Norms of Masculinity and the Cultural Narrative of Intimate Partner Violence Among Men in Vietnam

Abstract

Semi-structured interviews with 31 men in Hung Yen Province in Northern Vietnam are used to elucidate a conceptual narrative to understand men’s perceptions and perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Vietnam. This narrative suggests that cultural definitions of masculinity and changes in women’s participation in the labor force have contributed to status conflicts that normalize IPV as part of masculine superiority. The narratives of both IPV perpetrators and non-perpetrators demonstrate how violence is incorporated into the cultural definition of masculinity and illustrates how men use this definition to minimize their own and other men’s perpetration. We suggest that attempts to reduce IPV in Vietnam must address constructions of masculinity and the socio-historical context of IPV by providing gender-sensitivity training and opportunities for men to evaluate critically how constructions of masculinity in their families and communities contribute to IPV perpetration.

Keywords

intimate partner violence masculinity men’s perpetration status conflict Vietnam qualitative research

Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to coercive or aggressive acts against a current or former spouse or partner that may be physical, sexual, or psychological (Breiding et al., 2015; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013). The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies IPV as a global health problem that disproportionately affects women. In one study, 13% to 61% of ever-partnered women in 10 geographically and culturally diverse countries reported experiencing any lifetime physical IPV, 20% to 75% reported experiencing any lifetime sexual IPV, and 20% to 75% reported experiencing any lifetime psychological IPV (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2012). An estimated 30% of women worldwide who have ever been in a relationship have experienced some form of IPV (Devries et al., 2013; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013). Women in Southeast Asia in particular report high rates of exposure (Devries et al., 2013; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013).

Many negative social, economic, and health outcomes result from exposure to IPV. In countries such as the United States, Nicaragua, and India, IPV presents an economic burden by decreasing women’s productivity, diminishing the probability of reliable employment, and affecting women’s earnings (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002; Morrison & Orlando, 1999). Women who experience IPV may also have less time to engage in dependent care (Yount, Zureick-Brown, & Salem, 2014). Globally, 42% of women who have experienced physical or sexual IPV also report physical injuries (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013). Women experiencing IPV are at increased risk of other adverse health outcomes, such as having a low-birth-weight baby, abortion, poor mental health, suicide, and homicide (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013).

To date, most studies of IPV have focused on women’s exposure. Consequently, men’s perpetration of IPV remains understudied globally (Campbell, 2002; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2012). A recent United Nations (UN) multi-country survey in Asia and the Pacific excluded many countries in Southeast Asia, such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam (Fulu, Jewkes, Roselli, & Garcia-Moreno, 2013). Recent quantitative studies in Vietnam have identified specific risk factors for men’s perpetration of IPV (Yount et al., 2016; Yount, Pham, et al., 2014). However, these studies did not examine the underlying narratives that men use to talk about—and often justify—their behavior (Yount et al., 2016; Yount, Pham, et al., 2014). It is critical to understand men’s motivations and attitudes about the perpetration of IPV, especially in Southeast Asia, where rates of IPV against women are among the highest in the world (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2013). To address this gap in the literature, we conducted semi-structured interviews with men in Vietnam. We investigated their perspectives on IPV against women and assessed how men thought about, talked about, and justified their own and other men’s perpetration of IPV as a normative part of masculinity.

Theoretical Framework

When women’s roles within the workplace become more equitable, men’s perceptions of expectations of their roles in the home may also shift (Rydstrøm, 2010). Thus, men may feel that they should participate in traditionally “feminine” household work, which may pose a threat to a man’s conception of himself as masculine (Rydstrøm, 2010; Yount et al., 2016). In such cases, a man may use violence to reassert dominance over his wife. We suggest that status conflict driven by changes in gender equity within larger society contributes to IPV.

Increases in women’s labor force participation in Vietnam have reached as high as 69% in 2005 (The World Bank, 2013). This increase has spurred shifts in gendered power and threatened patrilineal hierarchies (Rydstrøm, 2003; Werner, 2009; Yount et al., 2016). In turn, challenges to the patriarchy contribute to status conflict as women attain new statuses that contest the idea of men’s innate superiority (Dao, Hoang, Le, & Kanthoul, 2012; Ridgeway, 2006, 2011; Rydstrøm, 2010; Yount et al., 2016). The shift of women into the paid workforce and resulting changes in gender equity result in men feeling pressure to participate in the household by undertaking what they consider to be traditionally feminine tasks such as child care. Despite perceptions of shifting expectations, many men continue to see themselves as provider and leader of the family (Rydstrøm, 2010; Yount et al., 2016). This perspective keeps women in customary gender-delineated feminine household roles (Rydstrøm, 2010; Schuler et al., 2006). Thus, changing norms and gender-based status conflicts lead to gendered violence as a pathway for men to reassert their dominance within the family structure in Vietnam (Dao et al., 2012; Rydstrøm, 2010).

Background

Socio-Historical Context of Familial Violence in Vietnam

Vietnam has a unique socio-historical context derived from Confucian influences. The Vietnamese context includes ideas of hierarchy, gendered family roles, and responsibilities, and gendered behavioral expectations, which shape family violence (Rydstrøm, 2006, 2010). Along these lines, men in a family embody continuation of the family line, while women are considered to exist outside the family lineage and hold an inferior position in the family (Horton & Rydstrom, 2011; Rydstrøm, 2010). Men in families also have historically been seen as “the pillar,” the decision maker, and the breadwinner, while women’s domain of influence is in less consequential decisions related to the household and family (Drummond & Rydstrøm, 2004; Phong, 2008; Rydstrøm, 2006; Waibel & Glück, 2013).

Normative masculinity occurs in part through aggression, power, superiority, and action (Rydstrøm, 2003). Although scholars assert that there is not one form of masculinity, a “hegemonic masculinity” that assumes male aggression and dominance and the subordination of women has been identified (Connell, 1995; Thai, 2012). Traditional gender norms in Vietnam historically cast men as having innate and uncontrollable gender-based characteristics that give rise to “hot” tempers (Drummond & Rydstrøm, 2004; Rydstrøm, 2003). Alcohol is considered a “hot” drink in Vietnam in that it can contribute to aggressive and/or violent behavior. Thus, men are encouraged to consume alcohol as a marker of their masculinity (Horton & Rydstrom, 2011; Rydstrøm, 2003). Alcohol consumption also has been correlated with IPV in multiple contexts (Fulu et al., 2013; Jewkes, 2002). In contrast, women are expected to be “cool” and passive, and to endure their husband’s “hot” temper (Rydstrøm, 2003, 2010). Furthermore, women are held accountable for their husband’s behavior and are taught to be compliant and to adjust their behavior to particular social situations. (Rydstrøm, 2003, 2010). In many ways, women are thought of as acting like a mirror or reflection in their marriage, such that their husband’s behavior reflects on them, and they are held accountable for his actions (Rydstrøm, 2010; Waibel & Glück, 2013). Rather than possessing their own innate character, women are taught to be compliant and contextually adjust their behavior to particular social situations; this accommodation is called having “sense” (tinh cam; Rydstrøm, 2003).

Despite changes in gender equity in the workplace and increased female workforce participation, Vietnamese women retain responsibility for household labor (Rydstrøm, 2010). In contrast, Confucian and feudalist traditions continue to place the burden of being the provider on men. Although recent changes have shifted expectations about shared responsibility for participation in household work, many men have not abandoned their self-concept as provider and leader. Also, women continue to be encouraged by community organizations to respect the traditional patrilineage despite their increased participation in the labor force (Schuler et al., 2006; Waibel & Glück, 2013). As Western concepts of the family have invaded Vietnam, the country itself has enshrined women as bearers of the cultural flag, which has reinforced women’s responsibility for traditional roles in a time of cultural change (Leshkowich, 2008; Rydstrøm, 2010).

Legal Context of Violence in Vietnam

While this sociocultural–historical heritage still influences perceptions of IPV at the family and community levels, other state-level institutions contribute to shaping violence as well. Recent changes in the Vietnamese government’s authoritative stance on family violence are critical to understanding how men conceive of violence and IPV perpetration. Vietnam is a tightly organized single-party state, and the Communist Party is the major political force on both federal and municipal levels. In recent decades, Vietnam has taken great strides on a federal level to recognize the problem of familial violence in the country and has passed sweeping legislation to diminish the prevalence of existing violence, and to prevent future violence. The Law on Marriage and Family, passed in 1959 and revised in 1986, gave men and women equal rights in marriage, and the Penal Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1989 defined penalization for acts of sexual violence (Vietnam Women’s Union and Centre for Women’s Studies, 1989; Penal Code, 1989).

The Law on Gender Equality in 2006 attempted to eliminate gender-based discrimination and curb differential rights based on gender (National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2006; Rydstrøm, 2010; Waibel & Glück, 2013). The 2007 law passed by Vietnam’s National Assembly further illustrates the federal government’s commitment to addressing IPV. This law offers a concrete definition of physical, psychological, sexual, and economic violence in an effort to prevent and decrease intimate partner violence (National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2007; Vu, Schuler, Hoang, & Quach, 2014). Despite these factors, IPV remains a known and prevalent health problem in present-day Vietnam (Vu et al., 2014; Waibel & Glück, 2013). Below, we discuss methods and then findings from interviews with 31 men in the Hung Yen Province in Northern Vietnam.

Method

Study Setting

My Hao District is a peri-urban region of Hung Yen Province in Northern Vietnam, approximately 30 kilometers from Hanoi. The federal government is a single-party state, with the Communist Party of Vietnam in power. The government disseminates government-sanctioned news and propaganda and oversees mass social organizations such as the Youth Union, Women’s Union, and Peasant’s Union (Schuler et al., 2014). This analysis uses interviews that took place in two communes within My Hao District in Hung Yen Province. My Hao health officials, Emory University, and a Vietnamese non-government organization, the Center for Creative Initiatives in Health and Population (CCIHP), collaborated on this project. The Emory University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Vietnam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA) approved this project.

Sample and Participant Recruitment

Eligible participants were men married for at least 12 months, who were literate, 18 to 49 years, and residents of My Hao District. Being married for at least 12 months was required, as men married for less than 12 months may not have had sufficient time in the marital relationship to have perpetrated IPV against their wives. We purposively sampled men from eight mutually exclusive categories (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Graphic illustrating purposive sampling of eight exposure/perpetration categories.

The research staff, working through contacts at CCIHP, recruited from local health stations in two My Hao communes. The recruiters had prior relationships with CCIHP’s research and program initiatives, and as staff members at the local health stations were intimately familiar with the local community. Recruiters initiated contact, by phone or in person, and screened married men aged 18 to 49 for inclusion in the study. These men were either current patients at the health station or were known members of the community. Recruiters were trained regarding the project’s purpose and scope. Research staff used a screening form to ensure that participants met the criteria for participation in the study and to ensure recruitment captured men in each exposure/perpetration category. Interviewers administered the screening form with participants a second time immediately before the interview to verify eligibility.

Data Collection and Preparation

Interviewers were students at the Hanoi School of Public Health and established volunteers with CCIHP who were intensively trained in qualitative interviewing techniques and the collection of gender-sensitive information before data collection began. Interviewers were male, to assure gender-matching with participants. The initial goal for purposive sampling was four to six interviews for each of the eight exposure/perpetration categories, although categories sometimes reached saturation with fewer interviews. Due to the sensitivity of the research topic, interviewers obtained verbal rather than written consent before each interview in the presence of a Vietnamese-speaking member of the research team who acted as a witness. All interviews were conducted in private at a commune-level health station. A total of 31 interviews were conducted during the month of July in 2014.

A semi-structured interview guide was used that included questions on family and community norms regarding IPV perpetration, men’s perceptions of exposure to violence in childhood and its impact on the perpetration of IPV in adulthood, and identification of the perceived existing local norms about violence. Items included open-ended questions such as the following: “In your opinion, what is the difference between discipline, punishment, and violence in a family?” After the in-depth interview, the interviewer administered a short, structured demographic survey questionnaire asking questions such as age, schooling attainment, and length of their current marriage, as well as exposure to violence in childhood and perpetration of IPV. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr, and participants received 50.000 VN$ (approximately US$2.5) as compensation for their time. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim into Vietnamese by native Vietnamese speakers’ in country. Native Vietnamese speakers with English fluency then translated the Vietnamese transcripts into English. The research team de-identified all transcripts before data analysis.

Data Analysis

Analysis followed the process of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). A single researcher used MaxQDA Version 11 software (“MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis,” 1989-2015) to facilitate data analysis. The initial codebook included deductive themes based on concepts from prior research and topics on the interview guide, and expanded with inductive themes arising directly from the data. As such, both deductive and inductive codes were developed. Coding data were an iterative process, as codes were revised until all issues were captured and no inconsistencies between codes remained. The analysis involved constant comparison of central codes to understand the variation and relationships between issues. A conceptual framework was then developed, based on the relationships between central codes, to explain the broader cultural narrative of masculinity and its influence on violence. The conceptual framework was validated by returning to codes and broader themes to ensure that the framework fit the narratives found in interviews.

Results

A Conceptual Framework of Men’s Perpetration of IPV

Men’s interviews provided diverse accounts of IPV in their families and communities. Distinctive patterns in the way men described these events were identified. Some men had accounts of specific events of IPV they experienced or witnessed firsthand, but many other men, both perpetrators and non-perpetrators of IPV, used more general references to violence as a representation of the cultural norm to explain how and why IPV occurs in Vietnam. This cultural narrative of IPV reflected normative expectations about the roles of men and women in the household where men historically have had higher status than women and saw themselves as responsible for the household.

A conceptual framework was developed from men’s narratives of IPV that highlights two core pathways leading to male perpetration of IPV (see Figure 2). This framework explains how cultural narratives result in IPV both from men’s enactment of cultural norms of masculinity, such as alcohol consumption, and from women being perceived as failing to uphold culturally appropriate norms of femininity.

Figure 2.

Conceptual framework of the cultural narrative of IPV.

Within the cultural narratives of IPV told by the men, two primary behavioral pathways lead to IPV. In the first pathway, a typical scenario involves the husband engaging in male bonding, such as “going out” with friends, during which they drink alcohol. The wife then challenges the husband’s behavior when he arrives home drunk, thus acting outside her assigned role as submissive and inferior to her husband. This status challenge then instigates the husband’s perpetration of physical IPV against his wife.

In the second pathway, a typical narrative involved the household being subject to economic or labor pressures, which involves the male being exhausted from working long hours or having anxiety about constrained finances. When the wife fails to complete a domestic task that is expected of her, such as cooking, caring for the children, or arriving home from work on time, this act is viewed as a failure to enact her feminine role by properly managing the home. This failure can lead her husband to assume that she expects him to participate in “feminized” household duties. This status challenge then instigates perpetration of physical IPV against the wife. These two pathways may co-occur to influence the husband’s perpetration of IPV and may not be mutually exclusive, but instead, interconnected.

Cultural Narratives: How Men Define and Justify IPV

Both male perpetrators and non-perpetrators interviewed were entrenched to some extent in cultural narratives equating masculinity with at least some level of violence, thus normalizing many instances of IPV. In fact, among some non-perpetrating men, the narrative of IPV became their very definition of violence. For example, when asked to delineate between discipline, punishment, and violence, non-perpetrating men identified violence as conforming to the pathways explicit in the shared cultural narrative of IPV. As one non-perpetrator explained, “Drinking and going home to beat your wife and kids, that’s violence” (age 45, married 14 years). Another non-perpetrator adds, “The man in the family should not use violence like a drunken man or an evil man” (unknown age/length of marriage). This man responded with a definition of violence in general as being IPV committed when drunk. Thus, use of this definition even among non-perpetrators suggests that violence in the broader culture is tied to the enactment of masculinity.

Many perpetrators also limited their definition of violence to this constrained understanding. One perpetrator said, “Family violence is the case I just told you—that man who is drunk that beats the wife—is violence” (age 30, married 6 years). This man not only subscribed to the same definition of violence as the non-perpetrators but also subsequently used this definition as a way to situate his violent behavior as culturally normal within the context of his male role as head of his family. In most cases, the definition of IPV for perpetrators and non-perpetrators included the consumption of alcohol.

Men’s accounts of IPV differed markedly regarding severity and frequency. One perpetrator described the spectrum of IPV severity, saying, “There are many such cases [of IPV]. Some [men] are more gentle, just bruise the face. Sometimes they throw whatever they can reach. I’m near the health center, so I’ve witnessed a lot, and some women have 4-5 stitches” (age 45, married 20 years). This man’s characterization of “bruising the face” as “gentle” suggests that men see single instances of violence as somewhat normal.

Other men similarly described their own perpetration of IPV as infrequent or less severe than that of other men. One perpetrator said, “I beat my wife only one time. I slapped her one time; then we had a big argument” (age 29, married 8 years). This man’s statement suggests that less severe violence or isolated instances of violence against women are more acceptable than are more severe forms of violence. Similarly, another perpetrator said, “I went out too late, drank with a friend until 11 or 12. Then [my wife] got mad, and I slapped her. So she cried, and the next day I felt bad about myself, and sorry for her” (age 30, married 6 years). Isolating IPV to a single instance—or only a handful of instances—allowed men to distance themselves from the chronic and more severe forms of IPV they saw being perpetrated by men around them. In fact, the severity of the IPV was of great importance to these men, with lesser violence normalized as excusable male behavior necessary to control their wives and correct their behavior. Men readily excused what they defined as “lesser” forms of violence against women perpetrated by other men, and were more likely to label their own IPV “lesser” as well.

Interestingly, some men were not able to describe specific instances of IPV when asked directly, even if they had perpetrated IPV. Instead, these men talked about IPV using the cultural narrative (Figure 2). For example, one man who was himself a perpetrator told this story: “It’s just like the story of the husband who gets drunk, then beats his wife” (age 59, married 18 years). Another man, also a perpetrator, also referred to the cultural prototype for IPV as involving alcohol consumption: “I have heard a story about family violence. The husband got drunk and then he got angry and beats his wife, kicked her out of the house” (age 23, married 1 year). Both of these stories indicate that cultural conceptions of alcohol and violence go hand in hand. These general descriptions of IPV also reveal a common understanding of how the enactment of IPV is perceived in these communities. It is notable that these cultural narratives constrain the definitions that men use to identify IPV and oversimplify explanations of the cultural contexts that give rise to IPV.

Despite this seemingly shared cultural knowledge about when and how IPV occurs, men also gave many specific explanations of IPV that did not fit this cultural narrative. For example, one perpetrator volunteered an instance when the wife was violent to her husband’s family, explaining, “I know a case where the wife is very insolent with her husband’s mother . . . No wonder her husband beats her. From what I know he is a teacher, the wife is very insolent, but he is a really nice guy” (age 29, married 8 years). This narrative places the blame for IPV on the woman by attributing her husband’s beatings to the woman’s insolence—as she had failed to comply with the cultural norms of gendered expectations for women. These situations begin to form a picture of the cultural narrative in Vietnam. This narrative equates masculinity and violence, and can encourage IPV as well as limit understandings of what constitutes IPV to specific extreme situations. As a result, the cultural narrative of IPV does not fully capture the diversity of perceptions about IPV, nor the factors that lead to perpetration of IPV in Vietnamese communities.

There also is evidence that the cultural narrative of IPV may be changing to recognize a more inclusive definition of IPV and men’s relationships with IPV. Across the data, non-perpetrators generally displayed somewhat more sensitivity than perpetrators to circumstances around IPV that extend beyond the dominant cultural narrative. For example, one non-perpetrating man tells a story of IPV that differs from the traditional cultural narrative:

I have not witnessed it—but I heard a story about a man who used to beat his wife, but then he became an activist. In the past, he never stopped beating his wife. Then one day he read about it, and after a beating, he lay down and thought about everything . . . After reading about it, he really felt for his wife. He eventually got a very stable job, becoming the broadcaster of the village. (Age 45, married 14 years)

This type of cessation narrative was not common among current perpetrators of IPV, however. Instead, for the most part, current perpetrators of IPV relied on comparisons with more severe forms of IPV to diminish their actions and found ways to limit their responsibility, such as attributing their IPV to alcohol use.

Threats to Masculinity and IPV as Male Dominance

Perpetrators tended to view their IPV perpetration as necessary to correct what they viewed as their wife’s inappropriate behavior. This view emphasizes both the idea that violence is part of the masculine cultural prototype and a lack of consideration that the wife may suffer far-reaching adverse effects. One perpetrator described a specific instance of using violence to correct what he considered inappropriate behavior on the part of his wife: “I don’t remember what she said, but it hurt my pride, and she muttered something, I can’t remember what . . . I slapped her face. After that, we slept separately in each room, and the next day, we healed” (age 38, married 14 years). Because his wife insulted his pride, thereby challenging his status, this man felt his violence was justified. Other perpetrators also talked about IPV perpetration as being a normal part of family dynamics: “Well, [beating] is still normal, every family is like that” (age 22, married 1 year, perpetrator). Very rarely did perpetrators express regret or accept accountability for their perpetration of IPV. Therefore, many perpetrators did not see themselves as perpetrators but instead viewed their behavior as within the normal confines of their masculine identity.

Other men also normalized violence in the context of their role as a husband who must maintain control and order within the family. One perpetrator explained it this way:

My friend invited me over to eat and drink wine. I wasn’t sober, and I never spoke loudly to my wife, I just lay down on the bed . . . However, she belittled me . . . she insulted me. I reminded her 1 or 2 times, but she didn’t get it. I got hot-tempered and slapped her, just to warn her, I really didn’t want to beat her. Community members in society misunderstand, they’d say I was drunk and beat my wife. (Age 39, married 16 years)

This account demonstrates a perpetrator’s minimization of his role in the violence by attributing blame to his wife, and a denial of his contribution to the shared cultural narrative of IPV by claiming that the surrounding community misconstrued the event. By saying that he “didn’t really want to beat” his wife, he is implicitly subscribing to the notion that men are in charge and must act to maintain their status as head of the family—even if violence is required to do so.

Men were generally aware of the culturally accepted pathways that led to IPV. One perpetrator described his pathway to IPV:

I had pressure at work. When I came home, I was so upset, and I just went for a drink with friends. We had stayed quite late . . . when you are tired, and, you get angry easily. Especially when you are drunk, you get angry, you beat [your wife], just one slap. It’s not a heavy beating . . . Normally I wouldn’t beat her but at that time, I was drunk, so I couldn’t control myself. (Age 25, married 1 year)

Although this man acknowledges that he had slapped his wife, he used both alcohol and anger and their integral connection to definitions of masculinity in Vietnamese culture as justifications for his behavior. He also presented the scenario in such a way as to remove as much of his own responsibility from the action as possible. He noted not only that he was drunk when he perpetrated IPV but also that it was not a “heavy beating,” which allowed him to describe his actions in such a way as to keep them within the bounds of normal male behavior.

Perpetrators Versus Non-Perpetrators: Intersecting Roles and Attitudes About IPV

Men’s denial of IPV perpetration and assignment of responsibility away from themselves allows them to function in two roles—that of the perpetrator and that of interventionist objecting to other men’s perpetration of IPV. These two roles support dual roles within the Vietnamese conception of masculinity—that of protector of women and children who are considered to be weaker than men, and that of normal male behavior including both alcohol consumption and some level of violence. Because of this dual conception of the masculine role, at times, the attitudes that perpetrators expressed were similar to those of non-perpetrators. One man (age 59, married 18 years, perpetrator) openly discussed his own perpetration of violence saying, “When I’m angry, sometimes, I slap [her] on her face, or kick or beat her body.” Yet, this same man also explains instances in which he has intervened in IPV in his community:

[The man] closed the door and broke the chair and table and beat his wife. Then the neighbors heard her screaming…I jumped over the wall to prevent it and called his children to open the door. Then I took the wife to the hospital.

Although he discussed his perpetration of IPV in a matter of fact way, he is unable to justify the seemingly more severe violent behavior of other men and is thus willing to intervene when he witnesses it.

Interestingly, both perpetrators and non-perpetrators expressed negative attitudes about IPV. One non-perpetrator claims, “Beating your wife is unacceptable under any circumstances. Even if the wife hangs out or something, you cannot beat her” (age 44, married 17 years). A perpetrator similarly claims, “[Beating] is already unacceptable, no matter the level of severity. We are men. We cannot beat women” (age 22, married 1 year). Both perpetrators and non-perpetrators recognized IPV as a negative event, but perpetrators tended to distance themselves from their own perpetration. For example, most perpetrators minimized their roles as perpetrators, dismissed the violence as unimportant, or spoke with levity about IPV. One perpetrator said, “When I have beaten my wife, it is not beating. It is just a few times using some violence” (age 38, married 14 years). Another perpetrator said, “I am not really a husband who beats his wife” (unknown age/length of marriage). This quote is in direct contrast with an account of perpetration later in his interview, when he says, “I only slapped her 1-2 times . . . my wife cried and left. I did not do anything wrong.” Both of these men engaged in IPV but dismissed it, based on the infrequency of its occurrence and their definition of the violence that did occur as being within the normal bounds of what a husband may do to retain authority within his household.

Interestingly, men who had not perpetrated IPV also downplayed less severe forms of IPV by including only severe occurrences of IPV perpetrated by other men in their narratives when asked about IPV in their community. For example, one non-perpetrator described an incident of IPV committed by a man in his village:

He was drinking, and his wife yelled at him. He yelled back and slapped her. When it happened, the wife immediately called out for help. He took a broom and beat her, but she fell and broke her arm. He then stopped and took her to the hospital. (Age 34, married 11 years)

The inclusion of these types of descriptions by non-perpetrators, when asked about IPV incidents, suggests that non-perpetrators are also likely to downplay less severe forms of violence as normal within the Vietnamese conception of masculinity and that only violence resulting in severe injury comes to mind when asked about IPV within their community.

Discussion

The cultural narrative of IPV reported by Vietnamese men identifies men’s perceptions of IPV and its context. In this sample, men’s perceptions of IPV follow two pathways of behavior that they identify as preceding IPV perpetration. These pathways emphasize specific stressors or triggers external to men’s marital relationships, such as economic or labor pressures, or male bonding and alcohol consumption. Although our data did not directly support a connection between economic pressures and alcohol consumption, we suggest that it is likely that this pathway also exists (Dávalos, Fang, & French, 2012; Mulia, Zemore, Murphy, Liu, & Catalano, 2014). When a wife fails to comply with normative expectations of women and engages in behavior such as challenging or questioning her husband, IPV perpetration may occur (Rydstrøm, 2010). We posit that the described pathways lead to IPV because they present threats to men’s conceptualization of their masculinity and status as head of the family (Yount et al., 2016).

Men’s normative gender roles have historically encompassed that of worker and provider for the family. Men also are expected to consume alcohol, a drink that contributes to their “hot” temperaments (Rydstrøm, 2003, 2010). In turn, men use alcohol in their narratives to justify their IPV perpetration. Thus, IPV perpetration may be another mechanism of reifying gender constructions when men face multiple cultural challenges to their masculinity. Reification of gender-based division of labor may be especially likely in instances when wives step outside their normative gender roles of passivity and subservience. It is also interesting that both perpetrators and non-perpetrators expressed negative attitudes toward violence. This disapproval of violence may stem from recent promotion of gender equality by the Vietnamese government and associated media campaigns against violence.

The cultural narrative of IPV men illustrated often may be a true portrayal of specific occurrences of IPV. However, it also is a narrow and restrictive understanding of IPV as it occurs in Vietnamese families and communities. Such a restrictive view constrains men’s understanding of IPV to a set of circumstances focused around physical IPV excluding other types of IPV and contextual factors. Restrictions about what constitutes IPV could be damaging to community members and families who experience forms of IPV that do not align with the accepted definition of IPV. For example, sexual or psychological IPV against women, women’s perpetration of IPV against men, or bidirectional IPV between partners may not be considered IPV by men in this context. Indeed, results from a survey of men and women aged 18 to 49 in My Hao shows substantially lower reported perpetration of sexual IPV by men (0.2%) than reported experiences of sexual IPV by women (12.0%; Yount et al., 2016).

Within the context of rural Vietnam, this focus on physical IPV minimizes the injurious nature of other more prevalent forms of IPV. Cross-sectional data show that psychological violence is the more common type of IPV that rural Vietnamese women experience. In fact, 55.4% of women report experiences of psychological IPV as some point in their life (Vung, Ostergren, & Krantz, 2008). Notably, this form of IPV was almost absent from the narratives the men provided. Because psychological and physical IPV experiences often co-occur, with 21.2% of women reporting experiencing both types of violence in their lifetime (Vung et al., 2008), the limiting nature of this cultural narrative engenders the possibility that other experiences of IPV will be disregarded or negated. Indeed, this narrow definition of IPV among men may partly explain their lower tendency than women to justify IPV (Krause, Gordon-Roberts, VanderEnde, Schuler, & Yount, 2016; Rydstrøm, 2010).

This study has several limitations. First, data collection relied on men’s accounts of a highly sensitive topic. In many cases, men recounted experiences or observations from childhood, and some accounts detailed events as many as 35 years in the past. Thus, men’s attitudes and beliefs about IPV, in general, may influence their depictions of their retrospective accounts of IPV perpetration. Moreover, although we conducted interviews in a private room at the health station with a gender-matched interviewer, there were 2 days of data collection where the local police were present at the health station to review and safeguard the research process. Police presence was deemed necessary because data collection took place in a rural area where the community was largely unaccustomed to foreign presence, and local officials wanted to verify the safety of both participants and researchers. This setting may have influenced some participants’ disclosure of sensitive or incriminating information, although we assured participants that any information they disclosed would remain confidential and anonymous, and police were not present in the room during the interview. Participants’ names were not collected during the study to protect privacy and to reinforce to participants that the researchers would not disclose their information. Finally, this study focused on IPV in heterosexual, married couples. It did not include non-marital intimate partnerships between men and women or between partners or the same gender, although people within these other partnerships also may have important contributions to further our understanding of IPV in Vietnam.

Despite these limitations, this study had several strengths. It emphasized the importance of eliciting data directly from men, whose perspectives offer a unique and important contribution as the primary perpetrators of violence against women. We purposively sampled men with diverse backgrounds of exposure and perpetration to violence, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of men’s relationships toward IPV. Given the similar patriarchal constructions of masculinity found in other low-income southeastern countries, it is possible that these same processes are at work in other countries. This study’s use of qualitative research methods allowed for nuanced insights into the interplay of circumstances surrounding IPV, which would be difficult to elicit from quantitative data. We conducted individual in-depth interviews that allowed men to disclose sensitive, personal, and controversial information in a comfortable setting. Finally, by focusing on family and community contexts in the research question, this study addressed multiple spheres of influence, including interpersonal and community domains, along a socio-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1992).

Conclusion

This study sought to understand how social norms about masculinity influence Vietnamese men’s experience, perpetration, and intervention of IPV. We also wanted to identify the implications of these intersecting roles for men’s active participation in anti-violence initiatives. Men described a breadth of IPV events occurring in their families and communities across a broad span of time. Although not presented here, men described many instances of childhood exposure to violence, either witnessing IPV or being maltreated as children themselves (Yount, Krause, & VanderEnde, 2016; Yount, Pham, et al., 2014). Men’s descriptions of IPV often fit a certain cyclic pattern of behavior, which men identified even when they were not addressing a specific act of IPV. We can think about this cyclic pattern of behavior as a cultural narrative of IPV, which men in the community share. Both perpetrators and non-perpetrators subscribed to this cultural narrative of violence to some extent. The pervasive nature of this cultural narrative of IPV, coupled with a fear of exposing themselves to violence if they attempted to intervene in IPV, led some men to express a sense of helplessness and futility regarding IPV in their community.

No differences were found to separate perpetrators and non-perpetrators besides their perpetration status. Men’s interviews also showed that men who are perpetrators of IPV do not necessarily see themselves as such, and thus may perform the role of protector for a woman experiencing IPV from another man. There was also little difference in the degree to which perpetrators versus non-perpetrators accepted the cultural narrative of IPV. Furthermore, despite the different exposure categories, all men had some stories to tell about IPV in their communities. The breadth of IPV reported suggests that there is no simple connection between exposure to violence and perpetration because all men have been affected by IPV in some way.

When attempting to engage men in anti-violence initiatives, it is essential to empower men to use anti-violence recourses. Such empowerment requires expanding the cultural narrative constraining definitions of what constitutes IPV and making IPV intervention a safe course of action for men. Anti-violence initiatives should identify tangible points of intervention along the existing cultural narrative, such as decreasing alcohol use, encouraging male bonding around non-risky behaviors, and improving economic opportunities that will provide economic stability to families. Program development should address constructions of masculinity and the socio-historical context of IPV by providing gender-sensitivity training and opportunities for men to evaluate critically how constructions of masculinity in their families and communities contribute to IPV perpetration. Training regarding the changing and cross-cultural differences in definitions of masculinity could serve to reduce the pressure on men to conform to a single culturally prescribed form of masculinity. The stress associated with violations of customary gender roles may then be reduced. Over time, this could potentially lessen men’s propensity to reinforce their masculinity through IPV perpetration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Center for Creative Initiates in Health and Population (CCIHP) and My Hao health district for coordinating fieldwork for this study; Dang Hong Linh and interviewers for support during training, transcription, and translation; and the Emory Global Health team who assisted with this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported with funding from the Emory Global Health Institute.

Author Biographies

Laurie James-Hawkins, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow in gender, family, and global health at the Hubert Department of Global Health at Emory University. She graduated from the University of Colorado Boulder with a PhD in sociology and studies health and health behaviors in the United States and internationally. She also holds an MA and a BA in psychology.

Kelsey Salazar, MPH, received her master of public health from Emory University’s Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Program. She currently works at the University of Florida coordinating children’s health projects. Her interest areas include child health policy, evaluation, and youth development.

Monique M. Hennink, PhD, is an associate professor of Global Health in the Hubert Department of Global Health and Associated Faculty in Sociology at Emory University. Her research focuses on sexual and reproductive health, primarily in developing countries. She has specific expertise in qualitative and mixed-methods research in public health. She has authored four textbooks on qualitative research methods and teaches professional training workshops on qualitative research worldwide.

Vu Song Ha is a medical doctor and public health specialist, whose PhD research was on social construction of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in Hanoi, Vietnam. She is the founder of Center for Creative Initiates in Health and Population (CCIHP), an NGO in Vietnam with its mission of promoting health equality, diversity, and health for all people in society. For the past 20 years, her research has focused on gender, gender-based violence, sexuality and reproductive health, and disability. Currently, she has been working on Vietnam national survey on reproductive and sexual health, and gender-based violence of young people.

Kathryn M. Yount, PhD, is Asa Griggs Candler chair of Global Health and a professor in the Hubert Department of Global Health and Department of Sociology at Emory University. She has more than 20 years of experience conducting large, mixed-methods research projects on women’s empowerment, health, and gender-based violence in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. She has directed or collaborated on more than 30 externally funded research grants and has authored more than 130 publications in top journals in the social sciences and public health.

References

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2015). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. American Journal of Public Health, 105, E11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1992). Ecological systems theory. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336.

Connell

R. W.

(1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Dao

T. D.

Hoang

H. T.

Kanthoul

(2012). “Teach the wife when she first arrives”: Trajectories and pathways into violent and non-violent masculinities in Hue City and Phu Xuyen District, Viet Nam. Hanoi, Vietnam: United Nations (UN) Fund for Population Activities, UN Women, and Partners for Prevention.

Dávalos

M. E.

Fang

French

M. T.

(2012). Easing the pain of an economic downturn: Macroeconomic conditions and excessive alcohol consumption. Health Economics, 21, 1318-1335.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y. T.

García-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

. . . Pallitto

(2013). Global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527-1528.

Drummond

L. B. W.

Rydstrøm

(2004). Introduction. In Drummond

L. B. W.

Rydstrøm

(Eds.), Gender practices in contemporary Vietnam (pp. 1-26). Singapore: NUS Press.

Fulu

Jewkes

Roselli

Garcia-Moreno

(2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with male perpetration of intimate partner violence: Findings from the UN Multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet Global Health, 1, e187-e207.

10.

Garcia-Moreno

Guedes

Knerr

Jewkes

Bott

Ramsay

(2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

11.

Garcia-Moreno

Pallitto

Devries

Stockl

Watts

Abrahams

(2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

12.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

13.

Horton

Rydstrom

(2011). Heterosexual masculinity in contemporary Vietnam: Privileges, pleasures, and protests. Men and Masculinities, 14, 542-564.

14.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423-1429.

15.

Krause

K. H.

Gordon-Roberts

VanderEnde

Schuler

S. R.

Yount

K. M.

(2016). Why do women justify violence against wives more often than do men in Vietnam? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 3150-3173.

16.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360, 1083-1088.

17.

Leshkowich

A. M.

(2008). Wandering ghosts of late socialism: Conflict, metaphor, and memory in a southern Vietnamese marketplace. The Journal of Asian Studies, 67, 5-41.

18.

MAXQDA, Software for Qualitative Data Analysis (Version 11). (1989-2015). Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software – Consult – Sozialforschung GmbH.

19.

Morrison

A. R.

Orlando

M. B.

(1999). Social and economic costs of domestic violence: Chile and Nicaragua. In Morrison

A. R.

Biehl

M. L.

(Eds.), Too close to home: Domestic violence in the Americas (pp. 51-80). Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.

20.

Mulia

Zemore

S. E.

Murphy

Liu

Catalano

(2014). Economic loss and alcohol consumption and problems during the 2008 to 2009 U.S. recession. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 38, 1026-1034. doi:10.1111/acer.12301

21.

National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2006). The law on gender equality (Law No: 73/2006/QH11). Available from http://www.ilo.org

22.

National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2007). Law on domestic violence prevention and control (Law No: 02/2007/QH12). Available from http://www.unwomen.org

23.

Penal Code. (1989). The Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

24.

Phong

V. H.

(2008). Male sexual health concerns in Muong Khen, Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10, S139-S150.

25.

Ridgeway

C. L.

(2006). Status construction theory. In Burke

P. J.

(Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 301-323). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

26.

Ridgeway

C. L.

(2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Rydstrøm

(2003). Encountering “hot” anger: Domestic violence in contemporary Vietnam. Violence Against Women, 9, 676-697.

28.

Rydstrøm

(2006). Masculinity and punishment: Men’s upbringing of boys in rural Vietnam. Childhood, 13, 329-348.

29.

Rydstrøm

(2010). Compromised ideals: Family life and the recognition of women in Vietnam. In Gendered inequalities in Asia: Configuring, contesting, and recognizing women and men. Copenhagen: NAIS Press.

30.

Schuler

S. R.

Anh

H. T.

V. S.

Minh

T. H.

Mai

B. T. T.

Thien

P. V.

(2006). Constructions of gender in Vietnam: In pursuit of the “three criteria.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8, 383-394.

31.

Schuler

S. R.

Lenzi

Hoang

T.-A.

S.-H.

Yount

K. M.

Trang

Q. T.

(2014). Recourse seeking and intervention in the context of intimate partner violence in Vietnam a qualitative study. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1151-1173.

32.

Thai

H. C.

(2012). Low-wage Vietnamese immigrants, social class and masculinity in the homeland. In Ford

Lenore

(Eds.), Men and masculinities in Southeast Asia (pp. 56-67). London, England: Routledge.

33.

Vietnam Women’s Union and Centre for Women’s Studies. (1989). “Law on marriage and family 1986.” In Vietnamese women in the eighties. Hanoi, Vietnam: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

34.

H. S.

Schuler

Hoang

T. A.

Quach

(2014). Divorce in the context of domestic violence against women in Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 634-647.

35.

Vung

N. D.

Ostergren

P.-O.

Krantz

(2008). Intimate partner violence against women in rural Vietnam-different socio-demographic factors are associated with different forms of violence: Need for new intervention guidelines? BMC Public Health, 8, 55.

36.

Waibel

Glück

(2013). More than 13 million: Mass mobilisation and gender politics in the Vietnam Women’s Union. Gender & Development, 21, 343-361.

37.

Werner

(2009). Gender, household and state in post-revolutionary Vietnam. London, England: Routledge.

38.

The World Bank. (2013). Ratio of female to male labor force participation rate (%) (modeled ILO estimate). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.ZS

39.

Yount

K. M.

Higgins

E. M.

VanderEnde

K. E.

Krause

K. H.

Minh

T. H.

Schuler

S. R.

Anh

H. T.

(2016). Men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence in Vietnam: Gendered social learning and the challenges of masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 19, 64-84. doi:10.1177/1097184X15572896

40.

Yount

K. M.

Krause

K. H.

VanderEnde

K. E.

(2016). Economic coercion and partner violence against wives in Vietnam: A unified framework? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 3307-3331. doi:10.1177/0886260515584350

41.

Yount

K. M.

Pham

H. T.

Minh

T. H.

Krause

K. H.

Schuler

S. R.

Anh

H. T.

. . . Kramer

M. R.

(2014). Violence in childhood, attitudes about partner violence, and partner violence perpetration among men in Vietnam. Annals of Epidemiology, 24, 333-339.

42.

Yount

K. M.

Zureick-Brown

Salem

(2014). Intimate partner violence and women’s economic and non-economic activities in Minya, Egypt. Demography, 51, 1069-1099.