Laws, Legislation, and Beliefs
Social Norms in East Asia:
Deeply ingrained social norms can be a hidden but prominent factor on domestic violence (DV) and intimate partner violence (IPV) rates. Delving into IPV against Asian women, there is a consistent finding that Asian cultural expectations of obedience, silence, and collective shame affect how Asian women perceive and deal with violence in their homes (Ragavan et al. 957-967). This alludes to definitions of IPV differing among Asian cultures and potential underreporting of IPV by Asian women. Unfortunately, research on a single Asian ethnicity or region is more common than comparing several Asian ethnicities or regions. Therefore, the distinct causes of broader trends in Asian regions have not been well addressed. However, we will focus on some specific countries in different regions.
For example, China has strong Confusian values that prioritizes family harmony. As such, victims are discouraged from reporting DV as police and witnesses dismiss it as a family issue and not as a legal issue that should be addressed (Chen, 2024) . Thus, despite the laws present to punish violence against women, the execution is flawed as judges, police officers, and witnesses are hesitant to support victims due to societal norms. Similarly, Japan and Korea are also influenced by Confusian values such as family piety and harmony. Additionally, the concept of a country’s intra-national gender inequality largely contributing to IPV, rather than a country’s internationally comparative socioeconomic inequality contributing, is not common. Until recently in 2022, Japan upheld remarriage laws where women were unable to remarry until 100 days after divorce. Additionally, paternity for children born up to 300 days after divorce would go to the ex-husband instead of their current spouse (Equality Now 2021). This was initially enacted to avoid confusion over paternity but placed the burden on the woman and was obsolete after genetic testing became widely available. These strict remarriage laws discouraged divorce and potentially decreased reported IPV rates, as women had less freedom and trust in the legal system, especially if they were pregnant or had children.
In 2024, Japan also expanded the scope of IPV to include mental abuse, increased protections for victims, and focused on collecting data on IPV (Weinberg). Although these recent changes in laws mark a shift in social norms and gender equality, the efficacy of these changes have yet to be seen due to their recency. Overall, despite the positive shift towards equality, the prioritization of family harmony and privacy in East Asian cultural norms are still a prevalent factor affecting IPV and DV. While new revisions to the law are valuable, hesitancy to report IPV because of pressure from these norms are still pervasive. This could explain why East Asia has missing data for indicators such as % of women who have ever experienced domestic violence from their spouse.
Social Norms in South/Southeast Asia:
Southeast Asian countries have complex relationships between their cultural traditions, gender roles, and attitudes toward domestic violence. Unlike East Asia’s mainly Confucian influence, Southeast Asian countries have diverse religious and cultural practices which play into how domestic violence is viewed. However, there is a common theme of family unity and harmony despite the differences in religion that is similar throughout Asia. For instance, Islam is a predominant religion in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, so traditional interpretations of gender roles can influence perspectives on family relations, marriages, relationships, etc. There are religious courts that operate based on religious laws and principles and often handle family disputes which sometimes prioritize family unity over individual safety (Brackett and Downing). Similarly, in the Philippines, there are strong Catholic values that emphasize family preservation, creating barriers for women seeking to leave abusive relationships. As Clark et al. found, financial stress combined with traditional gender expectations creates environments where IPV can flourish. This finding can be tied to how Vietnam has a 25.2% IPV rate; although Vietnam’s socialist government policies promote gender equality, traditional values still influence family dynamics and household relationships.
Additionally, the discrepancy between legal protections and their performance is evident amongst Southeast Asian countries. Many countries have passed strict laws against domestic violence. However, enforcement remains weak due to social norms. In Vietnam, despite there being legal protections, domestic disputes are typically considered to be private matters that do not require outside intervention (Ragavan et al.). As Boyce et al. argue, gender norms that expect “dominant masculinity and female passivity” create social contexts that reinforce violence against women. Thailand and Malaysia also have established laws that address IPV, but cultural expectations of female submission and family harmony often prevent women from seeking help.
This discrepancy between legal protections can also be found in South Asia. For example, a particularly surprising discovery was Bangladesh’s numerous laws against DV that mostly align with the United Nations Model and offer harsh punishments, such as death (Brackett and Downing 329-330). We expected countries with weak punishments or few laws against IPV to have higher rates of it. How come countries like Pakistan also have numerous laws and have less harsh punishments yet hold lower rates of DV than Bangladesh? Perhaps it could be related to the fact that from 2000-2023 Bangladeshi women were nearly three times more likely to be married by age 18 and nearly six times more likely to be married by age 15 than Pakistani women. Additionally, the average age gap between sexes at the age of first marriage was 6 years for Bangladeshi women and 4 years for Pakistani women. This led us to the idea that intranational differences may have more weight than international differences when it comes to predicting the prevalence and indicators of IPV, specifically differences between sexes. Banu states that married adolescent mothers are more likely to be “controlled by husbands and in-laws (15)” and remain “poor, uneducated, and within rural communities (16)”. Therefore, lax attitudes towards child marriage and age gaps cause Bangladeshi women to be much more vulnerable than their husbands in marriage. More gender inequality within a country or region may mean higher rates of IPV there. There were multiple instances in our data analysis where women’s status in their country was lower than their male counterparts’. We approximated women’s status by looking at certain indicators in our data pertaining to education, beliefs, employment, and laws from 2000 to 2023.
Furthermore, Southeast Asia’s rapid economic development over the years has created more complications between traditional values and modern gender expectations. In countries that are experiencing fast economic growth–like Vietnam and Thailand–women are increasingly becoming more economically independent which has challenged traditional patriarchal structures. However, this sometimes results in increased violence when men try to reassert their dominance and control over women (Heise). The World Bank data shows that Vietnam’s 25.2% IPV rate falls between Bangladesh’s 50% and China’s 18.5%, suggesting that economic development alone doesn’t determine IPV rates. A consistent pattern across Southeast Asia is the higher prevalence of domestic violence in rural areas compared to urban settings. In Thailand, physical violence rates were significantly higher in rural areas (33.8%) compared to urban centers (22.9%) (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005, cited in Brown). This pattern suggests that urbanization and education may gradually change attitudes toward domestic violence in more developed areas.
Similarly to East Asia, Southeast Asian cultures generally prioritize collective harmony over individual rights, creating significant barriers to reporting IPV because women who speak out risk bringing shame to their families and communities. In countries like Cambodia and Myanmar, where traditional gender roles remain prominent, women often internalize beliefs that tolerate certain levels of violence. The “Gender Stats” dataset reveals that it is likely that educational disparities contribute to these beliefs, as Pettitt found that increased education is inversely related to IPV acceptance among women.
Unlike East Asia’s emphasis on family harmony derived from Confucian principles, Southeast Asian views on domestic violence are more directly tied to diverse religious interpretations, rapid economic transitions, and the urban-rural divide. We can conclude that addressing domestic violence in Southeast Asia requires a culturally sensitive approach that acknowledges these complexities; while legal frameworks provide essential protections, lasting change will require addressing the underlying cultural attitudes that normalize violence against women.
Education and Employment
Financial independence is often the missing piece that many women need to escape or avoid IPV, but unfortunately, its availability in Asia varies dramatically by region. The root cause of a lack of financial independence is a lack of education. Over the past two decades, our data shows that the average female literacy rates in South Asia were about thirty to fifty percentage points behind those of East and Southeast Asia. Pakistan’s average literacy rate was particularly devastating at around 42%, with its maximum rate in 2019 being 46%. Higher female literacy rates and more years of schooling have several benefits such as increased employable skills, increased decision making in the family, and increased knowledge about nutrition, disease, and family planning (Eldred et al. 658). In South Asia, male favoritism — which is typically seen as more spending, leisure time, and schooling for boys — often deprives girls of these benefits and eventually confines them to their homes where they have little power and the highest chances of experiencing violence (Banu 32-33). This male favoritism is evident in the literacy gap between sexes in South Asia and East Asia & the Pacific. In 2000, 45% of South Asian women were literate compared to 70% of South Asian men. The rates have increased to 68% and 82% in 2023, respectively, but this gap is still much larger than that of East Asia & the Pacific in 2023, which boasted a two-point difference between sexes. When women and men are both highly educated, DV rates decrease at a higher rate than when only one or none or them are educated (Rapp et al. 5). When both are highly educated, it implies that the woman was afforded similar opportunities as her male family members, subverting historical favoritism. Neither being highly educated does not imply this since favoritism could have still been present, but the family could have been simply unluckier when it came to education. East and Southeast Asia being more alike in gender-specific education rates than South Asia may partially explain why they’re also more alike in IPV rates. Gender equality is more elusive in South Asia which sets it apart from other Asian regions.
A major purpose of education is employment, which can directly offer financial independence through wages. While women’s labor participation is globally expected to be lower than men’s due to traditional gender roles expecting women to be stay-at-home mothers, our data shows the gap between male and female employment is typically twice as large or more in South Asia than in East and Southeast Asia. However, there were anomalies. In 2018, Nepal had a gender labor gap of 26% while the Philippines had one of 27%, yet the Philippines’ IPV rate was half of Nepal’s in that same year. At first glance, one may think of the difference in wealth between regions. It is true that increased wealth is inversely related to IPV acceptance in women (Pettitt 14), yet the average per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product) gap between East and Southeast Asia is much larger than that of South and Southeast Asia. Thus, IPV rates cannot just be predicted by wealth between countries. We consider wealth between sexes. Khan and Klasen explain that higher rates of employment for women actually increase IPV unless those women are formally employed, meaning not employed in manual or menial labor (18). Southeast Asia is more economically developed, more educated, and less rural than South Asia, which means that women in Southeast Asia are more likely to work non-agricultural jobs and make enough money to truly be independent from their husbands. The Women, Business, and the Law: Pay Indicator Score, which measures the rights of women to equal wages and rights against occupational segregation, was 50 for Nepal in 2017 whereas it was 100 in the Philippines that same year. Although both countries had scores of 100 beyond 2017, indicating full rights concerning pay, the effects of those laws could have taken a while to set in. Wives who work, but only make enough to supplement, not replace, their husband’s incomes are not on an equal playing field in marriage. There is a power imbalance that could encourage abuse. This is evidence that there is depth to what constitutes as gender equality. It’s not just equal employment, but the type of employment. Nor is it just equal education, but the amount of education. True gender equality is once more found to be negatively related to DV, this time through employment.
Up Next
Learn about the limitations of our data and analysis!