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

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.

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 Grameen has operations and those where it does not. Hopefully the ability of women to earn money independently gives them new options.

Ismat:

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?

That's a good question. However, most of the third world countries in the survey would appear to be fairly traditional. I don't know if the burden of shame and guilt is more or less in Peru vs. Bangladesh.

I also wanted to focus on the most concrete steps we could take, as Razib points out. It's harder to rewire an entire culture (let alone multiple cultures around the world), it's easier to empower women with education and let them do it.

education is not a sufficient condition for banishing the problem, but it may be a mitigating one and a necessary one.

Agreed. The reason why education gets brought up again and again is straightforward. Poor people (where incidents are higher or for lack of a better word, a hotspot) are poorly educated on the norm. To push said high rate to levels with middle or upper class society, upward economic mobility is necessary. Upward economic mobility almost certainly accompanied with better education, not that all rich/middle class people are well educated (self made entreprenuers for example). But poor people are definitely NOT well educated, bar the educated ones that make a conscious choice to live a life a poverty for other goals.

Shame and family honor are more important in communities in which community itself is more important. For example, religious american communities versus secular urban communities. I think raising education levels for women is useful for allowing women to leave abusive situation, and on the other end, programs should target the devaluation of women and vulnerable communities as well. That way you get at the other side of the coin, why these behaviors occur in the first place

Some stats about income and race here
Some stats about immigrants and DV here
Other stats about Poverty & DV here & here

I'm sorry that I'm posting this anonymously, and I hope you will forgive me as what I'm about to write is of a more personal nature. By and large, it is the women in my family who have been far more physically violent than the men (though it has gone both ways). I have grown up seeing almost all of the women in my family, including my mother, respond irrationally to an argument, get hysterical, and then eventually throw things or hit their spouses and/or even themselves. I am most ashamed to admit that I too have exhibited some of these traits in the past; I have hit two boyfriends and have resorted to self-abuse when feeling desperate. I know many women, desi or not, who have hit their boyfriends, but I think it isn't even acknowledged as abuse because a woman can inflict much less harm on a man (assuming she is unassisted). The women I know who have hit their bf's/spouses have varied widely in education and income level. I know that my own family is far too small of a sample size to have any real merit, but because of my own personal experiences with violence, I really question how much woman-on-man violence is overlooked or unseen.

in my family, there are no man to woman DV relationships (to my knowledge). however, the aunties and daughters are argumentative, irrational, throw pots and pans at their spouses, a lot like how "unnamed this time" describes in her family. while this may be slightly off-topic, i think that a lot of the reasoning behind these uneven husband/wife relationships comes from the fact that for many women, the home is one the one place she can be the ruling head. in traditional indian society, she is secondary to her husband/brother/father, but with domestic matters, she is the one in charge of cooking, cleaning, etc. and because of her forced subordination in many arenas, she lets her aggression out on her family. if the women in my family were allowed to be leaders in groups, have a part-time job, and be allowed to be assertive in another manner, i really feel they wouldn't be so harsh and verbally violent with their spouses and/or children.

It is important to distinguish between an isolated incident and systematic abuse. Spouses know how to push each others buttons and given the right conditions it is possible for heated words to be exchanged, objects flying, and less commonly, physical violence of varying degrees. Socioeconomic status and relative imbalance (in education, power) probably account for most of the variability. In the 1980s mumbai, it was de rigeur for husbands in deadend jobs to come drunk and beat their wives. It happened in the house where I lived (with the maid). With economic progress, things should have improved on this front, hopefully. In the circle of family and relatives we havent heard of any serious cases of spousal abuse.. perhaps its more common in some classes and communities than others? Yeah.. I have had my share of incidents with spouse but in a weird way they helped us to understand each other better. A lack of incidents means something is wrong.. perhaps not enough disagreements?

Just a white boy's opinion on the whole subject. I agree with the posts that place the emphasis on power, lack of opportunity (education, jobs, income), and social inequality as the major factors accounting for domestic violence rather than a white versus brown, black versus white issue. Abuse happens on all income and intelligence levels, but ultimately it is about those with power abusing those in positions of vulnerability.

In my opinion there appear to me more opportunities for women in the US, so there is less dependence upon a man as the financial provider and protector. The consequences and repercussions are also more severe in the US, although it was not always the case. We didn't even give women the right to vote until 1920, so it's not like the US has figured out the issue of gender equality.

When you mean education, I hope you include social education i.e. the idea that it is OK for a woman to leave an abusive relationship and be a divorcee. My cousin was an EE engineer and held a stable govt job. She was married to highly educated US returned NRI in one of those meet today, marry next week arranged marriages. The guy turned out to be a psycopathic abuser. While still in India, she wanted to end the relationship and apply for a divorce, but the family and relatives were dead against it. She died in a kitchen accident. The women and men in our family are as educated as they can be. Even my grandmother could read and write english and was well versed in Hindu scriptures. The family is a major fan of Hindu reformers. And did I mention we are south indian. My mother was her lone support in the entire family, who couldn't do much since she was bedridden with illness then. This incident has affected her relationship with her siblings since them.

I am glad that this was raised here. I think DV in the south-asian community is under reported and easily overlooked amongst the din and proclamations of being a model minority.

I find the post attributing stress to be the cause of DV a little flimsy and an easy cop-out.
While researching this recently I found that the following books presented interesting perspective about social, economic and religious factors. Breaking the Earthenware
and Breaking the silence.

It would be interesting to develop this issue further and perhaps invite south asian NGO's working in DV like Manavi.

Does DV include familial violence? For example, I was beat by my dad, and when mum couldn't handle it, by her, finally by my husband. Growing up in Canada, studied in the US (MBA at UCLA), I finally left them all. But, why don't the DV stats include women who were abused by others, including their mate? All had jobs, all had edu-ma-cation, but still did the village-y ways of India not leave them as the people left?

DV is cultural to a large extent. It is certainly influenced by women's lib. in those respective cultures. The machismo societies, south american, desi & asians, their idea of the role of a wife/partner differs vastly from N. America. When I worked for a DV org. in NY the commom thread between these women who reported the abuse was justification or some form of acceptance of DV based on 'cultural norms'. Women who refused to comply with the ADA's prosecuting their cases often had the same complain; in their 'culture' DV wasn't enough reason to break up their family & the constant complain that ADA's don't understand these differences. While education, empowerment and positive female role models in their respective society is certain a factor, IMO culture plays a very big role.

Saira, from the same study:

In Dhaka, among all women, 17% reported physical violence and 8% reported sexual violence by perpetrators other than their partners. For Matlab, the corresponding percentages were 11% and 0.5%. In both sites, perpetrators of physical violence were usually relatives. Among the women in Dhaka who reported sexual violence by non-partners 79% said their abusers were strangers. [Link]

The machismo societies, south american, desi & asians, their idea of the role of a wife/partner differs vastly from N. America.

In Dhaka, among all women, 17% reported physical violence

Check the definition of physical violence they use, also the time scales. I don't recall, but that might explain the discrepancy.

Education makes you a better worker and a more productive, wealthier citizen. It does not make you a better, more moral person.
I spend most of my time around PhD's and aspiring PhD's... and I do not find them to be noticeably braver, kinder or more considerate than anyone else.
A genius-level IQ, a graduate education and a successful law career certainly did not stop my father from beating the hell out of my mother and terrorizing me...

Education makes you a better worker and a more productive, wealthier citizen.

"Yeah, but what about Japan? Japanese society is also very patriarchal and misogynist (heck they have anime that depict gang rapes and violence against women) yet their rates are pretty low"

That word "rate" needs to be qualified. I assume you mean "reported instances"? BTW I hope you aren't linking any chosen form of sexual gratification to DV.

From the limited exposure and experience i've had through the DA's office and social organizations, white women report DV the least. Which ofcourse doesn't mean it's nill in that community, many white women instead use the incident in family court as an aid towards their divorce proceedings. (In order words, many of them just don't sit around for the next time). As to how Japenese women react to the same, I don't know. But I certainly wouldn't compare that society to the Korean or Chinese. Anyways, I was just thinking, I've been to DV trainings at a couple of soc. orgs and once in the DA's office, i've been lectured in school on DV cases by mostly prosecutors but every now & then we have a 'guest' social worker. The one question asked to and answered by all is, causes of DV. The answer now is so predictable, if it's an ADA they will state fear, finances and culture. But if it is a social worker, self esteem will always top her list and then education, finances and perhaps culture. Again, from my personal experience, most of my 'clients' were spanish, black, asians & desis (in that order). Women who often recanted their stories and won't work with ADAs were asian, desi, spanish and black (in that order).

Saira, good for you for 'leaving them all'. Can't begin to imagine the obstacles and pain you've had to overcome, the resilience you must have shown. Thanks for commenting.

Branch Dravidian, thank you too.

Which, when women are educated, gives them more options, and means they're not trapped in a marriage thinking that they'll literally starve if they leave it.

True, if my mother had been better educated, things might have turned out differently. Me and my brother were the first members of her family to attend college.
After 12 years of marriage, she ended up leaving my father anyway. I have no way of knowing whether or not a better resume' would have hastened that decision. I'm no expert on the psychology of abuse, but I've heard of many affluent, educated women who felt that they had no choice and stayed in abusive relationships longer than that.
We didn't starve... but we certainly weren't enjoying life. Of course when things go that badly wrong, it's the kids who suffer the most. And they are the ones with no options...

Silz:

BTW I hope you aren't linking any chosen form of sexual gratification to DV.

That word "rate" needs to be qualified. I assume you mean "reported instances"?

There are two main issues here:

1) What makes a man think it is OK to hit a woman?
2) Why does a woman continue to stay with an abusive man?

The answer to 2) might be lack of education OR support but the answer to 1) is more complex than culture and lack of education.

Check the definition of physical violence they use, also the time scales. I don't recall, but that might explain the discrepancy.

Bengali: I find Japan quite misplaced in this context. I think i'd like to see it within Asian and/or North American context and it may make more sense. Ofcourse I don't discount economics as a factor, not just the personal financial situation of the couple involved but also the nation as a whole. (e.g. Purely govn. resources in ONT seem to surpass the ones I encountered in NYC and thus the decision to leave or stay impacts women accordingly).

As for the 2 questions you posed, I wouldn't venture to respond to the 1st, but to me it is #2 where culture comes in.

On some level I believe that men who are abusive (as in, pattern of abuse) have issues that need to addressed. But a woman (or society) that continues to be in denial and/or accept that situation thus perpetuating the behaviour is IMO influenced to quite a degree by its culture.

i realize that it may be possible to find a very strong correlation between education and income levels to the occurence of domestic abuse. however, when it comes to reporting the abuse, i'd like to know what the correlation is. i have been both sexually and physically abused. i was educated thoroughly to believe that both were criminal. when i was sexually abused, the first thing i did was to report it and stop myself from showering and all the other typical things victims do. when i was physically abused, it took me 6 months to leave the guy who hit me. he hit me twice; once after i woke him up from his sleep. he claimed no memory of it and said that i must have done something to provoke it, because otherwise he never would have hit me. the second time, we were having an all-out fight. i insulted his virility, he slapped me. this was after a few incidents where he threw things at me. it took me so long to leave, because i couldn't help but wonder, was he right? was i doing something to provoke it? as far as i know -- and i think i do, since i know all of his ex-girlfriends -- i am the first woman he has hit. i wanted to believe it was an anomaly, and i started telling myself that maybe there were times when a man hitting me could be justified (though not something i'd want to live with). i don't know. no matter how educated you are (i had sex and violence ed from 5th grade through high school, and hold a BS and MS in a health related field), it's not always easy for victims to understand that it's not their fault.

Unnamed this time,

I completely agree. I was in a relationship where there was physical abuse on both sides. It was not severe, so I convinced myself it was not relevant, and just part of the 'passion' of the relationship. Still, there are scars left from abuse committed both by and against oneself. They mar, terribly, the memory of the love which was shared.

Unnamed this time,

i have grown up seeing almost all of the women in my family, including my mother, respond irrationally to an argument, get hysterical, and then eventually throw things or hit their spouses and/or even themselves. I am most ashamed to admit that I too have exhibited some of these traits in the past; I have hit two boyfriends

i insulted his virility,

Hmmm. Not a good idea. "Fight fair" and all that.

BUT:

i started telling myself that maybe there were times when a man hitting me could be justified

It's NEVER justified. But you have to make sure you simultaneously maintain the higher moral ground too. Don't "fight fire with fire", and don't try to push the other party's buttons, especially if you know that doing so is going to provoke a violent backlash from him. Of course, some men will be nasty enough that they will hit others regardless of whether they have any real justification for it, but it's best not to give them any further ammunition in this matter.

he claimed no memory of it

The guy possibly suffered some kind of psychotic episode.

If you've grown up seeing the women in your family behave in certain negative ways, then I think it's extremely important that you try to break the cycle by not perpetuating such behaviour yourself (if you really do think that you may have played a partial role in precipitating your own negative experiences -- only you can really answer that, at least on SM, since I don't know you personally offline). There's no justification for a man ever hitting a woman anyway, but you have to ensure that "in the heat of the moment" you're not deliberately trying to push the guy as far as possible to see if he'll "break" and lash out violently at you.

It's a difficult subject and needs a lot of self-reflection and self-analysis from both parties concerned. But it's heartening to see that you've been doing all this already, and I think you're very brave for putting your thoughts down here on SM. I hope that you manage to find a man with whom you can have a genuinely healthy, loving relationship. This will help you to "heal", and of course it'll also enable you to put the past behind you once and for all. Don't worry -- I'm sure the right guy is out there for you somewhere :)

Bengali,

1) What makes a man think it is OK to hit a woman?

Along with the various answers that have already been given by various commenters above (especially the role "culture" plays in the perceived acceptability of such behaviour), I think it's also basically to do with the same kind of attitude that makes a person think it's OK to bully and/or hit anyone perceived to be in some kind of weaker position to them. "Soft targets", people regarded as being unable to fight back, scapegoats to be used as "punching bags" for their own frustrations/insecurities/hangups etc.

It's a coward's mentality, basically.

Ennis & Branch Dravidian,

Education makes you a better worker and a more productive, wealthier citizen. It does not make you a better, more moral person.....I spend most of my time around PhD's and aspiring PhD's... and I do not find them to be noticeably braver, kinder or more considerate than anyone else.

I have to strongly agree with the above. Higher levels of education and affluence can sometimes have the opposite effect -- they can make the people concerned very arrogant, and this kind of egotism can fuel malicious behaviour towards others. South Asian culture in particular can frequently be very ego-driven as we all know, so this can be a factor amongst desis too. I'm sure that in many cases, the people concerned use their intelligence to a) find ways to perform mental acrobatics enabling them to rationalise/justify their own negative behaviour, along with "blaming the victim", and b) find ways to "cover up their tracks" so that they manage to get away with it. Smarter people can be very good at manipulating others and playing political games, after all.

To paraphrase what someone else once said, "Having money and education doesn't necessarily stop a person from being a jerk. It just means he's/she's a rich educated jerk."

However, I would also say that sometimes higher levels of education & affluence prevent people from committing domestic violence -- not necessarily because they are nicer people, but because they have much more to lose if they are prosecuted for it. Especially if their activities become publicly known.

I think it is also important to note that abuse does not mean the man has to hit you. Abuse can often be in the form of emotional and mental torture and hurt and is much harder to prove than physical abuse. Physical abuse is real tangible and leaves marks. Emotional abuse does not. And it happens to everyone.

Unfortunately it happened to me and I'm a strong successful woman who never takes shit from anyone. Because it was something I had never encountered it was something I couldn't define nor prove to myself or anyone else. I justified it to my fiestiness and allowed him to convince me that it was because I provoked it and I was just as bad. And the good Indian girl in me told me he'd get past it, that we were going thru a bad phase and we would be fine. It never got better and it took me a ridiculously long time to walk away from it and I was the girl doling out advise I should have followed to everyone on a daily basis.

It wasn't until my mother and best friend got involved and pointed it out that I realized it was happening. It took a long time for me to admit it and walk away. This is something no one talks about but is a huge part of abuse and important to note. Often women think they aren't being abused because it's not like he hits you! And physical abuse is just one part of many forms of abuse women go thru.

There's no justification for a man ever hitting a woman anyway, but you have to ensure that "in the heat of the moment" you're not deliberately trying to push the guy as far as possible to see if he'll "break" and lash out violently at you.

Jai brother,

With all due respect people prove me on the subway on a daily basis. God gave me the wonderful gift of speech. I can cut better with my tongue than a knife. So I use my tongue to express my displeasure at something. What prevents me from hitting someone even if say they touch me or say all kinds of disgusting things? Knowing it's not the right thing to do! That I have no right to touch another human being just because they insulted me.

The above is something society tells women all the time. Are you sure you aren't doing something to provoke him? And it's dangerous because it puts the responsibility of bad behavior on the part of men on the woman's shoulder. Especially in the Indian society where we are told everyday as women "you have to compromise". It's a word that gets thrown around as much as "study hard" in our culture and there are some things in life there should be no compromising with.

Sorry we are evolved beings and should behave like it and should expect others to do the same.

Sorry prove above # 131 should read provoke!

it's not always easy for victims to understand that it's not their fault.

No, sadly it isn't. You're right - this remains true even with a lot of education on this issue and support structures in place.

JOAT,

Especially in the Indian society where we are told everyday as women "you have to compromise". It's a word that gets thrown around as much as "study hard" in our culture and there are some things in life there should be no compromising with.

You're absolutely correct about both of the above points, but bear in mind that men are told these things too. They frequently just don't admit it to anyone else (beyond closest friends, often not even that).

Are you sure you aren't doing something to provoke him? And it's dangerous because it puts the responsibility of bad behavior on the part of men on the woman's shoulder.

I don't think it's a good idea to immediately point the finger at the victim either, but -- on the other hand -- it's also worthwhile bearing in mind that there are sometimes two sides to the story. Sometimes the recipients of such "bad behaviour" are completely innocent, sometimes they are not, and it all depends on the particular person and the specific scenario, regardless of whether they're male or female. A man is not automatically a misogynistic patriarchal jerk purely by virtue of being male, and a woman is not automatically a saintly innocent just because she is female.

The reverse analogy is also correct, of course, and it's one which is especially important to remember in societies with a heavy cultural bias towards men. As you know from our past discussions here, I don't believe in patriarchal attitudes by any means, but I don't believe in "matriarchal" mindsets either. Both should be equal and (ideally) working in partnership. One gender does not need to be dominant over the other, and members of one gender do not inherently possess some kind of automatic superiority (or "the moral high ground") compared to the opposite sex (regardless of whether the former are men or women). In matters of inherent "worth" or morality, I don't differentiate between men and women. Both have the same capacity for nefariousness and both also have the same capacity for exalted, inspiring conduct.

That I have no right to touch another human being just because they insulted me.

Yes, but a) some cultures encourage the attitude that it is okay to hit someone if they insult you -- and this is common within multiple ethnic/religious groups here in the West too -- and b) at some point, moral restraints sometimes end up overriden by inflamed emotions, and you know what happens next, regardless of whether it's a verbal argument or an actual physical altercation. This doesn't mean it's morally right, but unfortunately people of varying temperaments end up reacting in this way, human nature being the way it is.

A man should never hit a woman, of course, but simultaneously the woman also has a responsibility not to take advantage of the man's restraint in this matter by deliberately being nasty towards him too, knowing that he won't hit her no matter how viciously she behaves. It's a two-way street. That's just the point I was trying to make. If a guy is going to be abusive -- now matter how innocent the woman is -- then she should try to get the hell out of the relationship or (ideally) not get involved with that kind of man in the first place. And again, exactly the same principle applies to men getting involved with abusive women too. Like you, I'm referring to "abusive" in the psychological sense too, not just physical violence.

Speaking generally, it is sad how people sometimes repeat the example of their parents. There are plenty of men around who've seen their fathers behave nastily towards their mothers, and they repeat the dysfunctional cycle in their own relationships. I've seen the same thing happen with some 2nd-Gen desi women too; seeing their fathers behave this way scars them and affects their perspectives towards men in general and their own relationships, and if their mothers were partially culpable for the dysfunctionality of their marriages, sometimes their daughters repeat the same mistakes in terms of their own behaviour towards their partners (ironically, including sometimes being attracted to the same kind of men that their fathers are/were) and inadvertantly sabotage their own relationships.

It takes a lot of strength and self-awareness for both sons and daughters in these situations to learn from their own parents' mistakes and finally break the cycle.

It takes a lot of strength and self-awareness for both sons and daughters in these situations to learn from their own parents' mistakes and finally break the cycle.

Thanx for your points. Absolutely agree. Awareness is half the battle. It's like a disease much like alcoholism.

This makes me want to re-read Brick Lane.

'A man should never hit a woman, of course, but simultaneously the woman also has a responsibility not to take advantage of the man's restraint in this matter by deliberately being nasty towards him too, knowing that he won't hit her no matter how viciously she behaves'

If a man is merely 'restraining' the tendency to lash out physically, then at one point or another in a long-term domestic relationship, he is bound to break and lash out. The remedy to DV is not mere 'restraint', and to lay responsibility on the victim, no matter how diplomatic your language, is highly irresponsible.

A perceptive man grasps that violence is an extremely ineffective tool in domestic situations - it does not attack isolated behaviour, but the whole fabric of the relationship. An intelligent man will not have to exercise such physical restraint at all. I've been with such men - they can alter or influence a woman's behaviour by their words and character. And if they can't do that, an honourable and perceptive man will leave rather than demean himself to the level of hitting a woman.

From post 134

'Yes, but a) some cultures encourage the attitude that it is okay to hit someone if they insult you'

'A man should never hit a woman, of course, but simultaneously the woman also has a responsibility not to take advantage of the man's restraint'

'I've seen the same thing happen with some 2nd-Gen desi women too; seeing their fathers behave this way scars them and affects their perspectives towards men in general and their own relationships, and if their mothers were partially culpable for the dysfunctionality of their marriages, sometimes their daughters repeat the same mistakes in terms of their own behaviour towards their partners (ironically, including sometimes being attracted to the same kind of men that their fathers are/were) and inadvertantly sabotage their own relationships.'

In post 134, two excuses for domestic violence (cultural foundations for it and a woman's provocation) are offered, then tellingly followed by a passage which refers repeatedly to the responsibility of women for the failure of their relationships. This post is nothing but a cleverly couched justification for male violence, DESPITE the repeated protestations against domestic violence. In fact, it is a perfect example of the kind of intellectual trickery the writer refers to in an earlier post. Nefarious indeed.

Dharma Queen,

I've already stated explicitly that I have no interest in any online dialogue with you on SM, and you have also been told several times by the moderators of this website not to direct any posts towards me, upon the threat of being kicked off this forum. As you may recall, I was simultaneously told the same thing. This is therefore the only response you will get from me on this thread or any others in future.

As human beings, both men and women have a built-in capacity for physical violence under certain conditions. We learn to discipline this during childhood and early adulthood, and in time it becomes automatic. It's called "growing up" and becoming a civilised person. Some people of course do not sufficiently grow up in this sense. (The same also applies to "verbal violence"). Men, however, have a significantly higher level of testosterone, and this can manifest itself as higher levels of verbal and/or physical aggression if he has not learned to channel it properly.

to lay responsibility on the victim, no matter how diplomatic your language, is highly irresponsible.

That is about as far as possible from what I was saying, but I have no interest in explaining myself to you. Long-term commenters here will understand the context of my comments (JOAT obviously has understood it fully, and so will many others who have read my posts from Day 1, over a year ago), especially as I have an extremely long track record of actively arguing on SM against "blame the victim" attitudes prevalent with South Asian culture, particularly in relation to sexual and/or physical violence against women.

I was originally going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your post #138 has confirmed my reservations about you once again -- something I predicted would happen. So please kindly fuck off.

In post 134, two excuses for domestic violence (cultural foundations for it and a woman's provocation) are offered, then tellingly followed by a passage which refers repeatedly to the responsibility of women for the failure of their relationships. This post is nothing but a cleverly couched justification for male violence, DESPITE the repeated protestations against domestic violence. In fact, it is a perfect example of the kind of intellectual trickery the writer refers to in an earlier post. Nefarious indeed.

i'm stuck at home, nursing the flue, but JoAT -- your posts echo what I'd like to say myself. thanks for that, also thanks for putting yourself out there publicly when i myself feel that i can't.

whoa. 1) sorry for being a dumbass and not getting the blockquote down, 2) for addressing the wrong person (i meant dharma queen) and 3) is there really need for such language, particularly on a thread about abusive behavior? jeez.

Ennis:

it's not always easy for victims to understand that it's not their fault.

No, sadly it isn't. You're right - this remains true even with a lot of education on this issue and support structures in place.

Thanks for recognizing this. This is my main objection--yes, education makes it easier for a woman to leave, but I feel the psychology of abuse, which someone mentioned earlier, is more powerful. This psychology transcends cultures--I know plenty of white American women who feel trapped in abusive relationships despite their education. I don't have the info handy, but there has been plenty of research on the psychology of abuse and how it can make a woman feel trapped even if she has the financial means to get out.

This post is nothing but a cleverly couched justification for male violence, DESPITE the repeated protestations against domestic violence. In fact, it is a perfect example of the kind of intellectual trickery the writer refers to in an earlier post. Nefarious indeed.

I think that's a bit extreme. Jai isn't being manipulative but simply offering different alternatives for what happens. I've seen full on fights break out between people where I want to hit the women for the way they behave much less the man. Again this isn't about justification but about the blanket need we (society/women) often have to blame the man for everything. Yes a real man restrains himself but a real woman is also not a bitch. I've seen women get in a man's face and say "What are you going to do hit me do it do it" and egg him on.

No one can justify DV or any kind of violence towards women. And I don't think Jai is either. He is simply offering a simplistic approach of "don't put yourself in that situation". Which often times isn't easy. Yes a woman can leave, yes she can avoid such a man in the first place and 99.9% of time we women have no indication a man would turn out that way. Such is life. But if I go jogging at 3:00 am and am attacked, while it's 100% not my fault can I completely absolve myself off the blame of jogging at 3:00 am in the first place?

In post 134, two excuses for domestic violence (cultural foundations for it and a woman's provocation)

JOAT,

If you extend such logic, you end up in dangerous territory e.g. (insert desi accent here) if a girl goes to a boy's room at night, how could she be so stupid as to think she will not be raped?

Culpability and prudence are two entirely different matters. In Kandahar, right now, it is extremely imprudent for a woman to leave the house without a burqa on. Everyone knows this. Do we then blame a woman who gets shot while not wearing a burqa? I don't think so. We can call her imprudent, but not blameworthy. Similarly, I believe a woman has as much right as a man to jog at 3 a.m. (Actually, in my neighbourhood, both men and women do jog at midnight). Would I recommend it in most areas? No. Will I blame a woman who gets raped after jogging at 3am? No way.

With respect to 'female provocation', you cannot have it both ways. You can't simultaneously say 'Violence is never justifiable' AND say 'But sometimes a woman provokes it'. The point is that no provocation deserves physical violence as a response. Why? I think because physical violence does not respond to the spiritual/moral problems exhibited. It just bluntly checks it. It appeals to fear. There's no chance of learning or growth in physical violence; if anything, there's a chance of exacerbating the problem. A woman who behaves in the way you describe so aptly (we've all seen it somewhere) should undergo something a lot more meaningful - a man who walks away from her, doesn't talk to her, refuses to cooperate with her, or just leaves her. These are responses that might awaken something in the spirit, because they impact the love in the relationship.

Gotta go now.

Culpability and prudence are two entirely different matters

I agree. JOAT (inadvertently I hope) is conflating culpability with responsibility.

A woman who behaves in the way you describe so aptly (we've all seen it somewhere) should undergo something a lot more meaningful - a man who walks away from her, doesn't talk to her, refuses to cooperate with her, or just leaves her.

This I agree with 100%.

A man should never hit a woman, of course, but simultaneously the woman also has a responsibility not to take advantage of the man's restraint in this matter by deliberately being nasty towards him too, knowing that he won't hit her no matter how viciously she behaves. It's a two-way street.

Jai - I also find this section really problematic. Firstly, verbal actions should never be seen justifying a physical response. Secondly, it's problematic to assume that a woman's words are coming out of nowhere, when they might well be in response to previous verbal (or physical) mistreatment by a man. Even as an explanation, I think it's loaded.

I don't want to give either side the responsibility to "avoid provoking a physical response". Not within the house.

Culpability and prudence are two entirely different matters.

Exactly and Jai was simply stating one not the other. They are two different aspects of an issue that should remain separate yet acknowledged.

As far as the culpability issue, I apply to a different school of thought. Modern feminism often ignores prudence when it comes to feminist issues and this is a school of thought I do not find myself aligned to. While I do have the right to jog at 3:00 am, being careful about the choices I make for myself to not put myself in harms way is MY responsibility, not the rest of the worlds. I simply cannot support the school of thought that says "I will jog because it's my right and if something happens to me it's not my fault."

And as Vinay puts it, these aren't excuses, they are simply explanations of why something happens.

Unamed at this time,

What is the point of your post, why not come out and say it. It seems to me you are conflating domestic violence with being in a bad relationship. A bad relationship it seems to me is the fault of both parties, but domestic violence is only the fault of one.

I agree with DQ in that "restraint" is a misnomer. Given the context of the thread, restraint seems to imply that its in some way justified to respond to a certain incident with violence, but the person is restraining himself. I suppose all behavior is at some level the product of restraint, but in this context, it clearly seems troubling to refer to "restraint".

Jai Singh, I feel you and DQ are talking at two different levels. DQ is talking about situations where DV is a serious possiblity, and you seem to be talking about the goings-on in a different kind of relationship in which there are disagreements, but the possiblity of violence is remote. In that setting its understandable to use the term "restraint" but in the setting DQ is talking about I think she has a sincere right to object. I did not feel her response was baiting in anyway, by the way. Although the previous history between the two of you may have led you to that idea.

In fact I think you are being uncharitable toward her, although I wouldn't presume to know for sure her motives or yours. I don't think DQ meant to hurt you in a serious way with her comments in the past.

Anyway, cheers

Admitantly this is likely yet another pedantic comment from me, but change takes time!

Sahej, before I reply, could you please elaborate?

"Unamed at this time,

What is the point of your post, why not come out and say it. It seems to me you are conflating domestic violence with being in a bad relationship. A bad relationship it seems to me is the fault of both parties, but domestic violence is only the fault of one."

posts #106 and #125 are the only comments i made that said anything speciic about my opinions about or experiences with domestic violence. perhaps you misread the comment where i incorrectly quoted someone else. i wasn't trying to purposefully be stupid or ambiguous in post 125, so please let me know what i can clear up. also, i don't understand your comment about how i am conflating domestic violence with being in a bad relationship, especially considering the fact that i specifically addressed a relationship in which i was a victim of domestic violence. please clarifiy.

Jai Singh is correct in one sense...that no matter what, in an altercation with someone, if it's serious enough, there is that one part of you that wants to hit them...it's human nature...but 99.9% of the time, you never do...you yell, you scream, maybe you walk out of the room, maybe you stop talking to that person...in other words, there are factors that prevent you from hitting them (maturity and impulse-control hopefully being the main ones, as well as a revulsion at the thought of hurting someone physically). I remember when Desidawg and myself got into it a few weeks ago and I challenged him to come to NYC and meet me face to face...I am embarrassed by that now, wish I had never posted that...and later I did comment that if we actually were to meet up we'd probably laugh it off...but at the moment that I typed those words, I was angry, and wanted to fight with this unseen, unknown person who had dared to mess with me on the internet - major immaturity on my part. So restraint, as Jai described, is certainly called for in all these situations. As you age and mature (hopefully) the impulse to lash out ideally should lessen or even go away, to the point where no one can faze you, or even provoke you on any level into wanting to do that.

I suspect one cultural factor affecting domestic violence in Bangladesh and South Asia is the manner in which male children, even in upper-class and middle-class families, and even in South Asian families in the West, are spoiled and made more of a fuss of than are female children. I believe this leads to a holier-than-thou, superior, and privileged perception of oneself among many South Asian males that makes it difficult for them to compromise or negotiate in relationships with South Asian women, and often makes it easier to just take that next step into violence. Now, this hypothesis also suggests that this feeling of superiority/privilege would be felt only with respect to South Asian women. With the caveat that there could be a selection error, it would thus be interesting to see if in the West there are proportionately significantly more cases of domestic violence reported for South Asian women living with South Asian men as opposed to women of other ethnicities living with South Asian men.

Oddly enough, I was surprised to see no statistics for South Korea in this WHO survey. There is considerable data out there that suggests similar discrimination in favour of male children results in a high degree of domestic abuse both in urban and rural Korea.

Now, in Bangladesh, and I suspect large parts of South Asia, far too many women are still completely financially dependent on their spouses. This might explain why they do not leave abusive marriages or relationships. Who are they going to go back to -- the parents who often paid a dowry to get them off their hands?

And, er, for what it's worth, I am male, obviously an armchair generalist, and Bangladeshi.

I suspect one cultural factor affecting domestic violence in Bangladesh and South Asia is the manner in which male children, even in upper-class and middle-class families, and even in South Asian families in the West, are spoiled and made more of a fuss of than are female children. I believe this leads to a holier-than-thou, superior, and privileged perception of oneself among many South Asian males that makes it difficult for them to compromise or negotiate in relationships with South Asian women,

I'm pretty sure there was a very forceful "amen" to that from a substantial number of desi women on SM regarding that idea

Ennis,

Firstly, verbal actions should never be seen justifying a physical response.

There's a difference between justifying and explaining. The first attempts to excuse negative behaviour. The second details a logical sequence of events. You've been reading my posts on SM for over a year so you should know by now what my views are on violence towards women. I've fought against various commenters enough times on previous discussions when the other party has attempted to blame women for getting raped by casting aspersions on some aspect of their dress and/or behaviour, for example.

Secondly, it's problematic to assume that a woman's words are coming out of nowhere, when they might well be in response to previous verbal (or physical) mistreatment by a man.

I fully believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", for both parties. However, it's also problematic to assume that the woman is automatically a saint just by virtue of being female, and that the man is automatically guilty simply by virtue of his gender. Especially if you're only hearing one side of the story. As I said before, it depends on the particular two people concerned and the specific situation. It's ultimately dependent on the specific personalities of the two individuals, not their respective genders.

Even as an explanation, I think it's loaded.

Many situations in life often are, unfortunately. Some scenarios really are simple and "cut & dried", others are a little more complex and nuanced than they may appear to be at first glance. Ask any lawyers ;)

Sahej,

With regards to my comments on the core topic, Amitabh has understood the context of my remarks perfectly, as he's discussed in post #152. Your different interpretation may just be a matter of semantics, but take a look at Amitabh's post to see what I basically meant. Same for JOAT in post #143.

in the setting DQ is talking about I think she has a sincere right to object. I did not feel her response was baiting in anyway, by the way. Although the previous history between the two of you may have led you to that idea.

I respect your point of view and we've been on good terms on SM for over a year as you know, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. My own previous comments were deliberately thorough and carefully made the various points concerned very clear, because this is obviously a complex and highly-sensitive issue. However, the fact that the other commenter concerned took isolated statements out of their original context and attempted to ascribe some kind of twisted underlying agenda on my part was way out of line. Paranoia at the least; yet another deliberate attempt to create a scapegoat via the use of strawman arguments and fabricated allegations at the worst. Misguided and ill-considered either way.

And also disrespectful towards Ennis, who has been trying to host a constructive discussion here on what is undoubtedly a deadly serious issue.

In fact I think you are being uncharitable toward her, although I wouldn't presume to know for sure her motives or yours. I don't think DQ meant to hurt you in a serious way with her comments in the past.

I think you've giving her far too much credit and the evidence in her own words contradicts you, especially considering the large numbers of other commenters -- including some of the people running this blog -- who have also been on the receiving end of this bukwaas. There is also a significant track record here where she has freely admitted to deliberately engaging in such malicious behaviour for her own enjoyment. But again we can amicably agree to disagree.

Let's get back to the main discussion, bro :)

Ennis,

Quick addendum to post #155.

What I'm basically saying is that both parties have a responsibility to behave as mature adults and, fundamentally, to be nice to each other. Equally. Neither party should behave as a jerk and take advantage of what they perceive to be the other's weakness(es). And if their own negative behaviour has played a part in causing the collapse of the relationship, the person concerned should be an adult and take some damn responsibility for what has happened -- regardless of whether they're male or female.

I am talking about the act of poisoning/destroying relationships by one's own conduct and precipitating their collapse, not just DV. Abusive behaviour can be psychological as well as physical, as I mentioned before.

Being a woman isn't a licence to be a jerk towards your husband/boyfriend, any more than being a man is a licence to treat your wife/girlfriend like dirt. If anyone disagrees with this and does not want to take any personal responsibility for the outcomes of their actions (regardless of how nastily they've behaved), then frankly they have the mentality of a spoilt child and need to grow the hell up.

JOAT,

I don't know of any feminists who would recommend jogging at 3am or not wearing a burqa in Kandahar, for that matter. Who are these feminists you are referring to? Feminists agitate, write articles and books, organize marches, set up DV shelters, and attempt to change social attitudes so that women can acquire greater rights and freedoms. They try to tame the tigers, not throw women at untamed ones.

You know, it's funny, when you like people on a site like this, you want to 'have their back', or defend them, even if they may not be saying something you agree with at that time...Jai and I go back a while now, and he has had my back on more than one occasion here, and Dharma Queen and I have always gotten along well despite disagreeing at times (DQ, you bring me around to your POV more often than you realise). I guess what I'm trying to say is that ideally we should try to evaluate each other's statements on their merits, not simply based on alliances that we form here. But it's tough. Without sounding too wishy-washy, I think both of you guys have made some valid points. Peace out.

DQ and Jai, CHILLLLLLL!!!!

See if this helps :-)

Knee-jerk reaction: Great, the stereotypes of African/Asian/South American men being abusive and all that coming out again. Why these 10 countries? Ask my Greek friend who just had to break off her engagement because of her (physically and verbally) abusive (and very Greek) fiance.

Calmed-down reaction: I still think this problem of DV is far more widespread than is thought, and closer to home, rather than in third-world countries. Also, the explanations like ' SA men are spoilt more than women' etc are very simplistic...

I have to
strongly disagree
with you here. My own previous
comments were deliberately
thorough and carefully made

the various points
concerned very clear,
because this is
obviously

a complex and
highly-sensitive issue.

However,
the fact that
the other commenter
concerned took isolated

statements out of
their original context
and attempted to ascribe
some kind of twisted
underlying agenda

on my part
was way
out of line.

Paranoia

at the least;

yet another deliberate
attempt to create a scapegoat
via the use of strawman
arguments and fabricated allegations

at the worst.

Misguided and ill-considered

either
way.

Technophobicgeek,

I'm more than willing to hear other "less simplistic" explanations. I don't believe I suggested that a sense of privilege, superiority, etc. was the only cause of domestic violence, and am always open to hearing other hypotheses that could be offered. However, I think, simplistic as it might sound, it may well be one of the factors that predispose South Asian men towards domestic violence. Note that there is also considerable domestic abuse of servants in South Asia, and that this too correlates with a sense of class superiority.

Shaad Bhai (or Shaad Behan or Shaad ji),

I don't believe I suggested that a sense of privilege, superiority, etc. was the only cause of domestic violence, and am always open to hearing other hypotheses that could be offered. However, I think, simplistic as it might sound, it may well be one of the factors that predispose South Asian men towards domestic violence. Note that there is also considerable domestic abuse of servants in South Asia, and that this too correlates with a sense of class superiority.

All this (if it even does, I seriously doubt) holds for middle class, and upper middle class. My parents had often somebody living in their "outhouse", I have hardly noticed any spoilt in majority of Indians. They are struggling for bread on day to day basis. Spoilt is a luxury for them.

A simple question: How many in India and South Asia are even middle class, even after India shinning? 10%, 15%, you tell me.

.......first, it is an universal problem that gets exponentially compounded by poverty and asymmetry in relationship between sexes. The key word is "exponentially".

OK - both of you - Jai and DQ DO NOT ACCUSE EACH OTHER AND DO NOT REPLY TO EACH OTHER. Serious. I haven't read enough of the threads to know who is right and who is wrong. I can see some merit in both of your claims. But this is getting seriously ugly, yo.

If you have to, and I mean absolutely have to, respond to a claim made by the other, please respond solely to the words of that person, do not generalize about the person, and respond in the most charitable fashion possible.

That is, say "I disagree with the argument that". Do not characterize the argument. Simply restate it and explain what you disagree with.

That's a good tip in general, however, when each of you is dealing with the other, it's absolutely essential.

If you don't start to exercise personal responsibility, I really will ban you both. I'm a hairswidth away from doing so because I'm so tired of the bickering and the sniping.

Jai - I've deleted your last four comments in an effort to reboot things. DQ - I've deleted one of yours. Please, both of you, CHILL OUT. Do not respond to me. Do not respond to each other.

Before this thread goes to oblivion I'd like to say a big THANK YOU and MUCH RESPECT to the people who shared personal stories. I appreciate that it is very difficult and complicated material. I for one was quite shocked at the number of stories of DV in "our" community -- by which I simply mean the regular commenters here -- let alone the implications about prevalence more broadly, whether among desis, Americans, or humans in general. I suppose I'm shocked but not surprised. Thanks for the education.

Years ago there was a case of DV on account of an alcoholic husband of a cousin of mine, who would abuse her when drunk. The whole family - her mother, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, etc, were telling her LEAVE HIM TODAY, and offered to take her in till she got settled on her own.

If Indian women had more of this kind of response from their families then I think the whole society could change rapidly in this regard.

On the other hand a very educated "modern" Delhi friend of mine was also a victim of DV at the hands of her (British) husband - who also had a drinking issue, though not nearly as often and severe as my cousin mentioned above, and her educated, wealthy and well-placed New Delhi Desi mom told her to go back to him, that she was now a married woman and could not live at home with parents.

I know of another case where a South Indian woman was married to a crazy man (her family didn't know he was pagal till after they wed), and he tortured her mentally for years, and occaisionally physically as well. Her parents were constantly interceding and talking to him, demanding from him and his parents that he stop, get help, etc, but they never once suggested that she leave him.

Domestic Violence Act of India comes into effect today.

Domestic Violence Act of India comes into effect today

wow...