Keeping silent or running away. The voices of Vietnamese women survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Background: Legislative initiatives have been implemented to fight against Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and offer protection to its survivors in Vietnam. However, this type of violence is relatively common in the country, where broader structural inequalities, like poverty and the system of male dominance, increase women's vulnerability to IPV. Objective: This study aimed to explore the strategies that Vietnamese IPV survivors take to cope with the abuse from their partners and maximize their safety and wellbeing. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with eight women survivors of IPV who lived in one of the Peace House Shelter in Hanoi. Participants were recruited through the shelter. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analyzed using qualitative content framed by the theoretical concept of the patriarchal bargain. Results: The IPV survivors in our study took two main strategies to cope with IPV: keeping silent and/or leaving the abuser. Leaving was a challenging strategy because it required support from others, something that was difficult to find due to the social stigma associated with divorce and the normalization of violence in intimate relationships. This was specially the case for participants coming from rural areas who did not count on a social network in the city where the shelter is located. The women strategized within a complex set of structural constrains like poverty, cultures of honor, social stigma, and traditional gender roles. As active agents, they decided whether challenging the patriarchal system would optimize their life options. Motherhood also played a crucial role in women's decisions regarding IPV. Conclusion:A strategy of conformity like silence can be a tactic for women to cope with a system of male dominance while navigating complex structural inequalities. To better address IPV in Vietnam, interventions should be sensitive to the structural gender inequalities within family and societal contexts.

Health Providers’ Response to Female Adolescent Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and Demand Side Barriers in the Utilization of Support Services in Urban Low-Income Communities of Nigeria

“…Only four sessions of FGD were conducted in four communities in Ibadan, and five were conducted in five communities in Lagos. The age range of the female adolescent participants was (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), more than three-quarters of the participants were below 19 years, while the rest were above 20 years. The majority of the adolescents were apprentices while the rest were students, with the highest education having secondary school certificates.…”

“…In this context, it is the act of keeping an unspoken agreement not to speak about what happened to them"survivor [15]. Not only in Nigeria, but also in other contexts, adolescents and young women find it difficult to speak out due to shame, stigma, and some socio-culturally shaped ideation [16] about retaliation effects on the survivors [17,18]. In addition, depending on the relation to the state, there is also a perceived notion of a lack of confidence in the state agencies, including the healthcare systems [19,20].…”

Violence and adversity among pregnant women and new mothers in central Vietnam

“…This research theme remains a neglected topic in Vietnam, as only several qualitative studies have investigated the complex set of structural factors (e.g. poverty, culture, social stigma, and women subordination) on IPV victimisation (Dao et al, 2012;Herrero-Arias et al, 2021). "How do environmental and family contexts shape children's developmental outcomes over time?"…”

Influence of Ambivalent Sexism on Intimate Partner Violence Tolerance and Mental Violence in a Chinese Female Sample: Relationship Causality Orientation as a Moderator

“…Øverup et al (2017) found that individuals with higher controlled orientation are more likely to perpetrate IPV. Previous studies have suggested that controlled orientation may be a risk factor for IPV perpetration, while autonomous orientation may be a protective factor (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Hove et al, 2010). For impersonal orientation, we did not take it into account in the present study because impersonal orientation is related to apathy and not related to perpetrating IPV (Øverup et al, 2017).…”