The Challenges of Political and Institutional Gender Violence

Combating all forms of violence against women is one of the global challenges we face as a society in the 21st century. Scholars of gender violence (also called gender-based violence) have described the multiple ways in which this violence is shaped and expressed (Davis, 1981; Fraser, 1990; Krook, 2020).

This helps us understand the links between concrete experiences of violence in the lives of many groups of women, and different systems of social oppression—such as capitalism and its class structure, racism, colonialism, or heteronormativity—that affect and condition the lives of all.

However, cataloging the chorus of voices protesting the multiple forms of violence against women should go beyond simply identifying its causes and expressions. States (governments) and multilateral agencies have joined forces around the world to build effective mechanisms to combat and eradicate violence against women. For international organizations and national public authorities throughout the world, the goal is to guarantee universal access for all women to fundamental human rights and the full exercise of citizenship.

Institutional efforts and good practices have been mainly and originally the result of the social organization and political mobilization of women. The global feminist movement, including the many different struggles for the liberation of women from male and patriarchal oppressions, has historically fought any and all forms of violence against women.

The World Health Organization defined violence in general as the “intentional use of force or power, in threat or in practice, against oneself, another person or against a group or community that results or may result in suffering, death, psychological harm, impaired development or deprivation” (Dahlberg & Krug, 2007, p. 1165). WHO makes it explicit that intentionality is a requirement for an act to be labeled as violence; therefore, situations that are not intentional, such as accidents, are excluded. In other words, when someone uses the power he has, either by not acting when he should prevent the violation of a right, or by actively committing violence, both are cases of violence. The effects of violence are not restricted to physical damage or death itself; they can also include psychological harm or damage to society.

It is important to realize that experiences of violence, within our societies and communities, are not one-dimensional. People’s social and political experiences of violence are affected by their overlapping situations (intersections) of social class, race, age, ability, gender, sexuality, and gender identity. Violent oppressions and exploitations tend to persist, revealing the most perverse patterns of inequality and injustice. This means that violence happens within systems, with both public and private dimensions of oppression (Mies, 1972; Young, 1990).

In many of today’s societies we are dealing with inequities in: class and racial discrimination; patriarchal oppression; religious marginalization; sexism; transphobia; homophobia; biphobia; violence in institutions; preventable maternal mortality; violations of civil, political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights; discrimination in the labor market and in access to education; incarceration; vigilantism; and state violence through public death policies.

For historically dominant groups—male, white, middle class, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, adult—political violence has functioned as a fundamental tool for the maintenance of inequalities and the monopoly of power (Elias, 1994).

In this context, women all over the world rise up and demand concrete actions against political violence and institutional and/or state gender violence.

Gender-Based Political Violence and Political Violence Against Women

Although the specific terms are relatively recent, “gender-based political violence” (GBPV) and, particularly, “political violence against women” (VAWP, or “violence against women in politics”), have been practiced for a long time. In the 1990s, there were efforts to recognize rape as a tool of war, and since then feminist political scientists have expanded the definition of political violence (Krook, 2020). The term refers to any action or omission, carried out directly or through third parties, that attempts or causes harm or suffering to one or more women for the purpose of nullifying, preventing, discrediting, or hindering the enjoyment and exercise of their political rights, simply because they are women (UN, 2015).

Political violence against women is also found in their historical exclusion from spaces of power, both institutional and private (Sanín, 2018). Violence against women in political life is a global and systematic phenomenon that limits their rights to political participation and representation (Krook, 2018).

The absence or inadequate institutional representation of women is not a coincidence, but the result of cultural processes that tend to limit the presence of women in political institutions, even in a time when many countries have formally codified the equality of civil rights.

If we recognize the exclusion of women’s power as a pattern of society and its institutions, we can understand gender in relation to the types of patriarchal powers that dominate the organization of our societies.

Although the first type of political gender violence is exclusion from politics, it is not the only one. Preventing women from holding public office, voting via secret ballot, associating and assembling freely, campaigning freely, and exercising freedom of opinion and expression are all manifestations of violence against women in political life.

The conclusion is that this violence is a reaction to the increasing participation of women in politics, as they are becoming more qualified and more effective (Ballington, 2018). Violence against women who dare to overcome conventional barriers and act in politics—both in institutional politics and in social activism—comes in different forms. These overlap and converge in their objectives, which are to limit women’s political action and delegitimize their performance in the conventionally masculine space of politics.

Expressions of Political Violence Against Women

The forms and manifestations of political violence against women can be both physical (bodily, sexual) and non-physical (symbolic, moral, economic, emotional, and psychological). Among its many forms, it is common for political violence to occur through:

• Frequent interruptions of women’s voices in political environments
• Disparaging women’s abilities, causing them and others to doubt their ability to perform their functions
• Disproportionality between men and women in the distribution of party funds (i.e., men receive more funding than women)
• Diversion of resources for male candidates
• Threats, humiliation, or blackmail of women political candidates; through words, gestures, or other means
• Defamation, slander, or insults to women political candidates
• Once women become part of the political party, violence manifests itself when:
  • They are not nominated to lead parties, be rapporteurs (recorders and reporters) of important projects, or be full members in commissions or committees
  • They are constantly interrupted in their places of representation
  • They are excluded from debates
  • They are judged by their physical appearance and the way they dress
  • They are questioned about their choices in their private lives, relationships, sexuality, and motherhood

Cases of Political Violence Against Women

Example 1: Hostile Political Environments: This is a global form of political violence against women within the political institutions of various states. It combines the processes of environments which try to dismiss and erase political arguments and the role of women in parliament, with attacks against the person—the woman herself—rather than against her political ideas or initiatives. Those who engage in these violent practices demonstrate that they do not recognize the equal status of women as parliamentarians or political representatives, do not accept women’s autonomy of thought and action, and especially do not accept any opposition arising from them.

In other words, those who use political violence against women, within the power institutions and spaces of the state, seek to silence them, even though they are performing duties for which they were elected. Those who use this violence tend to control the access and permanence of women in the parliamentary political arena and other spaces of power. That is why these harms violate women’s political rights. Extreme (radical) forms of this behavior can reach the point of physical violence, and even femicide.

Example 2: Pre-election and Election Periods. Another global example of political violence against women is that which takes place during election periods. Although political violence occurs in many contexts, it has especially serious and particular consequences for women during electoral periods. Political tensions and fierce competition during elections can create vulnerabilities for the participation of women in politics, who in many cases are already at a disadvantage compared to men, and can lead to their exclusion from the process. Electoral political violence against women defines any type of aggression aimed at interfering with women’s direct action in political life, such as limiting parliamentary action, silencing their voices, imposing, eliminating and restricting activities in campaigns, dissuading them from participating in the electoral process, and/or preventing elected women from taking office. It is also a violation of national criminal or civil codes that harms female voters, candidates, election officials, activists, and security and political professionals around the world, occurring both online and offline (IFES, 2017).

The reasons for violence against women who participate in electoral processes are the threat they pose to the supremacy of a male power structure, as well as a form of punishment for not fitting into the traditional gender, class, race, religion, and morality roles assigned to them (Sanín, 2018). Therefore, some forms of this electoral political violence can be seen as an adverse reaction to the simple presence of women in public life. Some of these specific manifestations of gender-based political violence include preventing women from voting autonomously, dissuading women candidates, or forcing elected women to resign.

Whether in the context of the family, the community, or the state, in public or private spheres, acts of violence against women become acts of political violence when they have a negative impact on women’s exercise of their political rights and, in particular, in an electoral process.

As women become more visible in politics and increasingly occupy this space, there has been a worldwide increase in political violence against women (UN-W/UNDP, 2017). Media and communication technologies play a relevant role, as they seed the ground with negativity, prejudice, and aggression against women in public and elected positions. Networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, Instagram, X, and Snapchat present opportunities to become spaces for a great spread of political violence against women (UN Women, 2021). Disinformation campaigns of a sexual nature or discrediting the professional achievements of female politicians are common, spreading false stories about their personal lives. Online VAWE is an expression of online misogyny and a concrete form of abuse, which creates significant obstacles to women’s equal participation in public and political life. It also affects women’s right to freely express their opinions.

Political violence against women in elections is used to achieve a number of political objectives that can vary according to the type of aggressor: state agents, political parties, or other groups with an interest in the outcome of an electoral political process. Perpetrators can be of either sex, although the majority are men (UNDP, 2012).

VAWE manifests itself through harassment, embarrassment, and threats, with the aim of preventing or hindering women’s electoral campaigns, or the performance of their elective mandate (duties). Some of its impacts are: limiting the visibility and funding of women in political party campaigns; reducing the number of elected women; forcing the resignations of elected women; fewer women opting for a political career and more women leaving early; the difficulty of recruiting women for polling stations; fewer women than men turning up to vote; and a decrease in women’s political activism (UNDP, 2012).

Globally, one of the most serious effects of VAWE is the under-representation of women in the political sphere. This is a significant problem that jeopardizes the strengthening of democracies globally. This scenario decreases the diversity of political representation, neglecting the realities and identities of women around the world. The global persistence of sexist and patriarchal cultures continues to reinforce gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices, which makes it difficult, or even impossible, for women to achieve formal political participation.

Institutional Violence and State Institutional Violence Against Women

Institutional violence against women (IVAW) and, particularly, Institutional Violence of the State (IVSAW) are forms of political violence, which are exercised specifically in institutional and associated spaces. IVSAW refers to any abusive action or omission by any public servant that discriminates or aims to dilute, obstruct, or impede the enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms of women; as well as any action or omission by state bodies that results in physical, psychological, or social harm to women. Institutional violence by the state against women can be direct, such as the excessive use of force or intimidation by security forces, or indirect, such as the implementation of policies that perpetuate inequality and the social exclusion of women.

The term IVAW describes exclusion of women from diverse institutional spaces, or their precarious inclusion; that is, their participation with less autonomy and decision-making power, less control over resources, and more generalized patterns of systemic gender inequality. These dynamics are present from social organizations such as NGOs and popular movements to institutional policies of states.

IVAW can also be seen as a specific manifestation of structural violence against women. For Galtung (1969), structural violence refers to forms of violence that are not direct or physical, but are embedded in social, political, and economic structures, producing inequality, exploitation, and marginalization without a visible aggressor.

This form of violence is systematic and manifests itself through institutions and social norms that perpetuate inequality and injustice. In the case of IVAW, structural violence against women is manifested through social and cultural norms, such as patriarchal values—which assign women secondary roles in the family and society—and social structures, which perpetuate gender inequality and access to full citizenship, such as: labor and economic inequality, unequal access to formal education, gender violence, and limited access to justice and to health and reproductive services.

One of the most serious consequences of IVAW is the continuation of the mechanisms that naturalize gender inequality, legitimizing them, which hinders social mobilization against gender injustice.

When the state, through its representatives and institutions, does not act in accordance with its obligations, or acts against them and does not strongly condemn the discrimination and impunity of the aggressions suffered by women, it perpetuates institutional violence against them, in this case IVSAW.

According to Foucault (1975), state institutions exercise power and control over individuals through systems of surveillance and discipline, from which forms of state violence emerge. This form of violence is emblematic precisely because it is committed by those who have the duty to act, within the framework of a democratic state under the rule of law, strictly in accordance with what the law says and to guarantee human rights to all people, regardless of gender, class, ethnicity, race, or other socio-cultural condition. As Rebeca Cook states:

When a state applies, executes or perpetuates a gender stereotype in its laws, public policies or practices, it institutionalizes it, giving it the force and authority of law and custom . . . it provides a legal framework to facilitate the perpetuation of discrimination over time and across different sectors of life and social experience.

(Cook, 2010)

Authors such as Davis (1983) and Crenshaw (1991) have defined gender violence as a form of state violence against women. For Davis, gender violence cannot be dissociated from state violence. Her analysis of the prison system in the USA shows how it perpetuates violence against women, especially Black women, through mass incarceration and constant surveillance. Davis also criticizes how the state often fails to protect women from domestic and sexual violence, reinforcing the idea that these forms of violence are “normal.” Crenshaw examines how institutional state violence affects women differently depending on their intersectional identities, such as race, class, and sexual orientation. For this author, Black and poor women face specific forms of institutional violence that are not only gendered, but also racialized and economically motivated. Segato (2016) goes further and develops the “Theory of the War Against Women,” in which she expresses the idea that gender violence is a form of systematic war against women, part of an institutionalized social and political order that seeks to maintain patriarchal power and control.

Reproductive violence is also considered a globalized form of IVSAW. In many countries, public reproductive health policies limit women’s autonomy over their bodies. This includes practices such as forced sterilization, criminalization of abortion, and unequal access to reproductive health services. Roberts (1997) denounced in her research how in the USA the state exerted control over the reproduction of Black women, through the implementation of population control policies (“eugenics”). She also showed the criminalization of motherhood in contexts of poverty, racism, and exclusion, as in the case of pregnant women who use drugs, as another of the IVSAW practiced in the USA.

Sexual violence in armed conflicts is also a form of IVSAW. In contexts of war and conflict, the state can be an accomplice or even the perpetrator of sexual violence against women. For Enloe (1989), militarization and armed conflicts affect not only international relations, but actually increase gender violence and, in these contexts, it is the state that uses women’s bodies as a battlefield. Pavlovic (1999) shows how this happened during the Bosnia and Herzegovina War (1992-1995), where systematic sexual violence against women and girls was used as a weapon of war. Similarly, periodic reports by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or UN Women publish global data on the historical and current use of sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls in the Gaza region.

Forms of Institutional Violence Against Women

State violence against women is practiced by public bodies and individual agents who should be responsible for the care, protection, and defense of women. It occurs essentially when the act of violence is committed by a person in the performance of his or her duties in a public institution, or when he or she tolerates/does not prevent a discriminatory act due to negligence, ignorance, or failure to attend to cases of gender violence with due diligence. Institutional State violence against women can be exercised by the police, Public Prosecutors’ or District Attorneys’ Offices, judges and magistrates of courts, school authorities, or any other agent of authority, by acting, or failing to act, in ways that violate a person’s rights and/or threaten their dignity and personal and family integrity. A state’s failure to comply with the obligation to protect women can generate international liability.

In police investigations. This occurs when a public agent subjects a woman who is the victim of a penal infraction or violent crime to unnecessary, repetitive, or invasive procedures that make her relive situations of violence, or generate further suffering (UN/CEDAW, 2004).

In police actions. Women who may have been investigated, arrested, and/or incarcerated may suffer psychological abuse, sexual harassment or intimidation, threats, sexist treatment, and/or sexual violence, often with no repercussions for the police offenders.

In prisons and other penitentiary environments. Women can be harassed and subjected to indignities such as illegal search or sexual assault when they are in prison or when they are visiting relatives or friends in prison.

In public educational institutions. This can be perpetrated by public agents, professors, members of management, other employees, and members of the student body. The public agent takes advantage of the power relationship between them as a teacher or manager, and a student, invading their sexual dignity.

In hospitals and obstetrics. Violence against women occurs when women are mistreated, attacked, or violated during pregnancy, childbirth, or postpartum stages in public hospitals or clinics. Mistreatment can take the form of physical or psychological violence, causing various traumas to women. Violence can be expressed not just in the work of health professionals, but also in the structural failures of public or private clinics and hospitals that should provide dignity and protection to employees and patients. In many cases, violent behaviors are normalized and therefore are not reported, despite protections being guaranteed by law in many countries. Violence in obstetrics is characterized by abuse suffered by women during labor, delivery or postpartum, such as: verbal humiliation; disregard for their needs and/or pain; invasive practices such as unwarranted Cesarean sections; unnecessary use of medications or withholding of needed ones; dehumanization; negligence that robs mother and baby of the care necessary to guarantee the health of both; harsh treatment; or any procedure that causes pain, harm, or physical or psychological suffering.

In everyday life. It is important to consider the double, triple, or multiple vulnerabilities that some women may suffer. Women belonging to some groups, in addition to suffering discrimination for being women, can also be the object of multiple forms of discrimination for other reasons, such as race, ethnic origin, religion, condition of disability, age, class, caste, sexual orientation, perceived sexual identity, or other factors. This discrimination can affect these groups of women to a different extent or in a different way than men. Therefore, the state’s duties require ensuring suitable conditions and capacities to prevent institutional violence against these groups of women, by giving these risk factors appropriate consideration.

In cultural contexts. These are cultural practices that violate universal rights of women and girls (UN; UNFPA; UNICEF), such as:

Child or early marriage. A practice that affects the lives of mainly girls and adolescents in African and Asian countries. It refers to a social practice, whether formal or informal, of a union between a child or adolescent with another person, regardless of their age. In Mozambique in 2020, 41% of girls and 11% of boys under the age of 18 were married or lived with someone as if they were married (Mgecas & Misau, 2020). For girls, marriage is often associated with early pregnancy, which causes higher rates of maternal mortality, and a life marked by domestic and sexual submission that makes them more vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS (UNICEF, 2001).

Infanticide. Another practice that affects the protection of life in Asian countries due to public reproductive policies and national cultures. The preference for a male child is a phenomenon present throughout the world, and generates 1.5% abortions of female fetuses per year. In 2016, China and India led the world list of deaths of female babies (ACHR, 2016). This practice is also linked to the increase in so-called “reproductive tourism,” which is carried out for the purpose of sex selection through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other technologies. In Thailand, where sex selection is not illegal; Chinese, Indian, and European citizens represent more than 70 to 80% of tourists who go to the country solely for practices to control the sex of a child. Female infanticide and the increasing number of males have disastrous consequences for humanity, and are causes of trafficking in women in Asia. Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights, describes female infanticide as “the worst form of gender discrimination,” and urges the United Nations Human Rights Council to plan actions to eliminate the phenomenon (Agenzia Fides, 2016).

Female genital mutilation (FGM). Also called clitoral mutilation, genital cutting, or (euphemistically) “female circumcision,” this refers to all procedures involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or any damage inflicted on the genitals for non-medical reasons (WHO, 2025). In 2023, more than 125 million women were mutilated in 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, according to the World Health Organization, which condemns the practice as a violation of women’s human rights. For the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), this practice is the main manifestation of gender inequality and discrimination related to the historical suppression and subjugation of women, denying girls and women the full enjoyment of their rights and freedoms (Vega, 2010).

Forced sterilization of women. The implementation of policies, often “eugenic,” that promote practices of forced sterilization of women, as a form of population and social control. They were applied in various countries during the 20th and 21st centuries—in the USA, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Peru, Brazil, and China—mainly to poor women from racial minorities. They are forms of institutional state violence, where public policies and medical practices combine to impose systematic violence and control over life, particularly that of women. During the Fujimori dictatorship in Peru (1990-2000), it is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 Indigenous and peasant women from rural and impoverished areas of the country were sterilized. This is a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls, which has long-lasting effects on the lives of those affected.

Misogynist policies. Institutional violence is also manifested through anti-gender and anti-feminist attitudes and messages, central to the agenda of authoritarian and conservative states (Gago, 2024). These policies and programs fight against issues such as gender and sexuality education, same-sex marriage, the expression of feminism as a social movement, and the rights of trans people, among other issues (hooks, 1984). This is a global phenomenon that has been rapidly expanding in the Western world in the first decades of the 21st century. This has happened in societies such as the United States (Trump administration, 2017-2022), Hungary (Viktor Orbán administration, 2010-present), Poland (Mateus Morawiecki administration, 2010-2023), Brazil (Bolsonaro administration, 2019-2022), Italy (Meloni administration, 2022-present) and Argentina (Milei administration, 2023-present). All of these societies have witnessed the rise of anti-gender and anti-feminist state policies, with regressive legislation that perpetuates social inequalities and injustices and institutional violence against women.

Public state institutions such as schools, hospitals, police stations, parliaments, and courts are expressions of everyday life that model normatively accepted patterns of social interactions. Institutional or state violence against women is not necessarily limited to the walls of institutional space.

Daily violence against women, which historically pervades social life, causes institutional gender violence to become “normal” and socially trivialized. It is a common practice to put the burden on women, individually, to deal with it. To name and de-normalize these oppressive relationships in societies in their multiple forms of organization, women are forced to challenge violence, make oppression visible, and expose what should not be accepted in democratic states of law.

Effective Practices from Institutions and Social Entities

When the state fails to hold perpetrators accountable, this impunity not only increases the subordination and powerlessness of women who are targets of violence, but also sends a message to society that male violence against women is acceptable and inevitable. In order to ensure that political and institutional violence against women does not go unpunished, states, international organizations, and social organizations have mobilized extensively in the first decades of the 21st century. Effective practices include monitoring strategies, legal advances, and digital initiatives on an international scale.

The United Nations General Assembly first called for zero tolerance for violence against women candidates and elected officials in Resolution 66/130 in 2011. In 2012, Bolivia became the first country in the world to criminalize political violence and harassment against women. This development, which had repercussions across the region, led States Parties to the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women to adopt a Declaration on Political Violence and Harassment against Women in 2015.

In 2016–2017, the National Democratic Institute launched the #NotTheCost campaign, accompanied by a toolkit to monitor violence against women in elections, help political parties address this issue, and document violent incidents against politically active women (National Democratic Institute, 2016). The Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016) conducted the first global study on sexism, violence, and harassment against women parliamentarians; the Organization of American States (2017) published a model law to combat violence against women in political life; and UN Women, together with the United Nations Development Programme (2017), launched a programming guide on preventing violence against women in elections.

Despite these pioneering efforts, political violence against women online has become a problem of pandemic proportions. Recognizing this phenomenon, facilitated by ICTs (information and communications technologies), entities such as IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) have developed specific tools to stop VAWE online by capturing direct threats and abusive and violent rhetoric surrounding women’s political participation. ICTs facilitate content analysis of large volumes of social media data as well as the intensity, volume, and speed of violent cyberdiscourse, to stop hate speech and strengthen women’s digital safety in elections. Implemented in multiple contexts around the world, including Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and the United States, the IFES tool stands out as a best practice with international reach, adaptable to contexts around the world. Effective practices in combating political violence against women require an integrated effort to ensure that local and global public policies and institutions are fairer and more inclusive from a gender perspective and respect the human rights of women and girls. Implementing these practices requires political and social commitment, as well as the active participation of civil society and social movements.

Some of the paths we suggest as intervention actions are:

• Action: Provide ongoing training in education and awareness-raising on Human Rights and Gender Equality for employees of state institutions, especially those working in the areas of health, education, and justice. Objective: To build an institutional culture that respects diversity and combats discrimination.
• Action: Promote public awareness campaigns on institutional state violence against women. Objective: To educate society about IVSAW, its impacts, and ways to combat it.
• Action: Promote legislative reforms that recognize and criminalize IVSAW. Objective: To expand the regulatory framework for this form of violence that provides for effective reporting and response mechanisms.
• Action: Review and reform policies and legislation that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion of women. Objective: To eliminate practices of forced sterilization and criminalization of motherhood, to guarantee equal access to health and education, and to protect women’s reproductive and sexual rights.
• Action: Implement reparation policies for women victims of IVSAW. Objective: Restore the dignity of victims and prevent future violations.
• Action: Ensure that women victims of HIV/AIDS have easy access to justice. Objective: Include free and specialized legal assistance, sensitive to the needs of victims of gender violence and other forms of discrimination.
• Action: Ensure that all women and girls have access to quality sexual and reproductive health services. Objective: Include comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, and safe and legal abortion care.
• Action: Change the institutional culture that perpetuates violence and discrimination, promoting values of respect, equality, and dignity for all. Objective: Include training and professional development initiatives.

References

Agenzia Fides. (2016, July 11). ASIA – Female infanticide: China and India still at the top of the list. ASIA – Female Infanticide: China and India still at the top of the list – Agenzia Fides

Ballington, J. (2018). Turning the tide on violence against women in politics: How are we measuring up? Politics & Gender. 14(4):695-701. doi:10.1017/S1743923X18000636

Crenshaw, K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1241-1299.

Dahlberg, L., & Krug, E. (2007). Violência: Um problema global de saúde pública. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 11(Sup): 1163-1178. https://www.scielosp.org/pdf/csc/2006.v11suppl0/1163-1178/pt

Davis, A. (1983 [1981]). Women, Race and Class. New York: Vintage Books.

Elias, N. (1994). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.

Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of California Press.

Exec. Order No. 14151, 3 C.F.R. 1 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-29/pdf/2025-01953.pdf

Exec. Order No. 14168, 3 C.F.R. 1 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-30/pdf/2025-02090.pdf

Exec. Order No. 14173, 3 C.F.R. 1 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-31/pdf/2025-02097.pdf

Exec. Order No. 14190, 3 C.F.R. 1 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-02-03/pdf/2025-02232.pdf

Foucault, M. (1975). Vigilar and Punish: Nacimiento de la Prison. Siglo XXI Editores.

Fraser, N. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Duke University Press, v.null, n. 25/26, p.56, 1990, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/466240

Gago, Maria Veronica; Fire Alarm!; University of Chicago Press; Signs; 2-2024; 1-1.

Galtung, J. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Published in 1969 in the Journal of Peace Research.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press.

Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Show up for LGBTQ+ rights. Get Involved. HRC | Get Involved

International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2017). Violence against women in elections: A framework for assessment, monitoring, and response. IFES. http://www.ifes.org/publications/violence-against-women-elections

Inter-Parliamentary Union I-PU. (2016, October). Sexism, harassment, and violence against women parliamentarians. Issue Brief. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2016-10/sexism-harassment-and-violence-against-women-parliamentarians

Krook, M. L. (2018). Violence against women in politics: A rising global trend. Politics & Gender. 2018;14(4):673-675. doi:10.1017/S1743923X18000582

Krook, M. L. (2020). Violence against women in politics. In: Sawer, M., Jenkins, F., Downing, K. (eds.) How Gender Can Transform the Social Sciences. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43236-2_6

Organization of American States. (2017). Inter-American model law on the prevention, punishment and eradication of violence against women in political life. OAS. http://www.oas.org/en/mesecvi/docs/LeyModeloViolenciaPolitica-EN.pdf

Pavlovic, M. (1999). The Rape of Bosnia. University of Michigan Press.

Roberts, D. (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Vintage Books.

Sanín, J. R (2018). The law and violence against women in politics. Cambridge University Press, v.14 ,n.4, p.676. doi_10.1017/s1743923x18000594

Segato, R. (2016). The War against Women. Prometeo.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015, June 30). Global Sustainable Development Report, 2015 edition. Global Sustainable Development Report, 2015 edition | Latest Major Publications – United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

United Nations Development Program (2012). Background paper on Political Violence against Women, prepared by Jeff Fischer (unpublished).

UN Women. (2021, July). Guidance note: Preventing violence against women in politics. New York. Guidance-note-Preventing-violence-against-women-in-politics-en.pdf

UN Women. (2020). Political violence against women: A roadmap to prevent, monitor, punish and eradicate it. Available at: https://www.onumulheres.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Roteiro_HojadeRuta.pdf . Accessed on: August 8, 2024.

UN Women/United Nations Development Programme. (2017.) Preventing violence against women in elections: A programming guide. (UNDP) http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/11/preventing-violence-against-women-in-elections

Vega, Y.G. (2010). The Peruvian forced sterilization program: A history of violence. Latin American Perspectives, 2010.

WHO. (2025, January 31). Female genital mutilation. Newsroom: Fact Sheets. Female genital mutilation

Young, I. (1990). Justice and Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Further Learning

Davis, A. (1983). Women, Race, & Class. Vintage Books. The author explores how political violence and racism have affected black women and other women of color in the United States, analyzing the impact of the political and social system on their lives.

Federici, S. The salary patriarchy: Women and capitalist accumulation. Traficantes de Sueños, 2017. The author examines how capitalism and patriarchy interrelate and affect women, addressing questions of institutional and economic violence from a global perspective.

IFES—International Foundation for Electoral Systems. http://www.ifes.org

Inter-Parliamentary Union. Women in Politics: 2021. Available at: https://www.ipu.org/women-in-politics-2021. Accessed on: August 8, 2024.

Segato, R. The War against Women. Prometeo, 2016. Segato analyzes gender violence in contexts of war and conflict, offering a perspective from Latin America on how political and state violence affects women.

Sjoberg, L., & Gentry, C. E. (2007). Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics. Zed Books. This book explores how women are represented and treated in contexts of political violence and conflict, and how these representations affect policies and practices.

UN Women. 2020. Expert Group Meeting. Data & Violence Against Women in Politics. December 2019 | New York, NY. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/EGM-report-Data-and-violence-against-women-in-politics-en.pdf . Accessed on: August 8, 2024.