“A Slap of Love”: A Way of Showing Love and Resolving Conflict Among Young People in South Kivu,Democratic Republic of Congo

Abstract

This article draws on qualitative study to examine Congolese male and female high school students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. A total of 56 boys and girls aged 16–20 years from two urban and two rural high schools in South Kivu province took part in focus groups, and 40 of these were subsequently interviewed individually. To the majority of male and female participants, when the man or boy beats his wife or girlfriend that means he loves her and he wants her to change. They believed that if a boy does not love her, he may let her go on making mistakes. Some male participants viewed women and girlfriend beating as a way to let her realize her inferiority. However, some female participants disagreed with these assumptions but they concomitantly accepted a “slap of love.” There is a strong need to re-educating both males and females to address the problem, and particularly train men to treat women respectfully and non-violently.

Keywords

beating discipline intimate partner violence relationship conflict resolution

Physical violence against women is common and justified as acceptable by many men and women in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC; Kidman et al., 2015; Lwambo, 2013; Peterman et al., 2011; Tlapek, 2015). A study conducted in the DRC finds that the physical violence and abuse women experience may not be from strangers but from intimate partners in their own homes (Peterman et al., 2011). A quantitative study conducted in Kinshasa to examine the attitudes related to gender-equitable norms and its causes among church-going young men and women find that 27.1% of women and 50.8% men agreed that there are times when a woman deserves to be beaten (Lusey et al., 2018). A study conducted in Idjwi Island in South Kivu province estimated that 70% of women have been beaten by their husbands. They sometimes beat their wives to the point they need medical attention (Hadley, 2015). In this article, the terms wife beating, girlfriend/wife beating, and girlfriend and wife beating are used interchangeably as a reference to a pattern of coercive behaviors including physical violence in individuals’ intimate relationships. The term physical violence will be employed throughout this article to capture one of forms of violence—slap a partner.

Several studies find that the exposure to violence can affect the socialization of men and women from an early age to accept violence as a norm (Giddens & Sutton, 2017; Hadley, 2015; Tlapek, 2015). In a number of studies, male participants in the DRC indicated agreement that physical violence was an acceptable means of “educating” a spouse (Hadley, 2015; Lwambo, 2013; Peterman et al., 2011; Tlapek, 2015). Hadley (2015), in his study conducted in Idjwi Island, finds that the contemporary societal structures weaken women and compel them to accept violence. Thus, a majority of women believed that a husband has the rights to beat his wife if she leaves the house without asking permission (80%); she fails to care for the children (76%); disagrees with him (69%); refuses to have sex (70%); or burns food (58%). In another study in the DRC, 76% of participants believed wife beating is justified and acceptable at least on circumstances in relation to the above reasons (Hindin, 2013). Hadley (2015) also finds that 9% of male participants indicated that men have the right to correct their wives and girlfriends by beating them. In addition, female participants accepted that a husband is entitled to beat his wife if she argues with him. However, many women perceived wife beating as unjust, but “accept it” so that peace reigns. They reported that they have to accept violence to keep the family together. Some male participants also indicated that they would intervene if they saw a friend beating a woman, which suggests that they perceive the harmful nature of it. Evidence has consistently proved that witnessing physical violence between intimate partners in childhood increases the risk of victimization or perpetration of intimate partner violence and other forms of violence in adult relationships (Fulu et al., 2013, 2017; Holt et al., 2008). For example, witnessing physical violence between intimate partners in the home may result in adolescents displaying aggressive behaviors (Fulu et al., 2017; Holt et al., 2008; Kitzmann et al., 2003; Wolfe et al., 2003). In a qualitative study conducted among adult men and women giving an account of perpetration or experience of intimate partner violence in the DRC, participants aired concern about the consequence of intimate partner violence on adolescents’ well-being and their future relationships. Both men and women in abusive relationships explained that intimate partner violence had an effect on the quality of their parenting and their children’s feelings of security in the home. Parents aired their concern on how witnessing intimate partner violence may place children at risk for behavioral issues such as use of violent behaviors at home and in the community (Kohli et al., 2015).

A quantitative study conducted among 869 girls aged 10–14 years from 14 villages across the Kabare, Uvira, and Walungu territories in South Kivu finds that in relation to attitudes and experiences of violence, almost 15% of girls (N = 127) stated that intimate partner violence was acceptable. Nearly 40% of participants indicated that they have been beaten in the last 12 months (N = 340) (Stark et al., 2017). In a cross-sectional study conducted in the DRC to describe risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women in the DRC and examine the relationship between women’s status and intimate partner violence, 68.2% of women between ages 15 and 49 years report the experience of physical or emotional intimate partner violence (Tlapek, 2015). Another quantitative study conducted in the DRC among women to examine the association between conflict, intimate partner violence, and contraceptive use finds that 52.8% of women reported physical violence (Kidman et al., 2015).

This article seeks to provide a nuanced knowledge on how social norms influence attitudes toward intimate partner violence. However, previously published studies in the DRC on gender-based violence have consistently not dealt with intimate partner violence in much detail, and where they discuss it, they only refer to wife beating (Gichane et al., 2018; Hadley, 2015; Kidman et al., 2015; Lwambo, 2013); there is a strong need to understand how individuals rationalize intimate partner violence and justify it as a mean to resolve conflict. It is worth noting that there is a shortage of original research conducted around domestic violence in South Kivu. Most studies in the field of gender-based violence have only focused on rape (Albutt et al., 2017; K. Johnson et al., 2010; Linos & Kawachi, 2012) and others on cultural-related violence and forced marriages (K. Johnson et al., 2010; Mulumeoderhwa, 2018a, 2018b). In relation to violence against women, a number of studies conducted in the DRC find that women are afraid of being divorced by their husbands or rejected by the community. Although the right to child custody after divorce is granted to both husband and wife by the constitution and the Code de la Famille, male participants still deny women this right simply because the customary law solely grants it to the husband (Lubunga, 2016; Mulumeoderhwa, 2018a). The country has been actually called one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman (Thomson Reuters Foundation, 2018). Although the acts of violence against women perpetrated by armed groups over the years cannot certainly be ignored, very little attention is paid to other acts of gender-based violence such as intimate partner violence (Tlapek, 2015). There is lack or limited evidence of how this issue affects the population of adolescents and young people. In fact, high proportions of the adolescents, who might have witnessed violence in the family and community, are more likely to become wife beaters because of violence they experienced. Adolescents will become adults and hence can become perpetrators of wife abuse (Kohli et al., 2015). Thus, it is important to understand the adolescents’ attitude toward girlfriend and wife beating. This study examines high school male and female students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. It particularly focuses on adolescents’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence in South Kivu province. This study informs on sociocultural beliefs regarding the role of violence in intimate relationships.

Studying Adolescents

Given that, it is important to investigate the attitudes toward girlfriend and wife beating among boys and girls. On one hand, involving men in projects on violence against women is very important and enables to reduce “problems brought by immoderate manhood and destructive concepts of masculinity” (Adomako & Boateng, 2007). This article espouses the above ideal in its search for understanding South Kivu males’ and females’ attitudes toward girlfriend and wife beating.

On the other hand, the focus on women or girls as victims was important for feminist researchers to draw attention to the extent of the problem (Cleaver, 2002). Cleaver argues that a focus on men and masculinities draw attention away from women’s marginalization, and that by focusing on men, their dominance will increase, and structures of gender inequality will be maintained. Similarly, taking into account such an aspect, Boonzaier (2008) maintains that focusing only on victims’ experiences can unwittingly divert attention away from men—who are the most recurrent perpetrators of violence against women. This one-sided focus influences the literature on the descriptions of both women and men to be not well elaborated. Baker and Jaffe (2003) contend that focusing only on women is counter-productive in level of gender violence which significantly requires male behavior change. Our understanding of the problem in this study would profit by according attention to both partners in the relationships. This study, therefore, examines the experiences of both girls and boys in relationships and also investigates how each of the individuals constructs stories about girlfriend and wife beating in male–female relations and in relation to the other partner.

Although assault takes different forms during different stages of life for girls, women, boys, and men in the DRC, they are all symptoms of the same root cause of widespread gender-based violence (Davis et al., 2014). With this intention, Rizzo (2008) argues that one of the best ways to understand how adolescents nurture and maintain their attitudes is to more closely explore the family and peer contexts. This study posits that the transformation of gender relations, within this context, has to include the participation of men as they are part of patriarchal social dynamics in South Kivu. In fact, this study focuses on adolescent young people, and it is justified by the realization that the process of becoming an adolescent, as experienced by them is, in most cases, characterized by the differentiation of behaviors and controls that impinge differently on men. Adolescents provide a perspective on how gender norms are socialized and a sense of how early such socialization occurs. In addition, adolescents are in the liminal position of not quite children or adults. Adolescents should be approached because they are old enough and able to chronicle events, including domestic violence that is pertinent in their lives. They are at the stage where they can verbally interpret how domestic violence has affected them mentally, emotionally, and physically. More importantly, they are at the stage where they have to make critical decisions about interpersonal relationships based on their socialization at home (Kubeka, 2008). Plummer and Young (2010) maintain that meaning derives from social interaction, and a person’s behavior influences the actions of others. Actually, asking people about their attitudes toward intimate partner violence particularly help understand the acceptability of violence (Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004). Lichter and McCloskey (2004) maintain that attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence is closely connected to the increased violence exposure in adolescents.

Theoretical Framework

The present study was guided by feminist theory. Feminist theory views gender as the central aspect of partner violence, which is regarded as a gender-specific expression of patriarchal domination of women by men in intimate relationships. Feminist theorists maintain that intimate partner violence cannot be sufficiently understood through any structure that does not include gender as the primary lens of analysis (Anderson, 1997; DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2007; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; M. P. Johnson, 1995, 2005, 2006; Kurz, 1989; Lawson, 2012; Yllö, 1993). Dobash and Dobash (1979) assert that the patriarchal domination of women through wife abuse is held over from the long cultural history of legally sanctioned female subordination, abuse, and absolute ownership of women. Despite the fact that it is no longer legal for men to physically beat their wives, violence against women still exists in the fundamental fabric of gender relationships in terms of gender roles, norms, and social sanctioning of male domination.

Many feminist sociologists have described wife beating as both widespread and unchanging (Bograd, 1984; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Walker, 1981, 1986). This practice is not, in the strictest sense of the words, a “deviant,” or “aberrant,” or “pathological” act. Rather, it is a kind of behavior that has existed for centuries as an acceptable part of a patriarchal family system (Dobash & Dobash, 1979, p. 12). Feminist scholars describe a direct relationship between the degree of male dominance in a society and the extent of violence toward wives (Bograd, 1984; Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

Lawson (2012) asserts that although there are numerous types of violence within families (such as violence between children, between parents and children, and between spouses), violence against wives is a separate unit of analysis that must be studied on its own. That is, wife beating is a separate incident with its own causes, links, and features and, therefore, it cannot be perceived through the same perception as other types of family violence. The feminist theory advocated by Dobash and Dobash (1979) actively encourages the use of gender-specific words such as wife beating over gender-neutral words such as spousal abuse or marital violence. Dobash and Dobash (1979) believe that these expressions “conceal centuries of oppression of women and contribute to their domination by neutralizing the very word that describes the continued practice of wife beating” (p. 12). They also argue that men who beat their wives are actually living up to cultural conventions that are valued in society—aggressiveness, male dominance, and female subordination—and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance. Yllö (1993) advocates for a feminist theory in understanding intimate partner violence. Yllö asserts that gender, rather than the family, must be the central basis of analysis in any intimate partner violence, as it is the primary theory that defines the problem. She recognizes the causal complexity of domestic violence and maintains that “despite this complexity, the most important feminist insight into all of this is quite simple: Domestic violence cannot be adequately understood unless gender and power are taken into account.” Although not excluding the use of other theories as potentially convenient, she contends that no other theory can be valuable without a feminist component because feminism is “a necessary lens without which any other analytic perspective is flawed” (pp. 47–48). According to the feminist theory, the focus on family conflict to adequately understand intimate partner violence is misguided because the basis of intimate partner violence is regarded as domination, not conflict of personal interest (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dutton, 2006; Gelles, 1993). Kurz (1989) maintains that feminist theory adequately describes the realities of violence against women. She is one of many scholars who praise feminist activism for identifying intimate partner violence as a problem deserving of attention in the field of sociology and in the general public. The current study espouses the definition of Dobash and Dobash, given the importance of the perception of intimate partner violence in the DRC. Such a definition on perception of wife beating may guide the study to understand the girlfriend beating in the context of South Kivu, as girlfriend and wife beating evolve in similar or homogeneous sociocultural acceptance norms.

Method

The Geographic Context

The population of the DRC was estimated at 84 millions of people in 2018, and people who are below 20 years of age represent 61% of the total population (United Nations, 2019). The country is characterized by a significant cultural and linguistic diversity and comprises more than 400 ethnic groups. In fact, the fieldwork was carried out at Bukavu and Kavumu, where the four secondary schools for our data collection are located. Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province, is overcrowded with people who have moved from elsewhere seeking greater security. As of 2018, its population was about 973,000. Kavumu is a rural area located some 50 km to the north of Bukavu. Given the widespread destruction and deterioration of basic infrastructure throughout the province, people in Kavumu have difficulty in accessing basic social services such as education, sanitary drinking water, and primary health care. Such services are somewhat better in towns, but are limited in both quantity and quality. Most of houses are built with flat timber and others with mud and timber. Both schools, in Kavumu, are built with flat timber and have crude pit toilets enclosed by wooden boards.

Data Collection

Qualitative methods were employed to examine high school male and female students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. This study used two of the qualitative methods for data collection, namely, focus groups and individual interviews. Focus groups can actually help participants develop a point of view that goes beyond their individual context and thus may change “personal troubles” into “public issues.” The group process can also nurture collective identity and provide a point of contact to initiate grassroots’ transformation. Although focus groups can, in theory, simply reflect or observe change, there is always the potential for the focus-group process itself to bring changes in participants’ thinking or understanding, through exposure to the interactive process (Barbour, 1999). We chose focus-group discussions as a key tool of data collection because of our interest of understanding of attitudes as a social phenomenon which is strongly influenced by peer norms. The individual interview was chosen as a supplementary technique in this study to get opinions that could be difficult to divulge in focus-group discussions.

A total of 56 young men and women participated in the study. The 56 participants (the number was chosen to allow two separated focus groups of seven at each school, one of boys and one of girls) comprised about one-quarter of the students at the schools who were in their final 2 years of study and were between 16 and 20 years old. Five participants from each group were invited to voluntarily participate in individual interviews. These individual interviews were conducted with 40 volunteers (20 boys and 20 girls) from the 56 focus-group participants. The five out of seven focus-group participants were chosen for the reason of convenience and that in individual interviews, we may have 20 boys and 20 girls. Participants were invited to participate in the study on the ground of being a student from the selected school. They were selected because of their ability to provide insights into matters related to intimate partner violence. The researcher requested for lists of students from Grades 11 and 12 and consulted the school’s principal and one teacher to help in recruitment process. Non-probability sampling technique was used in the study. Participants’ selection was also based on their gender (male/female), age (between 16 and 20 years old), and location (urban/rural). All participants were volunteers and did not receive any incentive. In fact, eight focus groups were conducted with young men and women in South Kivu. These sessions were conducted in Swahili, the language spoken by the participants, and lasted between 90 and 120 min. The interviews took place during the 2 weeks that followed each focus group and lasted about 60 min. This approach was vital to gaining access to the perspectives of participants who could be ostracized by their peers because of their views or who participated less often in the focus groups. The interviews also enabled us to probe the issues raised in the focus groups, to get responses where relevant, and helped to explore further and confirm themes emerging from the focus-group interviews. The use of direct quotations from informants is a way of guarding against a dominating individual, as was following up in the interviews.

Matched gender facilitators conducted focus groups and individual interviews separating boys and girls. The researcher conducted focus groups and individual interviews among male participants, whereas a trained female teacher moderated single-sex female focus groups and individual interviews. Both the researcher and the female assistant researcher conducted all the focus groups and interviews in the four schools to ensure consistency of methodology across different groups. In fact, in a focus group, the moderator often plays a low key role, gradually introducing a limited number of questions at appropriate times. For example, one focus-group question asked what they thought of men beating their girlfriends/wives. The interviews allowed us to personalize the issues raised in the focus groups. The related interview question was “how do you feel if your boyfriend/husband beat you? And what are the meanings attributed to the beating?” Other questions included in our research were as follows: (a) Are men justified to beat their girlfriends/wives? If yes/not explain why; (b) What do you think are reasons for the beating? (c) Why do men resort to beating? and (d) Is beating a way of resolving a problem? Justify your response. Before going to the field for data collection, the researcher developed the above questions for focus groups and individual interviews and translated them from English to Swahili. The responses from both focus-group discussions and individual interviews were tape recorded with the permission of participants. The researcher transcribed the verbatim audio data from the tape recorder from Swahili and then translated into English for subsequent analysis.

The researcher trained the female research assistant in focus-group moderation and interviewing techniques. At the end of every focus groups and individual interviews, the researcher held a meeting with the female research assistant to obtain feedback on the interview processes. In fact, before the focus groups and interviews were conducted in Swahili, the researcher had also training with the female research assistant to come to a shared understanding of the study concepts ahead of time. For example, for instance, the Swahili term that the study used to mean “beating” is kupiga or the other Swahili term that the participants used is Kofi ya mapenzi, means “A slap of love.”

Data Analysis

Data from focus groups and individual interviews were analyzed using thematic and grounded theory analysis to detect the themes that emerged. Grounded theory is a method of knowledge discovery that can be conducted from a feminist perspective. The major points of tension in this union are the potential imposition of feminist ideology on the analysis and the collaborative analysis of data. The key to ensure that the basic assumptions of both traditions are respected lies in reflexivity. This ongoing reflexivity through all stages of the research process, including the writing of the report, facilitates implementation of the research within the tradition of both approaches (Wuest, 1995). Thus far, the underpinnings of grounded theory and feminist inquiry have been examined to demonstrate the affinity between the two and the synergy produced by the combination (Kushner & Morrow, 2003; Plummer & Young, 2010).

In analyzing data, we drew attention to certain information in description (Huberman & Miles, 1994). We read the entire data in depth in search of meanings and patterns and wrote down ideas, reflective notes (Creswell, 1998; Huberman & Miles, 1994), and formed initial codes during the analysis process. We engaged in axial coding—causing condition, context, and consequences. We also engaged in open coding—categories, properties, and dimensionalize properties (Bodgan & Biklen, 1992), made contrasts and comparisons (Huberman & Miles, 1994), and developed coding categories. We elaborated a guide for coding the focus groups and interviews and reread to identify themes as they emerged. During the coding development, we kept the individual extracts of data and the dominant stories (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We reduced information by sorting material into categories (Bodgan & Biklen, 1992) and noted patterns and themes. We related to categories by building a logical chain of information (Huberman & Miles, 1994). By interpreting data, we engaged in selective coding and development of stories. Finally, we presented a visual model and propositions. We aimed at reporting experiences and relying on voices and interpretations of participants through extensive quotes, presented themes that represent words used by participants, and advance evidence of different views on each theme (Creswell, 1998). A theme conveys something important about the data in connection with research question and symbolizes some level of modeled result or meaning within the data collection (Bodgan & Biklen, 1992; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Vicsek (2007) recommends to often present in thematic analyses not only isolated statements but also parts of discussions comprising a number of contributions. In fact, in the process of preparing this article, we had a number of discussions with regard to the codes that emerged under each theme. The themes we identified largely arose from the questions asked during the focus groups and individual interviews, which, in turn, arose from our research objectives. The views expressed during focus groups and individual interviews were very similar between both rural and urban participants, but slightly different between the two genders. This may indicate a particular aspect of similar challenges facing young people and the common share of culture of violence.

Ethical Consideration

All procedures necessary in studies involving human participants were performed according to the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Ethics Committee. It has also obtained permission from the South Kivu Department of Education and from the schools where the study was conducted. The nature of the research was explained to participants, and it was made clear that their participation was entirely voluntary. No one refused to participate and, indeed, participants were very engaged during the focus groups and interviews. Parental permission was obtained for participants under the age of 18. Informed consent was also obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly respected in both our research approach and the execution of the study, and all responses reported are identified using pseudonyms. This study reports the participants’ comments in their own words and the quotations presented are, unless otherwise noted, representative of the beliefs articulated by the majority of participants.

Results

This study investigated high school male and female students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Findings are categorized under three main headings, namely, force is the major form of conflict resolution; beating a girl means he loves her; and beat a girl to show her that she is inferior.

Force is the Major Form of Conflict Resolution

Most male participants perceived violence as an effective way of correcting mistakes. In fact, they believed it is ok to beat a girl to correct her and bring about the right level of respecting the man:

If a boyfriend beats her girlfriend, this demonstrates that he does not like what she is doing. Maybe he disagrees with it as he finds that it cannot advance their relationship or build their household in case they are married. The man, in this case, is obliged to beat her a bit so that she respects him again [everybody laughs]. (Jadu, 19 years, urban boys)

Beating your girlfriend when you are not yet married may sometimes demonstrate that you are jealous. You especially do it when you notice that she does no longer love you, or she has become unfaithful. You may notice that she is neglecting you, and no longer afraid of you. Maybe you always blame her for doing this and that or advise her to do this and that but she does not change. She continues to be unfaithful and you do not like her to behave such a way. Thus, you can slap her to correct her so that she behaves correctly. After beating her, she can understand that you love her. (Paul, 18 years, urban boy)

The majority of male participants, interviewed in focus-group sessions, believed that a man is entitled to discipline his girlfriend so that she behaves correctly. They argued that it is appropriate for the man to respond with violence especially when he feels his manhood is disrespected. They also believed a boy is entitled to beat his girlfriend if she is disrespectful and unfaithful. Male participants believed the man has the right to beat his girlfriend particularly if she does not have affection toward him or she is ignoring him. They also stated that the girl has to be afraid of him. This describes a dominant relationship that exists between both partners. Thus, entitled men have the right to control relationships as well as to discipline their girlfriends.

Several female participants, during focus-group sessions, also mentioned the above assertion discussed in male focus-group sessions that the man has to beat the girlfriend to correct her so that she behaves correctly:

Those who say that if a husband beats his wife that means he loves her, I think they are right. Because when he reproaches her for making mistake, and beats her, this demonstrates his disapproval. In fact, he can let her make mistakes if he does not love her. He can beat her because he loves her. My fiancé can actually beat me because he loves me. He cannot beat me if I do not make mistakes. The fact of beating me is to show me that he did not like what I did. (Rehema, 18 years, rural girl)

. . . I don’t think that there is a person who can beat somebody else for doing nothing. In fact, if he beats you it means you did a mistake. Beating depends on how he wants to correct you about the mistake you made. Thus, if he beats you it is a way of correcting you from this. He wants to show you that you should do the way he wants. (Gloria, 19 years, urban girl)

I think that it is quite normal for a person [man] to beat somebody she loves, because a person cannot correct you if he does not love you. If you are wrong and you see a person supporting you, understand that he does not love you and does not like you to improve in a positive way. If a person punishes you that means he wants you to change so that you can reach the level he wants. This is also one of ways of educating her. (Cytia, 19 years, urban girl)

Most female participants perceived beating as the way a boyfriend “educates” or “corrects” his girlfriend. For most female participants, the beating clearly indicates that the boy cares and loves the girl; he should, on the contrary, let her continue making mistakes. They believed that whenever a woman makes mistakes, her partner has to beat her. For female participants, the beating equates to correction. Such beliefs may imply that men have the right to control women, and that a woman should walk at his “pace” as they clearly stated in one of the above quotes. In fact, females’ endorsement of wife beating may result from coping with and accepting violence as a social norm or making sense of it after it occurs. Thus, women may be socialized to believe that wife beating is a norm.

Many of the female participants corroborated and clearly demonstrated the link between beating and correction. For these participants, the beating is justified to the proportion of wrong or mistake made:

. . . if he beats her there might be a context in which for instance she responded impolitely. Then, he decided to beat her. (Celine, 17 years, rural girl)

The fact of beating a woman demonstrates how much she offended him. Even if he beats her, he has to advise her. The beating makes her understand how much she offended him . . . (Faida, 20 years, rural girl)

. . . There is man who beats his wife because she makes a mistake. She may sometimes offend him, especially when he reproaches her she shows that there was nothing wrong she did. He then gets angry and beats her. (Zawadi, 18 years, rural girl)

To the majority of female participants, the beating is acceptable if she lacks respect to him or offends him. For the female participants, the beating clearly demonstrates the degree of her mistake. They also implied that beating is a significant way to demonstrate disapproval. Thus, they apparently justified and supported social norms that encourage violence against women.

However, some female participants, during focus groups, viewed the male who beats his partner as a fool. They thus advocated for communication and advice:

For me, I do not think that the boy who beats me loves me because those who beat their wives or girlfriends are fools. The husband who respects himself cannot beat his wife. If he really loves her, he should advise her and show her that what she did was wrong. But if he does not love her, the time to advise her becomes for him an opportunity to beat her as he does not really need her. For boy and girl relationships, boyfriend has no right to beat his girlfriend. He should be particularly the one to show good behavior, and advise his girlfriend. (Kindja, 17 years, rural girl)

Beating a Girl Means He Loves Her

The majority of male participants, during one of the focus groups, believed that beating a girlfriend shows that they love her, that is, the boy/man really cares about the relationship. The boys also distinguished it as “slap of love”:

Beating a girl that I love, I can say that it really means I love her. If I hit her when she offends me, it shows that I love her . . . these are only slaps of love. You cannot correct a person that you do not love, a parent educate a child because he/she loves him/her. It is the same when you also love a girl if it is to beat her that can bring her to understand. I have to beat her so that we remain in the relationship without any problem. (Justin, 20 years, rural boy)

There is always jealousy where people love each other. That means I cannot love her while she loves another boy or I love her and she finds out that I am in love with another girl. There must always be jealousy in the relationship. This jealousy does not only bring me to slap her in order to show her that I really love her but also to advise her. I can also warn her and show her that I love her. (Clever, 17 years, rural boy)

Male participants believed that when a boy beats a girl, it means he loves her. Beating a girlfriend, particularly in case of infidelity or assumed infidelity, demonstrates that the boyfriend really loves her and cares about the relations. Male participants justified such violence by jealous act that has to characterize male–female relationships. However, they do not exclude providing the girl advices as an alternative way of correcting her.

During individual interviews, several girls reported the above statement made by male participants indicated that the man who beats his wife or girlfriend as a result of jealousy demonstrates love:

I can say that a boy loves a girl when he beats her. For instance there is boy who is violent if he hears people saying: “we saw your girlfriend with another boy,” he does not leave you time to explain. He violently beat you at that time you start wondering what happens. Your boyfriend if he loves you, he should worn or advise you. Beating is not kind but there is a circumstance if it requires beating, he has to beat. (Jessica, 18 years, urban girl)

This quote asserts that women who tolerate violence encourage it; in other words, this is another way, they cope with violence. Most female participants approved of girlfriend beating as sign of love and finally ignored that it is the woman who suffers from intimate partner violence. They thus validate the shared complicities in violence against women.

Although some female participants disagreed with the beating, they endorsed girlfriend beating as the sign of showing love:

You can be in relationship with your boyfriend but because he shows you that he does not love you, he is going to beat you. It is true that you are going to feel that it is no more love. I can really say that sometimes he can beat me to show me how much he loves me . . . (Olga, 17 years, urban girl)

. . . Your boyfriend can sometimes slap you, this is a slap of love. But he should not beat you with a stick as if you are dried beans. Yes, I agree there are slaps you may get from your boyfriend. This can depend on the mood in which you are. He can slap you on your cheeks or wherever he wants. In fact, there are some men who beat their wives so that they leave their houses but for fiancés, they cannot really beat their girlfriends because they do not love them. They beat them because they love them. (Christiana, 18 years, rural girl)

Few female participants, during the focus groups, believed that while a slap of love may be appropriate in some circumstances, they think beating is wrong:

I cannot accept my fiancé to beat me. Why should he beat me? It does not mean that because he loves me he has to beat me. He can slap me then I say yes this is to show me that he loves me. But if he severely hits me, this does not show me that he loves me. (Nabintu, 19 years, rural girl)

The husband should not beat his wife; before he does it he should first reproach her. If she makes the same mistake more than two times then he can beat her. But he should not severely beat her until he hurts her, for example, he can only slap her to warn her. (Tina, 17 years, rural girl)

Some female participants distinguished between beating and “slaps of love” they partially agreed with beating. For women holding such a low status not only exposes her to violence but also deprives her rights to freely express her arguments. According to these participants, the wife beating is justified on certain conditions particularly if she makes mistakes. They also believed that the man should only beat her a little bit. Female participants might perceive Kofi ya mapenzi, “a slap of love,” as a demonstration of love. For example, in South Kivu, when a boyfriend or husband finds her girlfriend/wife with another man, the male partner is expected to show signs of jealousy. This may results in beating if one of the partners is short-tempered. Conversely, if he does not show signs of jealousy, it means he does not love her.

Despite dominant discourse, some female participants strongly disagreed with the practice of “wife beating.” During the individual interviews, they felt that it is wrong for the man to beat his partner:

I do not agree with that because a man is not allowed to beat you. Even if people say that there is a slap of love, it exists but the one of beating her until she gets in hospital that one I do not agree with it. (Melissa, 20 years, urban girl)

. . . a slap of love is different. He cannot hit me, and I start crying then I take it as a way of showing me love. There are women who are beaten by their husbands in their households, then you hear her neighbors say: “leave her he loves her” oh! That is not love, love of hitting somebody. (Odette, 17 years, urban girl)

These quotes show that some female participants clearly disconnected from societal views or norms about “wife beating.” They vehemently disagreed with such a practice. Although they indicated that at the community level the practice of beating a wife or girl is acceptable, they clearly contest the association between “wife beating” and love. One female participant also echoes the community dominant views or beliefs regarding the role of violence in intimate relationships: “People also say that there is a slap of love.” She illustrates it as follows:

For a boyfriend to beat his girlfriend, I think he does not love her. Because there is somebody they beat though she did not make any mistake. People also say that there is a slap of love. A man can beat a girl because he loves her so that she cannot make the same mistake anymore. (Olive, 19 years, rural girl)

Beat a Girl to Show Her That She Is Inferior

Another reason to beat a girlfriend or wife is to demonstrate male superiority. Some male participants remarked as follows in the individual interview:

Since the creation, we, men are superior, and remain like this to women. Sometimes a boyfriend beats her girlfriend when she makes mistakes. He does not beat her because he loves her or he wants to correct her but he beats her as he wants to show her that he is superior to her, this is the first thing. Another thing that brings him to beat her is because of doing things that he does not like. Maybe she is arguing with him when he is talking to her. He has to slap her . . . (John, 17 years, rural boy)

Few boys felt entitled to beat their counterpart females as women are generally considered in South Kivu as inferior and unequal to men. Similarly, some female participants, during focus-group discussions, also saw beating as clear attempt by men to demonstrate their superiority:

It does not mean that your husband loves you when he beats you. When a man raises his hand on you, do you think this is a sign that he really respects you? If he truly loves you he can correct you in another way. To beat you is to bring you down, and show you that you are under his feet. (Neema, 18 years, urban girl)

Some female participants clearly advised men to keep away from assault. In fact, they perceived the wife beating as a way of showing her that she is inferior. Thus, they advised men to look for alternative ways of resolving conflict in relationships.

Discussion and Conclusion

Qualitative methods were applied to examine high school male and female students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Results from a series of focus groups and individual interviews with a sample of boys and girls from four high schools suggested that the threat or use of violence is a major strategy for control over relationships. Many men and women did not see anything wrong with the use of physical violence if it is moderate and used as a means to a “positive” reason, such as to correct wayward behaviors. In fact, both genders supported the belief of “a man must slap his girlfriend” to correct her. So, males also saw it as a way of teaching girls a lesson. Jewkes et al. (1999), in their study conducted in South Africa, found that if a wife does something wrong her husband has the right to punish her. In a study conducted in Nigeria, some of the women perceived wife beating as a corrective measure (Ilika, 2005). In a study conducted in South Africa, participants were spontaneous in their responses that it was not only acceptable but also necessary for men to beat girls and women to “discipline” them and to maintain power over them (Sathiparsad, 2005). Various studies in South Africa also found that for some women, beating was not only acceptable but was deemed necessary to instill discipline in women (Jewkes et al., 1999, 2002; Sathiparsad, 2005). Several male and female participants actually justified male violence explicitly in response to women’s general provocations, disrespectfulness, unfaithfulness, and disagreement. The majority of male and female participants actually advocated violence as a way of resolving conflict. One of the reasons that justify the beating was “a person cannot correct somebody that he does not love. If a boy does not love her, he may let her go on making mistakes.” This assumption was motivated by the belief that both male and female participants viewed the women beating as a social norm especially because it is practice by the majority of people in the community. Some female participants indicated that beating is proportional to wrong the girl or woman made. They also believed that at the community level, the practice of beating a wife or girl is acceptable. Such belief may cause younger people to perceive beating as a social norm particularly if it is practiced in families and communities. Women, in this region, might have been socialized to accept punishment and become more obedient to her husband. Wife or girlfriend beatings may appear as a general routine occurrence in the community. However, some female participants vehemently disapproved “women beating” and perceived it as a wrong practice. They clearly dissociated from societal views or norms about girlfriend or wife beating and remarked that wife beating is not equated to love.

In addition, most participants cited unfaithfulness and disrespectfulness as one of the common reasons that justify girlfriend and wife beating. Demanding a woman’s respect and subservience means to sustain their manhood. This concurs with Haj-Yahia’s (1997) study conducted in Palestine, which found that men were most likely to justify wife beating in cases where the wife was seen as “sexually unfaithful,” “contesting her husband’s manhood,” and “disobeying her husband wishes.” In a study conducted in South Africa, participants reported that girls could be beaten for a range of reasons including their unfaithfulness or assumed unfaithfulness, decisiveness, insubordination, refusal to have sex, or going out without their boyfriends’ permission (Sathiparsad, 2005). Research in Ghana also found that most participants asserted that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife. They also mentioned lack of respect, seductive behavior with other men and failing to do what the man says as justifications for violence (Glover et al., 2003).

Some male participants mentioned that women are beaten to show that they are inferior. This perception is deeply entrenched in social norms that encourage males to use violence toward intimate partners. Such an attitude may render them to perpetrate violence toward females to reduce her pride. T. J. Wood (2004), in her study in the United States, found that participants emphasized that they used violence to “keep women in their place.” Several studies also confirm that men resorted to beating their partners as the result of females’ challenge to patriarchal authority and contest “present conditions.” They also beat their female intimates to maintain his authority and control (Bowker, 1983; Hall et al., 1978). This coincides with feminist arguments that men who use violence have more power and that violence is used to control women and to maintain men’s supremacy (Anderson, 1997; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllö & Bograd, 1988; Yodanis, 2004).

Most male and female participants believed that beating their girlfriend or wife shows that the man loves her, that is, the boy/man really cares about her and the relationship. The practice of girlfriend and wife beating expresses physical affection and commitment to the relationship. Also, it was perceived in participants’ view that men are protectors of women. This clearly suggests that men have to safeguard wives and girlfriends. Similarly, a number of studies in South Africa found that boys believed beating their girlfriend or wife shows that they love her. Women also perceived hitting as to constrain her and demonstrate love (Jewkes et al., 1999, 2002; Sathiparsad, 2005; Selikow et al., 2002; K. Wood & Jewkes, 2001). However, some female participants disagreed with the above assumption although even they seemed to accept a “slap of love.” They have actually distinguished between beating and “slaps of love” and also indicated that some boys/men may beat their girlfriends/wives because they do not love them.

Most male and female participants touched on what may be termed a “societal accepted norm” of violence against women that tend to justify violence. The girlfriend and wife beating entitlement could be ascribed to deep entrenched social norms which were evident in male participants’ accounts. Men who embody the ideal of manhood may actually believe that they are entitled to control relationships and women and resort to the use of violence to enforce their male entitlements and the demand of respect from the woman. Therefore, men who lack confidence, especially if they feel that their manhood is undermined, may resort to violence to enforce women’s deference. These findings confirm research in multiple countries where participants viewed wife beating as justifiable (Akmatov et al., 2008; Bott, 2010; Choi & Ting, 2008; Dalal et al., 2012; Frost & Dodoo, 2010; Haj-Yahia, 1997, 1998; Hindin, 2013; Ilika, 2005; Khawaja et al., 2008; Kim-Godwin & Fox, 2009; McGee, 2017; Peterson, 1992; Sakalli, 2001; Schuler et al., 2012; Siegel, 1996). T. J. Wood (2004) found that participants perceived the women’s acceptance of violence as justifying continued abuse and/or demonstrating that the abuse was not problematic. Numerous researchers have also noted that cultural practices may validate this view of manhood by approving of men who are dominant, powerful, and controlling and approving of females who “stand by their man,” no matter how men treat them (Adams et al., 1995; Meyers, 1997).

This study has demonstrated the acceptability of physical violence that women experience in intimate relationships. The acceptance of wife beating in the community seems to validate violence as both victims and perpetrators reported acceptability for this behavior in theoretical situations. Beating was used as an approach to resolving conflict. Most male and female participants perceived it as a way to show love to their partners. Such assertions may reinforce women who shared complicities in gender-based violence. These perceptions are deeply entrenched in social norms that encourage males to use violence toward intimate partner. Although the majority of girls were receptive to accept the notion of wife beating and quite hesitant about the degree of the beating, a minority of girls strongly disapproved such a practice. These attitudes did not differ from both participants who live in urban and rural area but slightly different between the two genders. In fact, the study also revealed that for some women, violence was not only acceptable but was also deemed necessary to instill discipline in women. Yet, this study has shown that the discourse of violence as a social norm is present and certainly shapes the attitudes of the girls in the study. This article has also shown that men may use violence to exercise their assumed entitlements and to bolster their esteem. On a theoretical level, the results from the current study offer a possible explanation for how social norms of accepting violence are reinforced and maintained in the community. In fact, we argue that no one has the right to physically assault a woman. It is not justified, irrespective of the fault she made.

Few female participants, in this study, although a minority, questioned sociocultural norms about girlfriend and wife beating, indicating an openness to exploring alternative responses to addressed issues. Interventions must provide support for men and women and must focus on enhancing self-esteem and developing non-violent conflict resolution skills. This is not the place to discuss how such attitudes could be cost-effectively spread that would require a separate study. Chege (2005), Peacock and Levack (2004), and Petersen et al. (2005), among others, have reviewed various efforts of “constructive male involvement” to reduce levels of gender violence. In fact, the government’s official plan to reduce gender-based violence assumes that violence against women exists because of women’s low status compared with men (République Démocratique du Congo, Ministère du Genre, de la Famille et de l’Enfant [Democratic Republic of Congo Ministry of Gender, Family, & Children], 2009), which corroborates the current study’s findings that demonstrate strong need to enhance women’s status in the DRC as they are perceived to be inferior. These findings, along with those of other authors (Harrison, 2002; Jewkes et al., 2002; Koenig et al., 2004), make some contributions toward change by providing guidelines for interventions to address unequal sexual relations and to enhance social relations between men and women (Mills, 2001).

These findings have clearly demonstrated the need to build more peaceful gender relationships. Helping girls and boys realize that non-violent ways of dealing with conflicts is a priority. Some female participants, in this study, re-iterated the notion of resorting to advice instead of beating. In effect, building communication skills between boys and girls as an approach of building mutual understanding is essential. Education may be an invaluable tool for creating a sustaining change. There is a strong need to re-educate both males and females to address the problem and particularly train men to treat women respectfully and non-violently. This requires sustained contributions from government, civil society, churches, and schools. This study has clearly demonstrated the need for such re-education.

Changing young people’s attitudes that normalize gendered partner violence is vital. Effective efforts to do so—to change men’s intimate partner violence—must take into account the opinions of men who perpetuate such violence. This study actually opens the process of illuminating South Kivu people’s understandings of men who engage in intimate partner violence. This study also raises several issues of interest to researchers and policy makers. In fact, it seems clear from this study’s findings that beliefs around violence against a female partner were very strong already for these young male and female participants, and that adolescence may possibly be too late for wife beating prevention since adolescents develop these beliefs early. Unfortunately, this study did not focus on children. However, adolescence represents a critical point in the building of intimate relationships and presents an opportunity to inform young people about healthy, non-violent relationships. These findings stress the critical need for future research to explore the socialization of female and male children especially in family or society characterized by violence and a post-war setting environment as in other part of the DRC and elsewhere in the world.

Given that this study took place among 56 students in four schools in one province of the DRC, it would be inappropriate to generalize its findings. It can be hoped that those concerned to reduce gender violence in the DRC and elsewhere will find the research insightful to their efforts. To the extent that the findings of this research support prior understandings, confidence in these findings (and in prior understandings) can be stronger. However, the presence of a female teacher as a moderator of focus groups and individual interviews possibly had some influence on the answers provided by girls. Female participants may have told a slightly different story.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank young male and female students who participated in this project and also thank the principals of the four schools to allow conducting this study.

Author’s Note

Maroyi Mulumeoderhwa is now affiliated with Postdoctoral Fellow, Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning, Faculty of Top Management, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Maroyi Mulumeoderhwa

Author Biography

Maroyi Mulumeoderhwa, PhD, is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning, Faculty of Top Management, University of the Free State. His current research interests include higher education transformation, the relationship between law and social change, gender equality, gender-based violence, building better gender relations, and young people attitudes and behavior in relation to sexual violence.

References

Adams

J. P.

Towns

Gavey

(1995). Dominance and entitlement: The rhetoric men use to discuss their violence toward women. Discourse and Society, 6, 387–406.

Adomako

A. A.

Boateng

(2007). Multiple meanings of manhood among boys in Ghana. In Shefer

Ratele

Strebel

Shabalala

Buikema

(Eds.), From boys to men: Social construction of masculinity in contemporary society (pp. 50–74). University of Cape Town Press.

Akmatov

M. K.

Rafael

T. M.

Shokria

Enas

Mobarak

M. K.

(2008). Factors associated with wife beating in Egypt: Analysis of two surveys (1995 and 2005). BMC Women’s Health, 8, Article 15.

Albutt

Kelly

Kabanga

VanRooyen

(2017). Stigmatisation and rejection of survivors of sexual violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Disasters, 41, 211–227.

Anderson

K. L.

(1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655–669.

Baker

L. L.

Jaffe

G. P.

(2003). Youth exposed to domestic violence: A handbook for the juvenile justice system to enhance assessment and intervention strategies for youth from violent homes. Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linda_Baker5/publication/241324738_Youth_Exposed_to_Domestic_Violence/links/55b0e25c08ae092e964fb2d8/Youth-Exposed-to-Domestic-Violence.pdf

Barbour

R. S.

(1999). Are focus groups an appropriate tool for studying organizational change? In Barbour

R. S.

Kitzinger

(Eds.), Developing focus group research, politics, theory and practice (pp. 113–126). Sage.

Bodgan

Biklen

S. K.

(1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.

Bograd

(1984). Family systems approaches to wife battering: A feminist critique. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 558–568.

10.

Boonzaier

(2008). “If the man says you must sit, then you must sit”: The relational construction of women abuse: Gender, subjectivity and violence. Feminism Psychology, 18, 183–206.

11.

Bott

(2010). Sexual violence and coercion: Implications for sexual and reproductive health. In Malarcher

(Ed.), Social determinants of sexual and reproductive health (pp. 133–159). World Health Organization.

12.

Bowker

L. H.

(1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington Books.

13.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

14.

Chege

(2005). Interventions linking gender relations and violence with reproductive health and HIV: Rationale, effectiveness and gaps [Special Issue]. Agenda, 115, 114–123.

15.

Choi

Y. P. S.

Ting

(2008). Wife beating in South Africa: An imbalance theory of resources and power. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 835–852.

16.

Cleaver

(2002). Men and masculinities: New directions in gender and development. In Cleaver

(Ed.), Masculinities matter men, gender and development (pp. 1–27). Zed Books.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

18.

Dalal

Lee

M. S.

Gifford

(2012). “Male adolescents” attitudes toward wife beating: A multi-country study in South Asia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 437–442.

19.

Davis

Fabbri

Alphonse

M. I.

(2014). Democratic Republic of Congo—DRC gender country profile. http://www.lauradavis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gender-Country-Profile-DRC-2014.pdf

20.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Dragiewicz

(2007). Understanding the complexities of feminist perspectives on woman abuse: A commentary on Donald G. Dutton’s Rethinking Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 874–884.

21.

Diekman

A. B.

Goodfriend

(2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383.

22.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Free Press.

23.

Dutton

D. G.

(2006). Rethinking domestic violence. University of British Columbia Press.

24.

Frost

A. E.

Dodoo

F. N.

(2010). “The man comes to marry the woman”: Exploring adolescent boys’ gendered expectations for bridewealth and marriage among the Akwapim of Southern Ghana. Marriage & Family Review, 46, 41–59.

25.

Fulu

Jewkes

Roselli

Garcia-Moreno

Team

U. M.

(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. Lancet Global Health, 1, 187–207.

26.

Fulu

Miedema

Roselli

Mccook

Chan

K. L.

Haardorfer

, . . . UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence Study Team. (2017). Pathways between childhood trauma, intimate partner violence, and harsh parenting: Findings from the UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. Lancet Global Health, 5, 512–522.

27.

Gelles

R. J.

(1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence. In Gelles

J. R.

Loseke

R. D.

Cavanaugh

M. M.

(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 31–46). Sage.

28.

Gichane

M. W.

Moracco

K. E.

Thirumurthy

Okitolonda

E. W.

Behets

Yotebieng

(2018). Intimate partner violence and prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV: Evidence from Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. PLOS ONE, 13, e0203471.

29.

Giddens

Sutton

P. W.

(2017). Sociology. Polity Press.

30.

Glover

E. K.

Bannerman

Pence

B. W.

Jones

Miller

Weiss

Nerquaye-Tetteh

(2003). Sexual health experiences of adolescents in three Ghanaian towns. International Family Planning Perspectives, 29, 32–40.

31.

Hadley

M. B.

(2015). Modeling strategic interventions in a population with a total fertility rate of 8.3: A cross-sectional study of Idjwi Island, DRC—With appendix detailing patterns of poverty and disease among the Bany’Idjwi people [Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Medical School]. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:15821580

32.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(1997). Predicting beliefs about wife beating among engaged Arab men in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 530–546.

33.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(1998). A patriarchal perspective of beliefs about wife beating among Palestinian men from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 595–621.

34.

Hall

Critcher

Jefferson

Clarke

Roberts

(1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Harrison

(2002). The social dynamics of adolescent risk for HIV: Using research findings to design a school-based intervention. Agenda, 17, 43–52.

36.

Hindin

M. J.

(2013). Adolescent childbearing and women’s attitudes towards wife beating in 25 sub-Saharan African countries. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 1488–1495.

37.

Holt

Buckley

Whelan

(2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797–810.

38.

Huberman

A. M.

Miles

B. M.

(1994). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin

K. N.

Lincoln

S. Y.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage.

39.

Ilika

L. A.

(2005). Women’s perception of partner violence in a rural Igbo community. African Journal of Reproductive Health/La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive, 9, 77–88.

40.

Jewkes

Levin

Penn-Kekana

(2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1603–1617.

41.

Jewkes

Penn-Kekana

Levin

Ratsaka

Schrieber

(1999). “He must give me money, he mustn’t beat me”: Violence against women in three South African Provinces. Medical Research Council, CERSA (Women’s Health). http://www.samrc.ac.za/gender/violence.pdf

42.

Johnson

Scott

Rughita

Kisielewski

Asher

Ong

Lawry

(2010). Association of sexual violence and human rights violations with physical and mental health in territories of the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of American Medical Association, 304, 553–562.

43.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.

44.

Johnson

M. P.

(2005). Domestic violence: It’s not about gender—Or is it? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 1126–1130.

45.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018.

46.

Khawaja

Linos

El-Roueiheb

(2008). Attitudes of men and women towards wife beating: Findings from Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 211–218.

47.

Kidman

Palermo

Bertrand

(2015). Intimate partner violence, modern contraceptive use and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 2–10.

48.

Kim-Godwin

S. Y.

Fox

J. A.

(2009). Gender differences in intimate partner violence and alcohol use among Latino-migrant and seasonal farmworkers in rural southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 26, 131–142.

49.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.

50.

Koenig

A. M.

Lutalo

Zhao

Nalugoda

Kiwanuka

Wabire-Mangen

… Gray

(2004). Coercive sex in rural Uganda: Prevalence and associated risk factors. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 787–798.

51.

Kohli

Perrin

N. A.

Remy

M. M.

Luhazi

V. B.

Mirindi

A. B.

Banywesize

J. H.

… Glass

(2015). Family and community driven response to intimate partner violence in post-conflict settings. Social Science & Medicine, 146, 276–284.

52.

Kubeka

M. A.

(2008). Exposure to violence at home: A qualitative exploration of experiences and perceptions of black adolescents in South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 39, 282–300.

53.

Kurz

(1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender and Society, 3, 489–505.

54.

Kushner

K. E.

Morrow

(2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory: Toward theoretical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26, 30–43.

55.

Lawson

(2012). Sociological theories of intimate partner violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 572–590.

56.

Lichter

E. L.

McCloskey

L. A.

(2004). The effects of childhood exposure to martial violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 344–357.

57.

Linos

Kawachi

(2012). Community social norms as social determinants of violence against women. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 199–200.

58.

Lubunga

(2016.). The impact of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo on women and their response to peace-building. Stellenbosch Theological Journal, 2, 347–364.

59.

Lusey

Sebastian

S. M.

Christianson

Edin

E. K.

(2018). Prevalence and correlates of gender inequitable norms among young, church-going women and men in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. BMC Public Health, 18, Article 887.

60.

Lwambo

(2013). “Before the war, I was a man”: Men and masculinities in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Gender and Development, 21, 47–66.

61.

McGee

W. R.

(2017). Are women more opposed to wife beating than men? An empirical study of 60 countries [Working paper]. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.2977421

62.

Meyers

(1997). News coverage of violence against women: Engendering blame. Sage.

63.

Mills

(2001). Challenging violence in schools: An issue of masculinity. Open University Press.

64.

Mulumeoderhwa

(2018a). Landless and “childless” in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo: High school students’ perceptions of gendered constitutional rights. Law & Society Review, 52, 1026–1059.

65.

Mulumeoderhwa

(2018b). Virginity requirement versus sexually-active young people: What girls and boys think about virginity in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Archive of Sexual Behavior, 47, 565–575.

66.

Peacock

Levack

(2004). The men as partners program in South Africa: Reaching men to end gender based violence and promote sexual and reproductive health. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 50–59.

67.

Peterman

Palermo

Bredenkamp

(2011). Estimates and determinants of sexual violence against women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1060–1067.

68.

Petersen

Bhana

McKay

(2005). Sexual violence and youth in South Africa: the need for community-based prevention interventions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1233–1248.

69.

Peterson

(1992). Wife beating: An American tradition. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 23, 97–118.

70.

Plummer

Young

L. E.

(2010). Grounded theory and feminist inquiry: Revitalizing links to the past. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32, 305–321.

71.

République Démocratique du Congo, Ministère du Genre, de la Famille et de l’Enfant [Democratic Republic of Congo Ministry of Gender, Family, & Children]. (2009). Stratégie Nationale de Lutte contre les Violences Basées sur le Genre [National strategy to fight against gender-based violence]. Kinshasa, DRC: Ministère du Genre, de la Famille et de l’Enfant. https://monusco.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/old_dnn/National%20Strategy.pdf.

72.

Rizzo

J. C.

(2008). Family and peer contexts shape teen perceptions of dating violence. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 25, 1–6.

73.

Sakalli

(2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599–610.

74.

Sathiparsad

(2005). “It is better to beat her”: Male youth in rural KwaZulu-Natal speak on violence in relationships: Empowering women for gender equity. Agenda, 19, 79–88.

75.

Schuler

S. R.

Yount

M. K.

Lenzi

(2012). Justification of wife beating in rural Bangladesh: A qualitative analysis of gender differences in responses to survey questions. Violence Against Women, 18, 1177–1191.

76.

Selikow

Zulu

Cedras

(2002). The ingagara, the regte and the cherry: HIV/AIDS and youth culture in contemporary urban townships. Agenda, 17, 22–32.

77.

Siegel

R. B.

(1996). “The rule of love”: Wife beating as prerogative and privacy. The Yale Law Journal, 105, 2117–2208.

78.

Stark

Asghar

Meyer

Bakemore

Poulton

Falb

(2017). The effect of gender norms on the association between violence and hope among girls in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Global Mental Health, 4, 1–10.

79.

Thomson Reuters Foundation. (2018). The world’s most dangerous countries for women. http://poll2018.trust.org/

80.

Tlapek

S. M.

(2015). Women’s status and intimate partner violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2526–2540.

81.

United Nations. (2019). World population prospects 2019. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/

82.

Vicsek

(2007). A scheme for analyzing the results of focus groups. International Journal Qualitative Methods, 6, 20–34.

83.

Walker

L. E. A.

(1981). A feminist perspective of domestic violence. In Stuart

B. R.

(Ed.), Violent behavior: Social learning approaches to prediction, management and treatment (pp. 102–115). American Psychiatric Press.

84.

Walker

L. E. A.

(1986). Psychological causes of family violence. In Lystad

(Ed.), Violence in the home: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–91). Brunner/Mazel.

85.

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

C. V.

Lee

Mcintyre-Smith

Jaffe

P. G.

(2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171–187.

86.

Wood

Jewkes

(2001). “Dangerous love”: Reflections on violence among Xhosa township youth. In Morrell

(Ed.), Changing men in Southern Africa (pp. 317–336). University of Natal Press.

87.

Wood

T. J.

(2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 555–576.

88.

Wuest

(1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and tensions between two traditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 125–137.

89.

Yllö

K. A.

(1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In Gelles

J. R.

Loseke

R. D.

Cavanaugh

M. M.

(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47–62). Sage.

90.

Yllö

K. A.

Bograd

(1988). Feminist perspective in wife abuse. Sage.

91.

Yodanis

C. L.

(2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655–675.