Factors influencing attitudes towards intimate partner violence in Bangladesh

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of Social Sciences

Master thesis

Factors Influencing Attitudes towards Intimate Partner Violence in Bangladesh

Reviewer

Isupova Olga

Moscow 2019

Contents

List of Acronyms

Abstract

Chapter 1. Introduction to the study

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Key Words Definition

1.4 Research Questions

1.5 Research Aim and Objectives

1.6 The Rationale of the Study

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

Chapter 2. Literature review and theoretical framework

2.1 Literature Review

2.2 Theoretical Background

Chapter 3. Data & methods

3.1 Data: The data in this study are drawn from the 2013 Urban Health Survey conducted by National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), MEASURE Evaluation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (Icddr,b) and funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID)

3.2 Research Design

Chapter 4. Descriptive statistics & empirical analysis

4.1 Statistical Analysis

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

4.3 Prevalence of Factors and Men's Attitude towards IPV

4.4 Model of Specification

4.5 Empirical Results

4.6 Discussion

Chapter 5. Conclusion and recommendation

5.1 Conclusion

5.2 Recommendation

References

List of Acronyms

Abstract

Intimate partner violence against women is a common social threat in Bangladesh. Different forms of violence against intimate partner are prevailing in the society. This study mainly focuses on the influence of different factors on the attitude of internally migrated and internally not migrated men's attitude towards intimate partner violence against women in the slum and non-slum areas of six divisions in Bangladesh. A cross-sectional research approach is used in this study. The multivariate logistic regression is carried out to analysis the data drawn from the 2013 Urban Health Survey. The prevalence of justifying beat wives for all reasons excepting failure to provide food on time is higher among men living in urban slums compared to men residing in urban non-slums. The study claims that the prevalence of justifying beating wife is higher among internally not migrated men compared to internal migrants. It is found that factors have a more negative association with internally migrated men's attitudes towards IPV compared to internally not migrated men. Type of household, alcohol consumption/ or drug use, religion, working status, decision-making power, gender role and area of residence have a positive association with men's attitudes towards IPV. This present study suggests that a comprehensive prevention policy and intervention strategies should be developed to address the socio-economic and demographic factors that influencing a person's attitude and involving him in violence against partner.

Key Words: Intimate partner, Slums, Non-slum, Internal migrant

Chapter 1. Introduction to the study

1.1 Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is considered as a major human right abuse, social policy and public health concern (Sambisa et al. 2010, Abramsky et al. 2011; Shah, et al. 2012; WHO 2013; Rashid et al., 2014). IPV Many countries use the term “Domestic Violence” that refers to family violence, but the term also covers the child or elder abuse, or abuse by any member of a household. usually takes places in all situations and among any socioeconomic, religious and cultural groups (Pankaj, 2013). In general, every society has a more or less unpleasant experience with this problem. In order to WHO (2012) definition, “IPV refers to any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship”. Physical, sexual, economic, psychological violence/ emotional, and controlling behavior (WHO 2012) are included as major forms of intimate partner violence (UNICEF, 2008; CPD 2009). More than 50% of ever-married Bangladeshi women belong to reproductive ages of 15-49 faced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partners at least once in their lifetime, while 24% experienced such acts of violence in the last twelve months (NIPORT 2009 & BDHS 2007). The forms of intimate partner violence can be different by culture and society (Naved et al. 2006). The intimate partner violence is also known with some popular terms such as domestic violence, spousal violence, marital violence (Khatun, & Rahman, (2012) and so on. In global literature, the term “intimate partner violence” is now used instead of “Domestic violence” (WHO, 2005a cited by Khan, 2015). People often overlook, excuse or deny the problem in the society (Bates et al. 2005), because IPV is considered as a normal practice and not as a punishable crime (Wahed, & Bhuiya, 2007). A study shows that a high percentage of women (30% urban and 40% rural) remain silent because of shame and women (26% of urban and 34% rural) felt that it will undermine the family honor ((Naved et al. 2006).

Social Attitudes of a person towards gender, gender norms, and gender-based violence have a strong connection with prevalence, consequences, and outcomes of violence (Country Profile Gender-Based Violence in Sri Lanka by WHO, 2018). Many social attitudes on gender are made based on sociocultural norms and religious beliefs. An in-depth understanding of positive as well as negative attitudes would be immensely helpful to identify the root causes of intimate partner violence and to make a plan and implementation of prevention (Country Profile Gender-Based Violence in Sri Lanka by WHO, 2018). The social norm is one of the important challenges that supports male power and control over women and gives authorization to violence against women (Wahed, & Bhuiya, 2007; WHO 2012 & 2013).

It is essential to highlights the evidence of economic and socio-cultural factors that are fostering the practice of violence against women. Men who have low socioeconomic status including little or no education, unemployed, consume alcohol and/or drug, poor health status and slum dwellers (Khatun, & Rahman, 2012) and poor are more probability to commit IPV in comparison with men in the absence of such characteristics (Sambisa et al. 2010). People residing in slum areas are an underprivileged, poor and disadvantaged group in Bangladesh. When people migrate to the city, start living in the cheapest houses. A slum is a place that provides houses with less hire charge. That's why it is seen that the number of slums is increasing in urban areas over the years. Slums' number has been increased to 13, 938 in 2014 from 2, 991 in 1997 in all city corporations, municipalities, Upazila (sub-district) and other urban areas (Census of Slum Areas and Floating Population 2014, BBS). Around 72% of men in slum and approximately 58% of men in non-slum areas reported that their birthplace was in rural areas, whereas, only 20% of men in the slum of Dhaka and 27% of those in Chittagong mentioned the same City Corporation were their birthplace (Bangladesh Urban Health survey, 2006:139). The occurrence of intimate partner violence against women is not well recorded in the urban slums of Bangladesh (Chowdhury, 2018). It is claimed that women of Dhaka city slums are living with a high risk of intimate partner violence compared to women of other parts of Bangladesh. A study shows that men living in a slum had a higher likelihood of perpetrating physical violence against an intimate partner than those men living in non-slums. Last 12 months the prevalence of physical violence perpetration among slum men (28%) was higher in comparison to men residing in the non-slum area (18%) (Sambisa et al. 2010). A husband's aggressive behaviors towards his partner are also associated with the history of abuse of the husband's family. He (husband) was a witness of abuse of his mother by father. The woman also saw the violent behaviors of her father against mother and in this case, she accepts it as a common practice and fate of all women in the society (Naved, and Persson, 2005). It is also found that women may, even more, justify wife beating than men (Rani, Bonu, & Diop-Sidibé, 2004). Higher socioeconomic status and a higher rate of female education are related to lower reporting of experience of wife beating (Bates et al., 2004). The major household decisions were taken by women was associated with more risk of wife beating in the Philippines (Hindin & Adair, 2002 cited by Rani and Bonu, 2009). Similarly, women's participation in microcredit and saving groups in Bangladesh and taking personal income led to the increased experience of IPV (Bates et al., 2004; Koenig et al., 2003; Rahman, 1999 cited by Rani and Bonu, 2009).

Intimate partner violence is a worldwide common phenomenon both in developed and developing countries (VAW 2015). Women with any socio-economic status are more exposed to mistreatment and exploitation by their intimate partners, in-laws and another member of the family (Farouk 2005). This study mainly focuses on the influence of different factors on the attitude of internally migrated male towards intimate partner violence against women in the slum and non-slum areas among six divisions of Bangladesh. A cross-sectional research approach uses in this study. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression analysis has been conducted to examine the effect of socio-demographic and other different factors (lifestyle, decision-making power, gender role, mass media exposure) on men's attitude towards intimate partner violence against wives in Bangladesh.

1.2 Problem Statement

Intimate partner violence is the most predominant practice of gender-based violence worldwide (Bates et al. 2005). Globally overall 35% of women reported their experience with physical and/or sexual partner violence or non-partner violence. The report also said that approximately one-third of all women experienced physical and/or sexual violence during a relationship by their intimate partner (WHO, 2013). In worldwide, it is found that girls who got married below 15 years old are more risk for physical or sexual violence from their partner in comparison with girls got married after eighteen years old. Around half of the married girls (15-19) has faced violence by their husband or partner in Bangladesh, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

In Bangladesh, Intimate partner violence is one of the crucial social problems which can affect women of any community, culture or background. The patriarchal social formation and cultural acceptance are also considered as key factors for promoting intimate partner violence in the country (Murnen et al. 2002 cited by Sambisa, et al. 2010; Sarker, and Yesmin, 2013). Women have limited freedom of mobility and decision-making power in the home. The VAW survey, 2011 stated that 85% Bangladeshi women have no freedom to earn money of their own selves, only 15% can receive to make money and among that only 24 % of women have own control on their incomes (BBS 2013). A report published by UNICEF (2007) revealed that about 48% of Bangladeshi women said that their husbands make a decision alone regarding their health, while 35% women said that their husbands mainly make decisions about their visit to family and friends UNICEF, State of the World's Children: The Double Dividend of Gender Equality, 2007. The attitude of men towards women's freedom of movement is different from urban to the rural area of Bangladesh. In a rural area, 29.1% of cases supported women's movement outside of the village alone, whereas, 27.6% and 14.4% supported go to the health center or hospital and both places respectively. 57.8% reported by men that women could not go to any places without a husband. In an urban area, 37.1% and 42.6% of men separately supported that women could go outside the village and to the health center or hospital, and 24.8% urban men supported women's visit in both places. In addition, 44.6% of men in an urban area could not support to women's visit in any places without a male partner (Gender Statistics of Bangladesh, 2012, Page-130). Physical violence is accepted by many societies as a social norm. In order to database of UNICEF (2017), 36% of boys and men (28% in urban and 38% in rural) reported that it will be acceptable if a wife is beaten by her husband for at least following reasons such as for burning the foods, argues with husband, goes outs ide of home without permission of husband, carelessness about child. On the other hand, 28% of girls and women (25% in urban and 30% in rural) supports beating wife by husband for at least one of the mentioned reasons.

Bangladeshi women experience on diffident forms of intimate violence such as physical, sexual, economic and psychological by their partners (Sambisa et al. 2010). A study of the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) in Bangladesh (2009) revealed that 93% of victims had experienced physical violence by husband, only 13% reported about sexual violence, 91% of victims experienced economic violence and 84% of reported psychological violence. Recently, the VAW Survey (2015) report of Bangladesh demonstrates that around two thirds (72.6%) of ever-married women experienced one or more forms of violence by their husband at least once in their lifetime, and 54.7% experienced violence in last 12 months. The percentages of lifetime partner violence among ever-married women were higher in rural (74.8%) and urban areas (71.1%) compared to city corporation areas (54.4%) in Bangladesh. The report also mentioned that 54.2% of ever-married women experienced any physical or sexual violence by husband at least once in a lifetime at the national level, and 26.9% of partner violence experienced by ever-married women at least once in last 12 months (BBS 2016).

The national survey report (Figure-1.1) also represents a comparison between 2011 and 2015 found that there were low prevalence rates in all forms of violence during lifetime and the last 12 months, excluding physical violence.

In spite of attacking violence, women may maintain their relationship with partners due to fear of revenge, economic dependency, children's future life, insufficient support from family and friends, stigma and fear for losing of children, and expect that husband behavior will be changed (Naved et al. 2006; WHO 2012).

The social and economic status of women is a key factor for a direct result of violence (Hossain 2016). Women's access to labor and other markets, sexuality, choice of marriage partner, income and assets are all controlled by men. Generally, women of Bangladesh are depending on men of their entire lives, from fathers, through the husband to son. Broadly, poverty, culture and tradition and the subordination of women are deemed to be major causes of intimate partner violence against women (Hossain, 2016). A numbers of roots causes of intimate partner violence against women have been revealed such as social stigma, economic inequality, dissatisfaction of household work, dowry and economic hardship in the family, incapable of giving birth to a child, unfaithful (Wahed, & Bhuiya, 2007), age and education difference between husband and wife, addiction of drug, extra-marital relationship, lack of knowledge of women's rights (Hossain, 2016), marital discord and dissatisfaction (WHO, 2010) and ineffective implementation and enforcement of law by judiciary and law enforcement agencies etc. Dowry is one of the major causes of intimate partner violence against women in Bangladesh (Jahan R, 1994 cited by Ahmed, 2005, Hossain, 2016). Until the 1960s, a “bride price” system of material exchange, in which the groom's family usually give money and gifts to the family of the bride during a marriage (Huq and Amin 2001 cited by Bates et al. 2005). Later, the practice had been changed and now the groom's family demands money and gift from the bride's family at marriage. Even after marriage, the husband demands more dowry from the wife's family. If the wife's family is unable to give dowry, the husband tortures his wife physically or mentally at the home. A number of incidences like killed, physical abuse and suicide were happened because of dowry in Bangladesh (Figure-1.2) recorded by Odhikar (A non-government Human Rights based organization in Bangladesh) from 2001 to 2018.

Women suffer from a number of immediate and long-term physical and psychological health problems in terms of intimate partner violence (Diaz-Olavarrieta, 2002 cited by Bates et al. 2005; WHO, 2013). In worldwide more than 38% of women killing are executed by husbands (WHO 2013). VAW Survey 2015 demonstrates that a large percentage (41.7%) of women suffered from injuries in terms of experiencing lifetime partner physical or sexual violence, while 12.9% reported injuries during the last 12 months (BBS 2016). Such violence may contribute to unwanted pregnancies and also may increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) (Schraiber et al. 2008 cited by Sombisa et al. 2010). Violence experienced women are 1.5 times more likely to acquire HIV in some regions compared to women have not experienced such violence (WHO 2013). In addition, intimate violence is a major problem during pregnancies and related to increasing the risks of miscarriage, late entry into prenatal care, preterm labor, fetal distress and low birth weight (Kakoko et al. 2006 cited by Sombisa et al. 2010, WHO 2012). A multi-country population-based study conducted by WHO (2005) shows that 3% to 28% of physical violence happened during pregnancy in 10 developing countries. Moreover, 18% of currently married women living with the poor condition has experienced with physical violence during at least one pregnancy and for 3% of women got worse during pregnancy because of violence (Bates et al., 2004 cited by Naved, and Persson, 2008). According to WHO (2013), women who have experienced partner violence are 16% more likely to have a low-birth-weight child and more than twice as likely to have an abortion. Moreover, women who have experienced IPV are also suffering from a mental health problem (Woods 2000 cited by Sombisa et al. 2010). Abused women suffer from common psychological problems like fear, anxiety, fatigue, posttraumatic stress disorder, sleeping and eating disturbances (Fikreeu and Bhatti, 1999 cited by Khatun, & Rahman, 2012). Ultimately, such violence brings a huge human, social, and economic costs (ICRW 2009 cited by Sombisa et al. 2010).

There are different national and International legislation and laws that ensure the rights of women and strongly contribute to eliminating all forms of violence against women. The Constitution of Bangladesh (article 27 and 28) has ensured the equal rights of man and women before preparing the relevant law. Government of Bangladesh has already made relevant acts such as the Dowry Prohibition Act (1980; 1986), The Prevention of Women and Child Repression Act (2000), and The Cruelty to Women Ordinance (1983) to protect women from any forms of violence and to confirm their rights. Moreover, the country has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), which ensure the protection of women from gender-based abuse and negligence. Government of Bangladesh also gives priority to SDGs -5 focusing on gender equality. This research particularly addresses the target 5.2 of SDGs as described “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone is entitled to all rights and freedom set forth in declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or another status” (Article 2). The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) cites that violence against women means as gender-based violence resulting in physical, sexual, psychological harm, or suffering to women, including threats of the act, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life (Article 1). It also indicates that States have an obligation to “exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, which are perpetrated by the State, or by private persons” (Article 4-c).

1.3 Key Words Definition

· Socio-demographic Factors- The indicators which are used to statistically measuring the economic and social characteristics of a person. Age, education, marital status, area of residence, health status, migration status, religion, household condition, working status, etc. are indicated as general socio-demographic characteristics of a person.

· Internally Migrated Men: A “migrant” is defined as a person whose place of birth was different from their current place of residence and/or they had not “always lived” in their current location (NIPORT, MEASURE Evaluation, ICDDR, B and ACPR, 2008).

· Intimate Partner: A person who has a close emotional and regular contact to someone and also they have ongoing physical contact and sexual behavior. In this study, a person's wife is considered as an intimate partner.

· Attitudes: Generally, it is referring to a set of human emotions, their beliefs, and particular behaviors toward a specific object, another person, object, or any event. In accordance with the definition of Psychology, verbal expression of behavior is defined as an attitude. In Sociology, attitude is seen as an intention to act (Chaiklin, 2011). The definition of social attitude as "a behavior pattern, anticipatory set or tendency, predisposition to specific adjustment or more simply, a conditioned response to social stimuli" (Dockery & Bedeian, 1989, p. 11 cited by Chaiklin, 2011). It is noted that attitudes forecast behavior. Generally, it is assumed that intentions are influenced by attitudes and intentions influence behavior (Chaiklin, 2011). In this study, the justification of beating wives by men is referred to as an attitude.

· Violence: As per definition by WHO (2002) - “The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation”. The Anthropology of Violence (1986), anthropologist David Riches defines violence as “an act of physical hurt deemed legitimate by the performer and illegitimate by (some) witnesses” (p. 8). This research focuses only on the attitude about physical forces or power towards an intimate partner. Henry (2000) defined violence as “the use of power to harm another, whatever form it takes” (Henry, 2000: 3). The World report on violence and health broadly categories three types of violence namely, self-directed violence; interpersonal violence; and collective violence. Generally, self-directed violence is comprised of suicidal behavior and self-abuse such as self-mutilation. Family and intimate partner violence and community violence are subcategories of interpersonal violence. First one refers to the violence between family members and intimate partners and the second one refers to violence between individuals who are not related and may or may not know each other. Finally, collective violence is occurred by a group of people who separate themselves from others and their main intention to gain socio-economic and political objectives.

· Intimate Partner Violence: The term “Intimate partner violence has similar meanings such as “domestic violence” domestic abuse”, “domestic assault”, “battering”, “partner abuse”, “marital strife”, “marital dispute”, “wife beating”, “marital discord”, “women abuse', “dysfunctional relationship”, “intimate fighting”, “mate beating”, “spouse abuse”, “wife abuse” and “wife assault” “conjugal violence”, “marital violence”, “family violence” `gender violence' “partner aggression”, and “intimate terrorism” (Khan, 2015). IPV refers to any forms of physical, psychological or sexual harmful behavior in a relationship (such as husband, boyfriend, and romantic partner) (Heise and Garcia-Moreno, 2002). Four types of following behaviors for IPV are identified by WHO (2012), which are:

I. Acts of physical violence: such as kicking, slapping, hitting, and beating to wives.

II. Sexual violence: refers to forcibly sexual interaction and other forms of sexual oppression.

III. Emotional (psychological) abuse, such as continuous insulting, belittling, constant humiliation, intimidation, threats of harm, threats to take away children from a partner.

IV. Controlling behaviors, including separating a person from family, relatives, and friends; monitoring his or her movements; and restricting access to resources, work, education or health care.

Intimate partner violence refers to the acts that are executed by intimate partners or other family members, resulting in, great cost on the physical, sexual, psychological and economic wellbeing of women and girls (UNICEF, 2000). UNIFEM (2009) defines domestic violence or intimate partner violence as a form of violence against women that is enacted by intimate partners and family members. In this study, physical violence against women (justify beating wife) by men is defined as intimate partner violence.

· Slum: A slum is defined as a neighborhood or residential area with a minimum of 10 households or a mess unit with at least 25 members with some prevailing conditions: predominantly poor housing; very high population density and room crowding; very poor environmental services, particularly water and sanitation facilities; very low socioeconomic status for the majority of residents; lack of security of tenure (CUS, NIPORT and MEASURE Evaluation, 2008). “A squatter settlement grows up unsystematically and haphazardly in an unhealthy condition and atmosphere on the land of government, semi-governmental units, public organizations, and other organizations” (Census of Slum Areas and Floating Population, 2014).

· Non-Slum: defined as “an area with small, low-cost houses, where dwellers are mostly tenants and 2-3 families with 10-15 members each share a toilet and water supply. Non-slum housing consists mostly of permanent structures of concrete or brick, usually built to a design” (Ferdous, et al. 2014, Page-1171)

· Bangladesh: A lower-middle income country of South Asia (World Bank, 2015). The country is the 7th largest populous country in the world with more than 165 million people living in a small area of 147,570 km2. The population of Bangladesh is representing to 2.19% of the total world population with a density of 1101 people per km2 (BBS, 2011). The country has a tremendous achievement in poverty reduction, now 24.3% of people are living under the poverty line, where urban poverty is recorded at 18.9% (BBS, 2017).

1.4 Research Questions

· What is the prevalence of socio-demographic and other relevant factors in Slum and Non-Slum areas of Bangladesh?

· Do socio-demographic factors affect men's attitude towards IPV against wives?

· Do internally migrated men are more justify IPV against wives than internally non-migrant men living in a slum and non-slum areas?

· Are there other factors related to lifestyle, decision-making power, gender role and exposure to mass media influence on men's attitude towards IPV against wives?

1.5 Research Aim and Objectives

The aim of this research to examine the influence of different factors on men's attitudes towards intimate partner violence against wives both in the slum and non-slum areas of Bangladesh. Specific Objectives are as follows:

· To know about the prevalence of different factors influencing men's attitudes towards IPV against wives in urban slum and non-slum areas of Bangladesh.

· To assess the effect of socio-demographic factors on men's attitude towards IPV against wives.

· To measure the influence of other factors on men's attitude towards IPV against wives.

1.6 The Rationale of the Study

Intimate partner violence against women is a major concern of development intervention and human rights perspectives. A collective effort for action-oriented interventions is necessary to eliminate this problem. This study will assist to policy-maker, academician, and NGOs professionals, social activists, development planners, local government, local administration, and other relevant stakeholders to know and understand the effect of socio-economic and demographic and other factors on men's attitude towards IPV against women in a slum and non-slum areas of city corporations in Bangladesh. A comprehensive intervention will be developed and implemented based on research outcomes to change men's mindset and behavior against women.

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

Every research has some limitations. This study only focuses on men's attitude of wife beating. There are more forms of IPV such as sexual, economic, psychological and control behavior. The study could not analysis other forms of IPV due to unavailable data sources and time constraint. Some economic related variables such as wealth status, poverty, and income of respondents have not included in this study because of not available sources. The results of this study do not generalize the attitudes of the vast majority of people towards justifying beating wives for some defined reasons.

Chapter 2. Literature review and theoretical framework

2.1 Literature Review

In this section, a number of existing researches and literature are reviewed to understand the intimate partner violence/ domestic violence from multidisciplinary perspectives. The types, reasons, consequences of IPV as well as partner's knowledge, attitude and practices towards IPV relevant research results/ outcomes are analyzed by authors at the national, regional and global level. This study will try to examine the main topics, theoretical and methodological issues and gaps in the present literature.

The Global Scenario:

Intimate partner violence is deemed as a global social problem and burden. Many scholars and researchers focus on an intimate partner or domestic violence against women from multiple perspectives. WHO (2005a) multi-country study was carried out on women's health and domestic violence against women among more than 24 000 women in 10 countries. The study found that around 13-61% reported about the physical violence by a partner, 4-49% reported about severe physical violence and 6-59% reported about sexual violence by a partner. Furthermore, about 20-75% of women expressed about the emotionally abusive act, or more, from a partner in their entire life. The study (Garcia- Moreno et al., 2005) also found that from 6% to over 65% of women who agreed with one or more justifications for “wife beating”. The most commonly agreed justification was about suspecting a wife of being unfaithful.

Koeing, et al. (2003) stated that 70% of men and 90% of women in Uganda accepted the justification of beating wife or female partner in some circumstances. 16% of men and 28% of women supported to beating wife if women refused to have sex with her husband. 22% of men and 27% of women were favor beating wives for taking contraception without permission of the husband. In addition, 60% of men and 87% of women agreed to beat wife for Unfaithful.

Stickley et al. (2008) measured the attitudes towards IPV against wife in Moscow, Russia. They have found some factors such as young age, divorced or widowed, financial challenges, and regular alcohol consumption was associated with attitudes that favor IPV against women. The study claimed that the majority of men and women did not accept violence against women in any circumstances. Among men, it is acceptable to justify hit his wife for reasons: from 0.8% (asking about other girlfriends) to 18.6%. (wife has been unfaithful). Similarly, women accepted the justification of hitting wife for reasons: from 0.4% (refuse to have sex with husband) to 7.4% (wife has been unfaithful).

Ezeah, (2013) explored the influence of the socioeconomic and cultural process on Nigerian women's exposure to violence in marriage. The study found that almost 56% of rural women in Nigeria faced domestic violence in the last 12 months. The study also found that women who have more education and income status are comparatively less risk of domestic violence.

Graciaa, (2014) mentioned that the prevalence of lifetime intimate partner violence among women is 19.3% in high-income countries of Western Europe, whereas 27% of IPV against women in Central and Eastern Europe. 52% of respondents agreed that the provocative behavior of women is the main cause of intimate partner violence against women. and the range is from 33% to 86% across countries in Europe.

Semahegn and Mengistie, (2015) found that from 31 to 76.5 % of women in Ethiopia experienced lifetime physical violence by their husbands or intimate partner and from 19.2 to 59% of women have experienced lifetime sexual violence by a partner. The study also mentioned that consumption of alcohol, khat chewing, family history of violence, occupation status, religion status, educational status, area of residence and decision-making power are significantly associated with intimate partner violence in Ethiopia. Moreover, the study showed that 8 out of 10 women have accepted wife beating by husband at least for one following reason: burning the food, argues with a partner, without permission if she goes out, carelessness about children and refuses to have sexual relation with husband.

Asia and South Asia Scenario:

South Asia region is considered to have a high gender imbalance (Naved et al. 2006) and the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women (Guruge et al. 2015). Such practice begins long before their born and continues entire their lives. It is reported that every sixth death of a female infant in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan because of neglect and discrimination (OXFAM International, 2004). A study was conducted among seven countries- Armenia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Kazakhstan, Nepal, and Turkey based on demographic and health surveys from 1998 to 2001 and results showed that the acceptance of wife beating range from 29% in Nepal to 57% in India (only women) whereas 26% in Kazakhstan to 56% in Turkey (men only). The study also claimed that working women were equally or more likely to justify wife beating compared to non-working women among these countries. It was found that more than 30% of women in India justified wife beating if a wife is suspected by husband for unfaithfulness, and more than 35% men and over 20% women in Turkey accepted wife beating for talking to other men. Moreover, Kazakhstan women (34.0%) were more likely to favor wife beating in comparison with men (28.8%) (Rani and Bonu, 2009).

Another study was conducted by Taylor, S. et al. (2017) to identifying the association of demographic characteristics of people with a favorable attitude towards intimate partner violence in India and China. For country India, some characteristics such as male, lower middle, upper middle, and upper socio-economic classes, older age, never get married, and no religious affiliation was more likely to favor IPV. The model for China was not statistically significant. In India, people of the lower social class tend to more favor IPV in comparison with middle-class people. It is remarkable that the upper-class people of India were more likely to justify IPV than the lower class. In addition, aged people were likely to be favor IPV more compared to younger. Younger people in India may be more advanced regarding women `s rights. People who have lower educational attainment were more likely to accept of IPV, but people who told themselves to be religious were less likely to favor IPV.

Sahoo, H. and Pradhan, M. R., (2009) conducted an empirical study to examine the justification of beating wife among ever-married women ages of 15-49 in India. Women who belong to low socio-economic status are more likely to agree with each of the different reasons (wife is unfaithful, natal family doesn't give money, disrespect for in-laws, wife goes without telling husband, neglect house or children, doesn't cook food, and agree with at least one reason) justifying wife beating. The study claimed that some socio-demographic variables such as the age of respondents, their level of education, age at first marriage, ethnic and religious groups, working status, living condition, area of residence as well as other factors like women's autonomy and exposure to mass media significantly associated with the prevalence of domestic violence. Domestic violence is also more among women with low autonomy and socio-economic status.

IPV is presented as a new concept for Nepali people. The term domestic violence (gharelu hinsha) or violence against women (mahila hinsa) are mostly used by the law, different service providers and general people of Nepal (Ghimire and Samuels, 2017). In order to Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) in 2011, 33% of Nepalese women of reproductive age between 15-49 had experienced IPV in their lifetime, whereas 17% had in the last 12 months. The report also claimed that 84% of perpetrators for domestic violence are husbands. It is found that one-third of married women in Nepal experience domestic violence from their spouse (Ministry of Health and Population [MoHP] Nepal, New ERA, and ICF International, 2012 cited by Ghimire and Samuels, (2017). A study from Government of Nepal (2012) shows that the most common form of violence in Nepal is emotional (40.4%), followed by physical violence (26.8%), sexual violence (15.3%) and economic abuse/ violence (8%) a (Ghimire and Samuels, 2017). Sahavagi et al. (2015) claimed that women who go for earn money were more likely to experience IPV in comparison to women who were unemployed (cited by Ghimire and Samuels, 2017). Another study conducted by Yoshikawa et al. (2014) on the acceptance of wife beating among husband and wife within couples is associated with lifetime and last one-year physical IPV execution towards wives in Nepal. According to the outcomes, around 30% of wives and husbands claimed that the beating of wives is acceptable under certain situations. the husbands' acceptance of wife beating was positively related to lifetime and past one-year physical IPV towards wives, whereas, wives' acceptance of wife beating was not.

It is noted that the national report on intimate partner violence is not available in Sri Lanka. The first published research in Sri Lanka on IPV was in 1982. In the DHS report 2016, they first added some questions regarding women's experience in IPV, their health-seeking behavior and knowledge about available services. According to the DHS report (2016), 17% of ever-married women have experienced IPV in the last 12 months. The prevalence rate of urban women reporting (19.8%) was slightly higher than rural women (16%) and estate sector women (17%). The report also revealed that 13% was beaten by objects and 15% were forced to have sex by their intimate partners (Country Profile Gender-Based Violence in Sri Lanka by World Health Organization 2018). Another DHS report (2006-2007) highlighted women's thought about justifying in beating wife by husband based on five scenarios: burns the food, arguing with husband, going outside without telling husband, neglects the children and refuse to sexual relationship with husband. 47% of women stated that none of these reasons would justify wife beating by husband; 42% of women expressed their justification to wife beating for neglecting of children; 41% and 35% of women for arguing with husband and going outside without telling him respectively; 21% of women accepted the statement of wife beating for refusing sex with husband; and 18% justified for burning the food. A study carried out among undergraduate male medical students by Jayatilleke AC et al. (2011) revealed 33% of students believed wife beating was justified, 63% blamed women for instigating such violence, and 23% students thought that occasional violence by a husband against his wife could help maintain the marriage.

Intimate Partner violence affects more than one-third population of Pakistan and the social and economic impacts felt by survivors, and by their wider community. A study carried out by Ali et al., (2015) and found that 32% of Pakistani women reported about physical IPV in their lifetimes. This is minimally above the global average of 30%. Moreover, 77% of women have experienced sexual violence, 90% with psychological violence and 50% with physical violence (cited by Karmaliani, 2017). In order to the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), 2012, showed that 33% of women (Age between 15 and 49) had experienced with spousal violence in the past year (NIPS and ICF International, 2013 cited by Karmaliani, 2017). Another study conducted by Zakar, R. et al. (2013) on the beliefs and attitudes of men toward intimate partner violence in Pakistan. Most of the respondents between the age of 18 and 33 agreed that women have a diverse “nature” in opposite to men. Many respondents tried to justify patriarchal and male dominance in gender relations based on the perceiving about the “nature” of women. Moreover, a big portion of respondents measured violence against wives a “cowardly act.” Many respondents (21 of 33) believed that men have a culturally sanctioned authority to humiliation their wives in exceptional circumstances. Majority of them believed in an unrealistic notion of the “ideal wife.” And they also expect to get docile bodies (in the name of an “ideal wife”), who will mutely accept the male dominant behavior.

In Afghanistan, the percentage of wife beating acceptance among women is much higher compared to other South Asian countries like 54% in India, 36% in Bangladesh and 23% in Nepal. With the support of UNICEF, a study was conducted among women to examine their attitudes toward domestic violence. 92% of Afghan women agreed with the justification of hitting of beating wife for at least following reasons; wife argues with husband, going outside with telling her husband, refusing sex with him, burning food and neglecting their children. The result also showed that 78% of women supported the justification for beating a wife if she goes outside without telling her husband while 31% accepted for burning the food. Along with these selected questions, another additional question was included in the survey- wearing inappropriate clothes. 63% of Afghan women agreed with the justification of beating wives if a wife does not wear cloth appropriately.

Bangladesh Scenario:

Intimate partner or violence against women is a common phenomenon in Bangladeshi society (Wahid and Bhuiya, 2007). Koenig et al. (2003) in their study found that better education, upper socioeconomic status, non-Muslim religion, and extended family residence are related to lower risks of violence against women in Bangladesh.

Bates et al. (2005) examined the relationship between socio-economic factors and process and domestic violence among rural women of Bangladesh by pursuing both quantitative and qualitative methods. They found that more than 65% of women have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime and 35% experienced in the past year. Their quantitative findings show that there is a negative association between women's education and domestic violence. Because of women's participation in a microcredit program, shifting in the balance of power between husband and wife that leads to violence among them. The qualitative findings suggested that women with higher education and income be less vulnerable to domestic violence.

Ahmed S. M., (2005) examined the nexus between microcredit program of BRAC and husband's involvement in domestic violence against women. The study found that almost 18% of women reported their experience with spousal violence during the study period in 1999. A large percentage of women who belong to the BRAC household were abused. However, a household with poor status, non-membership of BRAC and with more children experienced many times violence. The study concluded that skill development training and education play a contributory role to reduce domestic violence among women participants.

Naved et al. (2006) explore that most of the Bangladeshi women are not sharing their difficulty during marital life. In the rural area, women with more than Tenth-grade education were willing to share their experience with violence. The study has not found the association of age, income level, income earning by women, family history on violence with the revelation of violence in both areas. The study also stated that women are not seeking help during domestic violence because of acceptance by themselves. Women living in the urban area mainly depend on institutional sources of support, whereas, local leaders play a role as a source of support for women in the rural area.

Wahed, T. & Bhuiya, A., (2007) & Bhuiya, A and Hanifi (2016) mentioned that some factors such as the age of women, educational attainment, age of husband, past exposure to familial violence, and lack of spousal communication are associated with violence against women. They claim that husbands with age of 50 or more, are less practice violence against wife, whereas husband with age of 30 and less are more practicing violence. In an urban area, men with six grade are more protective and less practice violence. On the other hand, in a rural area, only men with a very high level of education have such effect, because of strong conventional gender norms. In urban areas, women ages 15-19 years are more likely to be abused than older women.

Naved and Persson., (2008) examined the effect of factors on physical violence against partner during pregnancy. The study found that women living in urban and rural areas whose mother and mother-in-law had experienced partner violence have more possibility to experience with abuse during pregnancy. In an urban area, women (age more than 19) with more than 10-grade education and higher economic condition have a negative association with abuse. Rural women who depend on natal family support has a negative relationship with abuse. The study also found that dowry demand and religious identity like Muslim are positively linked to abuse.

Khatun, T and K. F. Rahman (2012) described that in terms of patriarchal capitalism in Bangladesh, women remain subordinate under male domination. Individual, partner and social factors are associated with violence against women in Bangladesh. Individual and partner attributes such as age, education, economic autonomy, empowerment, previous victimization and history of abuse in the parental family, use of alcohol and drugs, employment are linked to marital violence against women. In addition, some social factors for instance economic disparity between men and women, level of female freedom, attitudes towards gender roles, family extension, interventions of neighbors and friends and some measures of social capital are associated to violence against women.

Dalal K. et al. (2013) examined the nexus between membership of the microfinance programme and intimate partner violence among women in the different socioeconomic status of Bangladesh. The study described that women with secondary or higher education, better income/wealth index and membership of the microfinance programme increased the exposure to IPV two to three times. It may be happened because of disagreements between husband and wife regarding household resources management are associated with IPV. Besides, microfinance loans may have created more economic stress in this group. On the other hand, women with the least education and poor economic status have no change in exposure to IPV related to microfinance programmes. Fewer conflicts might have in the households where the wife is not empowered and husband mainly responsible to manage the loans in single-handedly.

Rashid et al. (2014) explored the factors linked to attitudes toward wife beating among women in Bangladesh. It is stated that one-third of all women support to husband for beating wife in particular circumstance. The study found that 23% of women accepted husband's beating because of arguments with him, 18% accepted for neglecting children, 17% due to going outside without permission of the husband, 8% for refusal of sex with husband and 4% for burning the food. Through their study, they stated that household economic status, low education of women, unemployment and Muslim play as significant factors to justify wife beating compared to women with high-income and higher education background. Women living in rural areas approve to justify wife beating due to arguing with husband and going out without children, compared to women living in urban areas.

Das et al. (2015) explored a number of diverse factors and sociocultural contexts that created the ground for practicing domestics violence against women in the Sylhet region. Child marriage, age gap between husband and wife, expectation for a son, desire for a beautiful wife, dowry practice, illiteracy, cultural approval of wife beating, women's silence, polygyny, socioeconomic dependency of the wife, conflicts related to extra- and premarital affairs, poverty, stigmatization, and drug addiction of the husband are factors that triggering domestic violence. They claim that DV is intentional behavior that determines the male authority in society in order to gain control over the victims who are suffering from traditional disadvantages.