Anatolian Women’s Opinions Attitudes And Behaviors Toward Violence Against Women

Abstract

Objective: Violence against women is a global humanitarian problem. The present study evaluates the opinions, attitudes and behaviors of women living in the Kars province of Turkey toward violence against women, and analyses the socio-demographic factors that influence both physical violence, and the opinions, attitudes and behaviors of women toward such violence. Methods: This cross-sectional research was conducted with 183 women aged 17-83 years, involving a questionnaire prepared based on a summary report on domestic violence against women in Turkey. Results: Of the respondents, 30.4 percent had been exposed severe physical violence and 41.3% mild physical violence. It was seen that a low family income increased the risk of physical violence 3.152-fold. The risk of physical violence was 2.974 times greater in women with unemployed partners. A relatively low educational level in the partner meant a 2.981-fold increase in the risk of physical violence; and the risk of physical violence was 2.328 times greater in the younger age groups than in the older age groups. Women with a higher level of education and with more economic independence, those in employment, and those in the younger age groups mostly considered violence against women to be “never acceptable”. Women seeking legal aid when exposed to violence by their partners were in the well-educated and economically independent women groups, to a significant degree. Conclusion: Culture, education and economic status are the main risk factors for violence against women, however multidimensional research is necessary if we are to understand the root cause of such behaviors.

Keywords

• culture
• domestic violence
• education
• violence against women

Anadolu Kadınlarının Kadına Yönelik Şiddete İlişkin Görüş Tutum Ve Davranışları

Abstract

Amaç: Kadına yönelik şiddet, küresel bir insanlık sorunudur. Bu çalışma; Türkiye'nin Kars ilinde yaşayan kadınların, kadına yönelik şiddete ilişkin görüş, tutum ve davranışlarını değerlendirmekte ve hem fiziksel şiddeti etkileyen sosyo-demografik unsurları hem de kadınların bu şiddete yönelik görüş, tutum ve davranışlarını incelemektedir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Türkiye'de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddetle ilgili rapora dayalı olarak hazırlanan anketi içeren bu kesitsel araştırma, 17-83 yaş arası 183 kadınla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılan kadınların %30,4'ü şiddetli, %41,3'ü hafif düzeyde fiziksel şiddete maruz kalmıştır. Aile gelirinin düşük olmasının fiziksel şiddet riskini 3.152 kat artırdığı görüldü. Eşi işsiz olan kadınlarda fiziksel şiddet riski 2.974 kat daha fazlaydı. Eşin görece düşük eğitim düzeyi, fiziksel şiddet riskinde 2.981 kat artış anlamına geliyordu; genç yaş grubunda fiziksel şiddet riski, daha yaşlı gruba göre 2.328 kat daha fazlaydı. Eğitim düzeyi yüksek, ekonomik bağımsızlığı olan, çalışan ve daha genç yaş gruplarındaki kadınlar, çoğunlukla kadına yönelik şiddeti “asla kabul edilemez” olarak gördüğünü bildirmiştir. Eşleri tarafından şiddete maruz kaldıklarında adli yardım arayan kadınlar, istatistiksel olarak önemli ölçüde, iyi eğitimli ve ekonomik olarak bağımsız kadın grupları içinde yer almaktadır. Sonuç: Kültür, eğitim ve ekonomik durum, kadına yönelik şiddetin ana risk faktörleridir, ancak bu tür davranışların temel nedenini anlamak için çok boyutlu araştırmalara gereksinim vardır.

Keywords

• kültür
• aile içi şiddet
• eğitim
• kadına yönelik şiddet

References

1. REFERENCES 1. de Boer SF. Animal models of excessive aggression: implications for human aggression and violence. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;19:81-7.
2. 2. Chikhungu LC, Bradley T, Jamali M, Mubaiwa O. Culture and domestic violence amongst ever-married women in Malawi: an analysis of emotional, sexual, less-severe physical and severe physical violence. J Biosoc Sci. 2020;6:1-15.
3. 3. Pan A, Daley S, Rivera LM, Williams K, Da Lingle D, Reznik V. Understanding the Role of Culture in Domestic Violence: The Ahimsa Project for Safe Families Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2006;8, No. 1.
4. 4. Zheng B, Zhu X, Hu Z, Zhou W, Yu Y, Yin S, Xu H. The prevalence of domestic violence and its association with family factors: a cross-sectional study among pregnant women in urban communities of Hengyang City, China. BMC Public Health. 2020;5;20(1):620.
5. 5. Semahegn A, Mengistie B. Domestic violence against women and associated factors in Ethiopia;systematic review Reprod Health. 2015;12:78.
6. 6. MeitSS, Fitzpatrick KM, SelbyJB. Domestic violence: Intimate partner violence. In: Rakel RE, editor. Textbook of family medicine. 7rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2007. p. 47-67.
7. 7. Global and regional estimates of violence against women. WHO. Avaliable at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85239/9789241564625_eng.pdf;jsessionid=6C4448A6A9D057BDB458D66744825ACD?
8. 8. WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women. 2005.Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses https://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/Introduction-Chapter1-Chapter2.pdf

9. 9. The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies. Hacettepe University. Domestic Violence Against Women in Turkey Summary Report Ankara, 2014. Avaliable at: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/english_main_report.pdf
10. 10. TurkStat. Turkish Statistical Institute, Statistics (cited 2020 January 12): Avaliable at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriTabanlari.do?vt_id=31&ust_id=109
11. 11. KCDP. Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu 2019 Raporu [Internet]. 2019 Available at: http://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/2889/kadin-cinayetlerini-durduracagiz-platformu-2019-
12. 12. Martin DL, Harrod RP. Bioarchaeological contributions to the study of violence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2015;156:116-45.
13. 13. Fulu E, Miedema S. Violence Against Women. Sage. 2015;21(12):1431-55.
14. 14. Heise, L., Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 1998;4(3):262-90.
15. 15. Heise LL. What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. London, England: Department for International Development. (2011). xvii+108 pp. ISBN 978-0-902657-85-2 https://www.oecd.org/derec/49872444.pdf
16. 16. Kilpatrick DG. What Is Violence Against Women: Defining and Measuring the Problem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2004;19(11):1209-34.
17. 17. WHO Department of gender, women and health, family and community health. Adressing violence against women and achieving the milennium goals. Geneva: World HealthOrganization;2005.http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43361/1/WHO_FCH_GWH_05.1.pdf
18. 18. Adaman F, Aslan D, Erus B, Sayan S. European Socıal Polıcy Network (ESPN) In-work poverty in Turkey file:///C:/Users/TIP/Desktop/ESPN_TR_TR1_2018-19%20on%20in-work%20poverty_final.pdf 2019.
19. 19. Şen S, Bolsoy N. Violence against women: prevalence and risk factors in Turkish sample. BMC Women's Health. 2017;17:100
20. 20. Tozlu Ç, Göksel A. Women Against Violence Engagement (WAVE): Violence against Women Country Report Turkey. 2016. TR2010/0135.01- 01/339. https://notus-asr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WAVE_Report_Turkey_
21. 21. Santas G, Santas F, Eryurt MA. Domestic Violence and Healthcare Utilization in Turkey. Social Work in Public Health. 2020;(35):3:125-36.
22. 22. Rada C. Violence against women by male partners and against children within the family: prevalence, associated factors, and intergenerational transmission in Romania, a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:129.
23. 23. TurkStat. Turkish Statistical Institute, Statistics of Demography (cited 2019 November 10): Avaliable from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/.
24. 24. Sosyoekonomik Haritalama Kentin Sosyoekonomik Yapısını Anlamak ve Görselleştirmek. Katılımcılık Rehberleri No ¾.2014. Ankara. https://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/1408540013-9.Sosyoekonomik_Haritalama.pdf
25. 25. Dicola D, Spaar E. Intimate Partner Violence. Am Fam Physician. 2016;15;94(8):646-51.
26. 26. Keynejad RC, Hanlon C, Howard LM. Psychological interventions for common mental disorders in women experiencing intimate partner violence in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(2): 173-90.