Published in collaboration with:
6930 Carroll Avenue
Suite 910
Takoma Park
Maryland 20912, USA
Phone: 301/270-1182
Fax: 301/270-2052

The Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) is a research and advocacy organization that seeks to integrate concern for gender equity and social justice into international health policy and practice. CHANGE staff can be reached by e-mail at change@genderhealth.org or at http://www.genderhealth.org.

In many places the prevalence of such violence varies substantially among neighboring areas (255, 319). These local differences are often greater than the differences among countries. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, India, the percentage of men who said they beat their wives varied from 18% in Naintal District to 45% in Banda (319). The percentage that physically forced their wives to have sex varied from 14% to 36% among districts (see Table 4).

Why is violence more widespread in some places than in others? While studies do not provide clear answers, they do identify some characteristics of societies and of relationships that help explain differences in prevalence of violence against women.

Violence and socioeconomic status. Although domestic violence occurs in all socioeconomic groups, studies find that women who live in poverty are more likely to experience violence than women of higher status (188, 215, 253, 268, 288, 325, 378, 386, 427).

It is unclear, however, why poverty increases the risks of violence—whether it is due to low income itself or to other factors that accompany poverty, such as crowding or hopelessness. For some men, living in poverty is likely to generate stress, frustration, and a sense of inadequacy for having failed to live up to their culturally defined role of provider. Poverty may also provide cause for marital disagreements and at the same time make it difficult for women to leave violent or otherwise unsatisfactory relationships.

Low socioeconomic status probably reflects a variety of conditions that in combination increase women's risk of victimization (210). Increasingly, experts are using an “ecological model” to understand the interplay of personal, situational, and sociocultural factors that combine to cause abuse (see A Framework for Understanding Partner Violence and Figure 1). An ecological approach to abuse argues that that no one factor alone “causes” violence but rather that a number of factors combine to raise the likelihood that a particular man in a particular setting may act violently toward a woman.

In the ecological framework, social and cultural norms—such as those that assert men's inherent superiority over women—combine with individual-level factors—such as whether a man was abused himself as a child—to determine the likelihood of abuse. The more risk factors present, the higher the likelihood of violence.

Other factors of the social environment combine to protect some women. For example, when women have authority and power outside the family, rates of abuse in intimate partnerships appear to be lower (94, 275, 407). Likewise, prompt intervention by family members appears to reduce the likelihood of domestic violence, as does the presence of all-woman collectives (94, 275). By contrast, where the family is considered “private” and outside public scrutiny, rates of wife abuse are higher (275).

For additional information please see the side-bar entitled Culture: A Double-Edged Sword