Why the victims of Intimate partner violence is increasing in Bangladesh: Understanding the Connection Between Hegemonic Masculinity and Intimate Partner Violence’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Bangladeshi society, the notion of hegemonic masculinity has been existing for a long time and it has contributed to serious forms of violence against women in recent years. However, most of the empirical research that investigates the theoretical aspects of aggressive manhood, hegemonic masculinity, or gender performativity is centred on western societies. The historical and cultural contexts of intimate partner violence in South Asia have not been adequately explored in attempts to contextualize these gender norms and masculine characteristics. Although significant effort has been made in this field of interest, there is a dearth of literature concerning the conceptions of hegemonic masculinity, aggressive manhood, and gender performance to emerging and a typical patterns of violence against women. Thus, the primary objective of this research is to narrow the gap by demonstrating how the development of hegemonic masculinity and violent manhood is related to contemporary intimate partner violence in Bangladesh, specifically by examining the influence of violent manhood in intimate relationships. To conduct this research, a qualitative study has been used based on secondary data analysis that includes the theoretical analysis of Buttler, Connell, Sumerau, and other scholars. The findings of this research indicate that physical violence perpetrated by men against their spouses reinforces a gender system and culture that justifies husbands’ power over their wives. Therefore, masculinity is not a fixed entity embedded just in the body or personality traits of individuals. Rather, hegemonic masculinities are configurations of practice that are accomplished in social activities due to structural, cultural, and other forces which might differ according to the gender relations in a particular social setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".