem to want to relegate DV to the realm of the poor and ill-educated, I should tell this. My mother was abused by my father on several occasions. She has a B.A. and had a good job, my father was a successful chem engineer. She didn't leave him because of me, and because of cultural expectations. She's a proud, independent and very liberated woman (for a desi woman of her generation), so if she didn't leave, I imagine plenty don't. When I turned eighteen, she divorced him. There are a lot of reasons women stay in bad relationships besides lack of money/education.

DQ I'm very sorry to hear that and for what its worth personally I admire you for being a strong, proud and independent woman yourself.

Where I disagree with you is to say that we cannot affect patriarchy or change it in the community -- I think speaking out about it and having more open discussions help atleast in acknowledging the connection between DV and patriarchy issues in the community. If we have more discussions within the community, the next time a woman tries to leave people may understand it better or be more encouraging... - that along with the wonderful work done by several organizations should help with bringing about change.

Yeah I agree with this and think in general our societies are healthiest when we dialogue and allow the good forces within our communities to access problem areas. Its like allowing a wound to breath.

Another problem I believe with DV is that, it's probably hard for anyone in a DV situation to leave, regardless of class, ethnicity, or whatever else

Growing up, the other Indian people my parents knew were almost exclusively Doctors and professionals. That didn't prevent us from hearing the whispers about how so and so beat his wife and kids. Furthermore, I saw the same thing among my white and black friends. Morality and wealth have almost no connection. The same is true for education; often times the only good that the education does is teach the criminal how to get away with his crimes. I don't think it has some sort of ability to impart intrinsic goodness. The only thing that can stop violence against women is the prevention of violence as a method of conflict resolution, period. If we teach our sons to punch the bully and drop bombs on the terrorist, is it any wonder that he resorts to his fists to settle domestic arguments as well? We live in a violent world, and DV is symptomatic of that fact.

Also, I don't think Indian-American society is nearly so patriarchal as people seem to be saying. Most of the second-gen people I know and younger immigrants have equal partnerships where both members are educated and work. It seems to me that Indian-American woman have as many opportunities as other American women; perhaps more of them just choose to embrace motherhood rather than the workplace. My mother and grandmother are both physicians; if anything my grandmothers were more progressive than my mother, living in India. My mother, living in America, made the choice to spend more time at home and less time working because she viewed American kids as growing up in a cultural vacuum without much in the way of parenting.

Thanks very much for the kind words Sahej.

To be fair to my father, he was under a lot of personal stress and hated his marriage too - he stayed in the marriage because that's what good Indian men do. Men get screwed over by social isolation and patriarchy also.

The only thing that can stop violence against women is the prevention of violence as a method of conflict resolution, period. If we teach our sons to punch the bully and drop bombs on the terrorist, is it any wonder that he resorts to his fists to settle domestic arguments as well?

Sorry, but this is a really bullshit anecdote. I grew up playing with GI Joe, have fought back bullies, been one, etc. I think dropping bombs on terrorists is perfectly ok.

But there is no way in hell I'd condone or conduct domestic violence. Nor do many who believe dropping bombs on terrorists or fighting back a bully engage in such activities.

Also as a general note, I don't think any one here is saying DV doesn't happen in communities outside the poor and illiterate, and just because of lower rates it isn't a problem. Only that the instances and rates are far higher in those. It is a readily quantifiable value that one can see, as Razib states, is inversely correlated to DV.

if my mother hadn't had a family with resources to take her in, what would have happened?

Razib unfortunately this is the core of the issue. Little to no recourse for the woman. And this is to back up what DQ mentioned. My mother is a successful surgeon and when she divorced my father her parents threatened to disown her if she didn't make it work! In fact they did not support her decision till several years later. Yeah they came around whatever but if it is possible in the most progressive desi family I have known I'd hate to imagine what would happen for women with lesser opportunities.

In my defence, I only beat them all because I love them so much. Also, I really really love pavement dwellers.

If we teach our sons to punch the bully and drop bombs on the terrorist, is it any wonder that he resorts to his fists to settle domestic arguments as well? We live in a violent world, and DV is symptomatic of that fact.

I disagree. DV is symptomatic of needing control and having no respect for the other half and less about simply acting out one's violent tendencies.

Punching a bully and dropping bombs on a terrorist has positive connotations to it, it corrolates with protection and honor. DV is NOT the same thing.

Also, I don't think Indian-American society is nearly so patriarchal as people seem to be saying.

this is very true.

he stayed in the marriage because that's what good Indian men do. Men get screwed over by social isolation and patriarchy also.

I'm convinced, the system is geared to cause suffering. It's awful that such an ancient culture with a history of amending itself (in a philosophical sense) has got this component of life terribly wrong.

a minor note, i think controlling for variables divorce is more acceptable among muslims (at least in northern india). divorce is not thought of highly, but it is not unknown in my extended family in bangladesh (again, let me note that all the women in these circumstances had familial or personal resources). guju, don't respond to bidi, that's just feeding the assertion-monster.

Razib and Dharma Queen,

Am really appreciative that the two of you have shared such deeply personal stories on this topic -- thanks a lot -- it takes a lot of courage to do that -- also, I think in sharing such stories you dispel the notion that 'these things happen to people we don't know' ...that was my point when I started talking about sharing stories -- for all of us SM readers here, I hope that this makes us think about DV at a more personal level than to say that it happens to other people - and I sincerely hope it makes us more sensitive so that when we see someone going through it we reach out in any which way we can. Thanks again.

Wives know how to push their husbands buttons. We have to take into consideration the amount of provocation. Some of us steak eating, beer drinking men can only take that much bs/provocation from our wives before we lash out physically. I think we focus too much on the beatings and not enough on the provocation.

Naipaul's writings imply that beating your wife was the first task a married man was expected to embark on. It's hair-raising when read today.

I wasn't trying to lessen the importance of Domestic Violence- I just have seen it happen myself, and I personally think it stems from the type of society we live in. it's not simply warfare or school ground fighting; rappers spray girls with alcohol in music videos like they are animals; "Pimps" are suddenly someone to be admired instead of loathed (See the Oscar for best song last year); we objectify women and glorify violence at every threshold of our popular culture, but then are shocked when it reaches home.

Razib, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if I said that Violence andobjectification of women were serious problems in our society leading to DV. I'm just trying to point out that the standards of what is acceptable in the public discourse are shockingly low. I would agree w/Jane that DV has something to do with control; everyone knows a real man would never hit a woman. We all can agree on that. My point was that a real man (or woman) should never feel the need to hit anyone. Violence as a means of conflict resolution is just a bad idea, and breeds a violent culture.

DQ. Thank you for your moving personal story. I do want to respond in a somewhat academic vein to one part of it, though:

She didn't leave him because of me, and because of cultural expectations. She's a proud, independent and very liberated woman (for a desi woman of her generation), so if she didn't leave, I imagine plenty don't. When I turned eighteen, she divorced him. There are a lot of reasons women stay in bad relationships besides lack of money/education.

The fact that she had an education, and therefore a profession of her own, allowed her to leave when she chose to do so. You're right that people stay for reasons other that financial necessity. But none of those lock a person in quite as strongly as the inability to survive financially outside the marriage.

HMF said:

What's the connection between arranged marriages and DV?" I concede it's tenuous, but I contend that arranged marriages are problematic in that they put two people in the same room together, before they are able to think of anyone else but themselves. This is likely to create an environment that is ripe for violence, assuming the person has a tendancy towards violence (taking into account their economic status, predispositions, etc..)

I think you're making the assumption that all bad things (or things you feel are bad) about desi marriage must go together. I'm afraid I still don't see the logic. You might be right in as much as arranged marriages might be harder to break than love marriages. However, it's not clear that choosing your partner leads to a less violent situation than having one chosen for you (or having the selection constrained).

This beautiful wisdom imparted to mankind rings as true today as it did 1400 years back:

From the Noble Quran,

Verses 4:34-36 "(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Ah! What beautiful wisdom. Here is the playbook for all of us to follow.

Wives know how to push their husbands buttons. We have to take into consideration the amount of provocation. Some of us steak eating, beer drinking men can only take that much bs/provocation from our wives before we lash out physically. I think we focus too much on the beatings and not enough on the provocation.

Brother Vinay: Are you a follower of the beloved prophet as well?

As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);

At the same time any suppposed words of wisdom which put violence as option should be criticized.

No. The physical punishment is the last step in the discipline process. Admonishment and couch are the first steps. Also the provocation here is pretty serious - disloyalty, ill-conduct for example talking back!

Brother Vinay: Are you a follower of the beloved prophet as well?

However, it's not clear that choosing your partner leads to a less violent situation than having one chosen for you (or having the selection constrained).

Violence, I'd argue, is a extreme response to frustration. In a "domestic" context, your brain is processing all kinds of negative emotions of a SEEMINGLY INTERMINABLE SITUATION (ever been in a bad job, and want to leave, but know you can't?) These negative emotions need a way to be dissippated and I'd say, violent acts - (whether it be breaking things, throwing things, inflicting boddily harm, etc...) do exactly that. it's not justified, it's not right, but that's a sensible identification of a root cause, IMO.

If a marriage partner AND TIMING is chosen, and the situation turns south, is it that far fetched to assume the tension would be compounded with resentment that the participants were placed there against their will? Or at the very least, were coaxed, cajoled, chided, guilted, etc... into it? Again all this doesn't necessarily imply violence. My assertion is that a person with already pre-existing violent tendencies would find more reason to act out those tendencies given a higher stress atmosphere.

Also the provocation here is pretty serious - disloyalty, ill-conduct for example talking back!

Ah! What beautiful wisdom. Here is the playbook for all of us to follow. Brother Vinay: Are you a follower of the beloved prophet as well?

AMD standing in for Spoorlam?

AMD standing in for Spoorlam?

not nessicarily a rabid sentiment. all of these religious books say really warped out, screwed up stuff. its just not considered right to point that out, because they are all "holy"

AMD standing in for Spoorlam?

I am a poor and lame imitation of Spoorlam. He is the master.

I wonder if non desi Muslim men ever use the Quran to justify their violence against women. From what I can tell, that excuse does not have any social acceptance in the desi Muslim community.

I wonder if non desi Muslim men ever use the Quran to justify their violence against women.

Wait do men actually justify DV against women or they just do under the guise that they won't be put to task for it?

Wait do men actually justify DV against women or they just do under the guise that they won't be put to task for it?

a little form column a, a little from column b. sometimes people just think i can get away with this. then, when they go to church/mosque/etc. and hear things about how they should be good, etc. they need to reconcile their actions with their belief in whatever the religion says, so they use these warped out passages from these books to dream up a justification as warped out as any other belief.

form

from

Also one other factor that needs to be recognized is that society tends to favor rationale that keeps the health of the society sometimes at the cost of the individual. Whether the rationale does what it intends is another question. But this factor is a driving force for affected parties in tolerating DV like in the example of DQ.

It might be difficult to convince women who voluntarily become party to DV, society should therefore eradicate any justification that men may use for violence against women.

I don't think there is a single reason why DV happens. It exists in affluent families and also in poor families, though the extent differs. To summarize,

1. Some guys are violent by nature or disposed to violence easily (more violence in the society, more violence in the family)
2. Some guys do not know how to communicate except using violence (this is the case where provocations do matter)
3. Some guys think they can get away with physical abuse for one of the following reasons

And the reason womens chose to stay in the marriage
a) Lack of financial independence for woman
b) Lack of societal support for divorced woman
c) Existence of children
d) Lack of emotional strength to live alone

In South Asia, a & b I suppose are bigger reasons why DV is prevalent. In US, c&d are bigger reasons than a & b and DV is less prevalent.

My parents had lots of tensions and fights. Now that I am married, I have to make a special effort not to resort tensions with my wife with violence. I may not be always successful :(. HELP

"My parents had lots of tensions and fights. Now that I am married, I have to make a special effort not to resort tensions with my wife with violence. I may not be always successful :(. HELP"

Another Guy,

I don't think you are alone in trying very hard to not repeat scripts...I read somewhere about how children who see DV tend to repeat it as adults if they don't seek help. I think Narika has a men's outreach program if you are in the Bay Area - it sounds like you are at the point where you are trying hard not to repeat your parent's experience -- which is commendable....Don't know if it will be useful but Narika has a helpline 1-800-215-7308. Maybe they can suggest solutions. Also, there are a lot of resources online I think if you would like to seek some form of intervention so you don't do something that you will regret....

Marriage research (and conflict resolution) now classify marriage into three primary categories: supportive (affirmative) marriages, volatile marriages and disengaging marriages. They all work, so long as positive contribution to the marriage is 5X larger than the negative expectations. This assumes marriage where divorce (separation) is a possibility.

Marriage starts to get inequitable when you addin factors of financial control, where one partner is the provider. It is this power situation, combined with a violent tendency, that cause DV. And, I don't think that alimony is the answer, because I think it encourages men to stay in a bad marriage to avoid a financially crippling situation. So, even in situations where divorce is the right answer, I think people hang in the "bad" situation to avoid various consequences.

Also, like DQ mentioned, a lot of people hang in marriages because of the children...both men and women.

if you are a short or normal sized brown dude marry a tall nordic chik who you can't push around :) there are other side benefits aside from constraining tendencies to evil....

It is a travesty that Bangladesh has such a high incidence of DV.

I encourage you all to check out the YWCA USA's Week Without Violence information (www.ywca.org). The YWCA has been really influential over the years in pushing legislation that provides legal protection for DV victims in the USA

DV has a lot to do with power and control-- victims often cannot leave their abusers due to a complex guilt pattern that emerges. A majority of the students I work with in the Bay Area have parents who are extremely abusive, with many fathers physically abusing mothers and children. Many of my girls are in relationships where boyfriends are also abusive-- the cycle of violence and power continues in a horrific way. I worked at an orphanage for abused children in Costa Rica for a time-- there is nothing so awful as to try and comfort an 8 month-old baby who has bruises and welts on both arms and legs.

The mere access to education does not free a victim-- the ability to leave the abusive situation and recover in a safe environment is extremely difficult and requires tremendous support.

DV is a social disease that can be cured if we are willing to take a stand for one another.

(Next), refuse to share their beds,

Hmm, AMFD, it's funny how men seem to skip over THIS piece of advice...

but seem to follow the admonishment-and-beating doctrine so well.

Big ups to anyone who spoke out about DV and divorce issues from their personal lives, that's a really hard thing to do but it's given others more insight into the issue and information = power :)

No one has commented here about how reporting can affect accuracy. In more "educated" communities, domestic violence may go less reported and even better hidden. So it's hard to know whether there is actually a correlation between education/social status and domestic violence--if anything, it clouds the issue because upper class and more educated folks are more likely (in my opinion) to keep things under wraps.

Two myths, taken from (I know, I know) a prosecutor's web site:

MYTH #1: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AND IS RARE.

FACT: National studies estimate that 3 to 4 million women are beaten each year in our country. A study conducted in 1995 found that 31% of women surveyed admitted to having been physically assaulted by a husband or boyfriend. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in our country, and the FBI estimates that a woman is beaten every 15 seconds. Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by partners or ex-partners and 1,500 women are murdered as a result of domestic violence each year in the United States.

MYTH #2: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OCCURS ONLY IN POOR, UNEDUCATED AND MINORITY FAMILIES.

FACT: Studies of domestic violence consistently have found that battering occurs among all types of families, regardless of income, profession, region, ethnicity, educational level or race. However, the fact that lower income victims and abusers are over-represented in calls to police, battered women's shelters and social services may be due to a lack of other resources.

Ennis:

DQ. Thank you for your moving personal story. I do want to respond in a somewhat academic vein to one part of it, though:

She didn't leave him because of me, and because of cultural expectations. She's a proud, independent and very liberated woman (for a desi woman of her generation), so if she didn't leave, I imagine plenty don't. When I turned eighteen, she divorced him. There are a lot of reasons women stay in bad relationships besides lack of money/education.

The fact that she had an education, and therefore a profession of her own, allowed her to leave when she chose to do so. You're right that people stay for reasons other that financial necessity. But none of those lock a person in quite as strongly as the inability to survive financially outside the marriage.

Agreed that a good family support system and education helps (though not always) a woman to get out. It certainly helped me get out of an abusive marriage. However, said education/support system didn't prevent the actual abuse from taking place. We're talking about the occurrence of domestic violence here, which seems to transcend education/status/breeding. You're muddling two issues.

However, said education/support system didn't prevent the actual abuse from taking place. We're talking about the occurrence of domestic violence here, which seems to transcend education/status/breeding. You're muddling two issues.

Nope - I agree entirely. I've said several times in the comments before this that education (of the man) does not prevent DV from happening, however education (of the woman) gives her a route to self-sufficiency and allows her to leave if DV occurs. Read back, I don't know how I could be any clearer here.

For example, see what I wrote in comment #34.

Agreed that a good family support system and education helps (though not always) a woman to get out. It certainly helped me get out of an abusive marriage. However, said education/support system didn't prevent the actual abuse from taking place. We're talking about the occurrence of domestic violence here, which seems to transcend education/status/breeding. You're muddling two issues.

Ismat I don't think anyone disagrees. However don't you believe that with increased awareness and levels of education the rate at which DV occurs goes down? One cannot disregard the relationship of awareness and education to DV. By saying it doesn't matter if a man is educated DV still occurs is a bit defeatist. It's a societal ill that can be cured with the right education and attitudes and support from society. Don't you think so? What is your take on it?

Ennis, OK, I missed that comment. Agreed. But still, while education helps a woman with the resources she needs to get out, it is not necessarily a motivating factor in getting out. Furthermore, just because a woman is educated doesn't mean that she is less susceptible to abuse or that the abuse doesn't happen. In fact, I've noticed that other factors play a stronger role in whether a woman eventually gets out. It was certainly true in my case--and I was a women's studies major who volunteered at DV shelters before marriage!

JOAT:

Ismat I don't think anyone disagrees. However don't you believe that with increased awareness and levels of education the rate at which DV occurs goes down? One cannot disregard the relationship of awareness and education to DV. By saying it doesn't matter if a man is educated DV still occurs is a bit defeatist. It's a societal ill that can be cured with the right education and attitudes and support from society. Don't you think so? What is your take on it?

I don't think it's defeatist at all. What type of education are we talking about? A man can have a PhD and still abuse his wife--how much enlightenment did that schooling get him? (And I'm not pulling this example out of the air. Or, like my ex-husband, have a master's degree and make heaps of money. We really need to focus on a different kind of education--one that must begin in the homes from both mothers and fathers--that abuse is not OK. It's societal attitudes toward women and power that need to change, and I'm all for educating our sons and daughters about that.

Ennis, OK, I missed that comment. Agreed. But still, while education helps a woman with the resources she needs to get out, it is not necessarily a motivating factor in getting out. Furthermore, just because a woman is educated doesn't mean that she is less susceptible to abuse or that the abuse doesn't happen. In fact, I've noticed that other factors play a stronger role in whether a woman eventually gets out. It was certainly true in my case--and I was a women's studies major who volunteered at DV shelters before marriage!

Agreed, Ismat. I'm not saying that educated women never stay in abusive marriages. Again, I acknowledged as much to DQ. However, educated women who have an ability to work on their own have options that women in poor rural Bangladesh do not.

When we look at the very first chart, we see a lot of variation between countries, as well as between urban and rural population centers. I think the big reason why some places have more DV and others have less is because the places with less are those where women are more financially independent, and those with more are the places where women have no options.

I acknowledge your individual story and many others like it. However, that still doesn't mean that we don't see broad inter-societal variation that must be explained. My explanation for those big trends has to do with differences in female financial independence. Women in societies where it is hard for them to leave abusive marriages will experience more abuse than those who live in societies where they have more options, and therefore are more likely to leave.

For example, you could leave. You weren't trapped in the marriage with the awareness that if you left, you would have no access to land, and therefore no food to feed yourself or your children. And in the end, you did.

It's a hypothesis, but I think a fairly sound one.

good summation ennis. observing a trendline does not negate deviations from the trendline. observing deviations from a trendline does not negate the trend.

Ennis, you make good points. But how do we measure the intangible aspect of shame/societal/cultural expectations and how it affects whether a woman leaves? I mean, what if she can take care of herself financially but still feels the burden of social and cultural expectations, thereby keeping her in the marriage?

I understand and respect your hypothesis, but I don't know of a way to test it against the issue of shame/family/"staying for the kids" etc. So if she's educated, stays regardless of said education but due to other factors, how is education really affecting the occurrence?

I'm not saying I have an answer, just posing what I think is a very valid concern. And if it sounds muddled, I apologize--it's the end of the work day and my brain is fried--I need to get out of here!

What type of education are we talking about?

My general assumption is that education opens one's world up wider allowing for progression and new experiences that allows a man to be more aware of his actions. Because there is a direct relationship with higher education and lower DV occurance. But I absolutely agree that education to respect women begins in the home.

Because there is a direct relationship with higher education and lower DV occurance.

Where is this info from? And does it take into account underreporting?

ismat, ceteris paribus. there are multiple independent variables at work here. ennis is focusing in the most tangible and quantifiable aspect, and i think that is a good place to start because palliation seems relatively straightforward. education is not a sufficient condition for banishing the problem, but it may be a mitigating one and a necessary one.

Or probably just as important, having financial options for women. It would be interesting to use a matching algorithm to compare DV in areas where G