Intersectional inequalities in younger women’s experiences of physical intimate partner violence across communities in Bangladesh

Abstract

Background Physical intimate partner violence (IPV) risk looms large for younger women in Bangladesh. We are, however, yet to know the association between their intersectional social locations and IPV across communities. Drawing on intersectionality theory’s tenet that interacting systems of power, oppressions, and privileges work together, we hypothesized that (1) younger, lower educated or poor women’s physical IPV experiences will be exacerbated in disadvantaged communities; and conversely, (2) younger, higher educated or nonpoor women’s physical IPV experiences will be ameliorated in advantaged communities. Methods We applied intercategorical intersectionality analyses using multilevel logistic regression models in 15,421 currently married women across 911 communities from a national, cross-sectional survey in 2015. To test the hypotheses, women’s probabilities of currently experiencing physical IPV among intersectional social groups were compared. These comparisons were made, at first, within each type of disadvantaged (e.g., younger or poor) and advantaged (e.g., older or nonpoor) communities; and then, between different types of communities. Results While our specific hypotheses were not supported, we found significant within community differences, suggesting that younger, lower educated or poor women were bearing the brunt of IPV in almost every community (probabilities ranged from 34.0–37.1%). Younger, poor compared to older, nonpoor women had significantly higher IPV probabilities (the minimum difference = 12.7, 95% CI, 2.8, 22.6) in all communities. Similar trend was observed between younger, lower educated compared to older, higher educated women in all except communities that were poor. Interestingly, younger women’s advantage of higher education and material resources compared to their lower educated or poor counterparts was observed only in advantaged communities. However, these within community differences did not vary between disadvantaged and advantaged communities (difference-in-differences ranged from − 0.9%, (95% CI, − 8.5, 6.7) to − 8.6%, (95% CI, − 17.6, 0.5). Conclusions Using intersectionality theory made visible the IPV precarity of younger, lower educated or poor women across communities. Future research might examine the structures and processes that put them at these precarious locations to ameliorate their socio-economic-educational inequalities and reduce IPV in all communities. For testing hypotheses using intersectionality theory, this study might advance scholarship on physical IPV in Bangladesh and quantitative intersectionality globally.

Increased domestic violence during the COVID‐19 pandemic: India's response

“…Research highlights that violence against women does not arise from individual deviancy; it is politically and structurally organized and a result of domination across various inequalities, including race or ethnicity, nationality, class, and gender (Valdovinos et al, 2021). Using intersectionality theory makes it possible to identify the structures and processes that place the victims of domestic violence in vulnerable situations and, at the same time, help policy-makers develop policies that address the socioeconomic and educational inequalities that help produce violence (Rahman et al, 2022). In exploring domestic violence among Latino immigrants, Valdovinos et al (2021) assert that, although their immigration status plays a substantial role in their lives, factors such as class, country of origin, and social location all shape their experience in the new country.…”

“…It was later expanded by McCall (2005), who developed an inter‐categorical approach that quantified the influence of different contexts. Intersectional feminism argues that human behaviour and experiences are a result of the interactive force of contexts or social structures and inequalities such as ageism, racism, sexism, and classism (Collins, 2017; Crenshaw, 2015; DeFelice & Diller, 2019; McCall, 2005; Rahman et al., 2022). Intersectional feminists treat power structures as being interconnected with various social identities, including race (or ethnicity), class, and gender, which also create the foundation for multi‐layered domination that determines access to power, privilege, influence, and social relationships (Valdovinos et al., 2021).…”

“…Given the prevalent biases based on gender, race, and sexual orientation, this theory provides a lens through which we can observe and study various forms of inequality and how they interrelate and exacerbate each other (Crenshaw, 2015). Intersectional feminism has proved to be effective in dissecting various forms of inequalities and injustices that contribute to different forms of violence, including domestic violence, intimate partner violence (IPV), and sexual harassment among women of different ethnicities, including Latino, Asian, and African American women (Rahman et al., 2022; Valdovinos et al., 2021) as well as immigrant women (Valdovinos et al., 2021).…”

Decolonising and decriminalising child marriage in Africa

“…In another study, social norms and poverty were shown as core drivers that underlie lack of agency, lack of opportunity, and pregnancy/fear of pregnancy. The idea of interacting factors can be explained through ‘intersectionality’; it has been highlighted as one of the explanatory tools for child marriages (see e.g, Rahman et al., 2022). These drivers reflected community, household, and individual‐level factors (Psaki et al., 2021).…”