Understanding Gender and Domestic Violence From a Sample of Married Women in Urban Thailand

Abstract

There is a widespread agreement among gender and family violence investigators that gender and socioeconomic inequalities play key roles in domestic violence against women (DVAW). By integrating the concepts of gender traditionalism and decision-making power into a variety of resource-based theories, this study develops a gender perspective to explore the linkages between gendered correlates and psychological and physical DVAW in urban Thailand. Based on a random sample of 770 married women in Bangkok, results from our Tobit regression models indicate that when Thai wives accept gender traditionalism, have significantly greater or smaller economic resources than their husbands, or have significantly greater or smaller decision-making power, they are at greater risk for multiple forms of domestic violence. However, contrary to expectations, Thai wives who report higher levels of social contact or integration do not experience less domestic violence. It is concluded that gender egalitarianism in urban Thailand can greatly reduce the risk of DVAW.

Intergenerational Transmission of Family Violence and Depressive Symptoms in Urban Thailand

“…Several studies have provided empirical support for such differential effects of experiencing harsh parenting versus witnessing interparental violence (Cappell & Heiner, 1990). In fact, childhood experience of FV, such as frequent physical discipline of the child (United Nations Children 's Fund Thailand, 2013;Xu et al, 2011), is one of the most common sources of stress (Lansford et al, 2005). As such, it can result in long-term, serious, and negative mental health outcomes.…”

“…In addition, these composite variables do not necessarily indicate "intimate partner terrorism," as articulated by Johnson (1995), but measure a construct known as "common couple violence" (Johnson, 1995, p. 283). Based on previous research (see Xu et al, 2011), this study included a host of statistical controls that are associated with either FV or mental health outcomes. They are the following: respondent's age (in years), years of education (in years), number of children (count), employment status (dummy coded with 0 = "unemployed" and 1 = "employed"), log-transformed family income (in Baht), family structure (dummy coded with 0 = "nuclear family" and 1 = "extended family"), frequency of alcohol use, frequency of meeting attendance outside the family, and frequency of religious participation (all ordinal scales).…”

“…A recent study conducted by the World Health Organization revealed that the lifetime prevalence of physical and sexual FV was 22.9% and 29.9%, respectively, for women in urban Thailand (Garcia-Moreno et al, 2006). As documented in another study, 62% of married women from Bangkok reported that they suffered from psychological FV in the past year (Xu et al, 2011). Likewise, child abuse, corporal punishment, and child neglect remain widespread in Thailand (United Nations Children's Fund Thailand, 2013).…”

“…Second, this study examines multifaceted linkages between married women's adulthood experience of psychological, physical, and sexual FV and depressive symptoms in adulthood. A careful review of extant literature suggests that these linkages have not been systematically investigated and addressed in Thailand until fairly recently (Jirapramukpitak, Harpham, & Prince, 2011;Xu, Kerley, & Sirisunyaluck, 2011). Third, with the previous two research goals in mind, this study documents both the short-and long-term mental health consequences of FV for ever-married women in a predominately Buddhist society.…”

“…In effect, Theravada Buddhism has been widely recognized and accepted as the official state religion (Kusalasaya, 2005;Limanonda, 1995). However, even in this predominantly Buddhist society, violence against married women is the most common form of FV (Xu et al, 2011). A recent study conducted by the World Health Organization revealed that the lifetime prevalence of physical and sexual FV was 22.9% and 29.9%, respectively, for women in urban Thailand (Garcia-Moreno et al, 2006).…”