Invisible Scars, Global Patterns: A Visual Report on Gender-Based Violence Against Women
- Human Rights Research Center
- Jun 13
- 10 min read
Author: Ivan Francis, MS
June 13, 2025
View the interactive visual report here on Tableau.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global crisis, with an estimated 736 million women having experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or non-partner in their lifetime across every region and socio-economic group. IPV refers to any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm, including acts of aggression, coercion, and controlling behaviors. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly one in three women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual IPV in their lifetime [1]. The prevalence, however, is not evenly distributed across countries or regions—it is shaped by historical, legal, cultural, and economic forces that either suppress or sustain violence.
IPV remains particularly entrenched in regions characterized by high gender inequality, weak institutional protection, and patriarchal norms. A wide swath of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of South and Southeast Asia, and island states in the Pacific show elevated levels of IPV among women aged 15 to 49. In these settings, women often lack access to legal recourse, are economically dependent on abusive partners, and face significant barriers to reporting violence due to stigma or institutional inaction.
The country-level analysis reveals that IPV prevalence is not solely a function of poverty or underdevelopment. Several countries stand out with particularly high IPV rates, including Afghanistan (46%), Democratic Republic of the Congo (47%), Equatorial Guinea (46%), Papua New Guinea (51%), and Saudi Arabia (43%). These figures reflect distinct contextual dynamics. In Afghanistan, systemic gender oppression, reinforced by restrictive legal codes and reduced female agency under Taliban governance, limits women’s mobility and access to justice [2]. In Saudi Arabia, although reforms in recent years have improved women’s legal status, societal structures still permit domestic violence to remain hidden and unchallenged [3].
Even in smaller nations like the Solomon Islands, the intersection of patriarchal culture and minimal legal infrastructure contributes to the normalization of IPV. Despite growing awareness and international assistance, many survivors remain invisible in policy and practice. The data thus reinforces a critical insight: IPV is not simply about individual relationships—it is embedded in broader systems of gendered power and structural inequality.
When Violence Is Accepted: Normative Beliefs That Sustain Abuse
Efforts to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) are significantly undermined in societies where such violence is not only prevalent but socially justified. One of the most telling predictors of IPV prevalence and persistence is the cultural acceptance of domestic violence—the belief that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances. These attitudes, deeply rooted in tradition, religion, and patriarchal authority, shape both the risk of violence and the institutional responses available to victims.
Recent global data from 2023 reveals alarmingly high levels of justification for domestic violence in multiple regions. Among the countries with the highest rates are the Solomon Islands (78%), Afghanistan (78%), Tajikistan (75.1%), Somalia (75%), Chad (74%), and Mali (74%). In these countries, large portions of the population agree that violence is acceptable if a wife disobeys her husband, refuses sex, goes out without permission, or fails to care for children or household duties.
These beliefs are not marginal or fringe—they are often held by both men and women and are reinforced by religious institutions, educational systems, and community norms. In many such societies, marriage is framed around male authority and female submission, making violence appear not only permissible but necessary to maintain social order. In Afghanistan and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, cultural codes often regard obedience as a wife’s moral duty, and male use of force as a form of corrective discipline [4].
The normalization of IPV at the societal level has significant implications for both prevention and intervention. First, it leads to underreporting, as victims internalize blame or fear community backlash. Second, it weakens institutional accountability, as police officers, judges, and healthcare workers may themselves share the same cultural beliefs, failing to act on reports of violence. Third, such norms impede legal reform, as lawmakers may be reluctant to criminalize behavior that large segments of the population view as acceptable [5].
A 2024 cross-country analysis found that in countries with high acceptance of wife-beating, there is a systematic delay in the adoption of gender-based violence legislation and a tendency toward minimalist legal frameworks that fail to cover psychological abuse, coercive control, or marital rape [6]. Another study analyzing legal consciousness in patriarchal societies found that even when laws exist, social approval of domestic discipline severely constrains the effectiveness of formal protections, particularly in rural and tribal areas [7].
Entrenched Harm: The Interplay Between FGM Prevalence and Cultural Endorsement.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) continues to pose a severe threat to the health and rights of women and girls in several countries, despite decades of global advocacy. The practice, involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia for non-medical purposes, is internationally condemned and legally restricted in most countries. Yet, in many parts of Africa and the Middle East, it remains deeply embedded in cultural identity and community norms.
As of 2023, countries like Somalia (99%), Guinea (96%), Djibouti (94%), and Mali (89%) report extremely high FGM prevalence. These same contexts also show the highest societal support: Mali (82.5%), Somalia (81.1%), and Guinea (73.8%). In such settings, FGM is commonly perceived as essential for religious fulfillment, female virtue, and social acceptance. This dual burden—high prevalence reinforced by high approval—reflects how entrenched norms perpetuate generational cycles of harm [6][8].
The challenge of addressing FGM lies not only in enforcement but in disrupting collective beliefs that sustain it. Legal bans alone often prove ineffective without parallel community engagement and normative change. However, some countries illustrate that belief and behavior do not always move in lockstep. In Egypt, for instance, FGM was performed on 76.6% of females, with complications reported in 35.6% of cases. Despite the health risks, nearly 56% of respondents believed the practice should continue, with support notably higher among women (60.3%) than men (47.9%)[9]. This signals the possibility of change where community-based advocacy, education, and health messaging have been introduced over time.
The persistence of FGM is not due to ignorance, but to the powerful social incentives for conformity and control. It is both a symptom and a mechanism of patriarchal power, and any effort to end it must address the cultural, not just criminal, dimensions of the practice.
From Policy to Protection: The Global Evolution of Gender-Based Legal Reform
Legal recognition of violence against women has expanded dramatically in the past three decades, yet the strength and scope of these protections remain uneven across forms of violence and across regions. As of 2023, 193 countries have adopted a total of 1,583 legislative measures addressing various forms of gender-based violence—a testament to growing international and national commitments to ending systemic harm [10].
The largest share of legislative efforts (354 laws) target domestic and intimate partner violence, followed by general provisions under the umbrella of violence against women and girls (322 laws). Significant progress has also been made in criminalizing sexual violence (272) and trafficking (242). However, there is a noticeable drop in the number of laws addressing sexual harassment (156), female genital mutilation (76), stalking (43), other harmful practices (27), and femicide (16)—despite the global prevalence of these abuses.
This legal landscape highlights a troubling gap: while high-visibility forms of violence like domestic abuse and trafficking receive greater legislative attention, others such as femicide, psychological abuse, or coercive control are under-addressed or poorly enforced. In many legal systems, laws may exist without implementation mechanisms, survivor protections, or meaningful sanctions, leaving victims vulnerable despite formal coverage.
The expansion of laws has been accompanied by the growth of institutional mechanisms designed to monitor, enforce, and coordinate gender-based violence responses. Over 95% of these mechanisms have been established since the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, marking it as a pivotal turning point in the global women’s rights agenda [11].
The timeline of institutional establishment shows sharp growth post-2000, with a peak of 203 mechanisms introduced around 2010. These include dedicated national commissions, inter-ministerial bodies, and ombudsman offices tasked with overseeing legal compliance, victim support, and multisectoral coordination. However, the decline in new institutional formations after 2015 raises concerns about sustained political will and global momentum, particularly as violence against women surges in conflict zones and post-pandemic settings.
Together, the legal and institutional data point to a clear pattern: progress is real, but incomplete. Many countries have laid the legal foundations, yet lack the funding, accountability structures, or cultural readiness to ensure those laws translate into actual safety and justice for women. Bridging this implementation gap will require not just more laws—but stronger institutions, survivor-centered services, and a continued commitment to enforcement and reform.
Conclusion
Building Safer Societies—Legislative and Policy Priorities to End Gender-Based Violence
To effectively combat gender-based violence (GBV) against women, a comprehensive and integrated approach is required. Drawing from data-driven insights and global policy recommendations—particularly those outlined in the World Bank's 2024 analysis on gender-based violence legislation and policy effectiveness [12]—the following legislative and institutional priorities are essential:
Enact Comprehensive Legal FrameworksGovernments must criminalize all forms of GBV—including domestic violence, sexual harassment, FGM, and femicide—through clearly defined and enforceable laws.
Implement Supportive Policy Frameworks Legal mandates should be supported by coordinated policies such as national action plans, survivor services, judicial training, and prevention protocols.
Establish Specialized Institutions and Procedures Dedicated bodies (e.g., GBV task forces, special courts) and procedures in law enforcement, education, and workplaces can ensure more sensitive and timely responses.
Ensure Adequate Budgetary Allocations Laws and programs must be backed by sufficient, sustained funding to guarantee service delivery, outreach, and institutional functionality.
Monitor and Evaluate Implementation Countries should invest in tracking systems, accountability frameworks, and periodic evaluations to measure impact and continuously improve GBV interventions.
These efforts must be grounded in a survivor-centered approach and adapted to the local social, cultural, and legal context. Without political will, institutional commitment, and public engagement, legislation alone cannot prevent violence. But with the right combination of legal instruments, resources, and cultural change, meaningful progress is both possible and necessary.
Downloadable Version Below.
Glossary
Beijing Platform for Action (1995): A landmark international policy framework adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women, which called for the establishment of laws and institutions to eliminate violence against women globally.
Coercive Control: A pattern of behaviors intended to isolate, intimidate, and dominate a partner, often without physical violence. It includes surveillance, restrictions, financial control, and psychological manipulation.
Cultural Justification: The societal acceptance or endorsement of violence as a norm, often based on traditions, religion, or gender roles. Cultural justification influences both perpetration and underreporting of abuse.
Entrenched: Firmly established and difficult to change; deeply ingrained in a way that is resistant to reform or removal.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): All procedures involving the partial or total removal of external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. FGM is recognized as a human rights violation and is illegal in most countries, though it remains culturally entrenched in some societies.
Femicide: The intentional killing of women or girls because of their gender. Often associated with IPV, honor killings, or systemic state and societal neglect.
Fringe: Referring to beliefs, practices, or groups that exist at the margins of mainstream society or thought, often seen as extreme or non-normative.
Gender-Based Violence (GBV): Violence directed at individuals based on their gender or gender identity. It includes physical, sexual, psychological, economic, or structural abuse, disproportionately affecting women and girls.
Gender Inequality: Unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender, often resulting in disparities in rights, responsibilities, and opportunities.
Institutional Mechanism: A government-established body, such as a task force or commission, responsible for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing policies against gender-based violence.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): A form of gender-based violence involving physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional abuse by a current or former partner or spouse. IPV can include coercive control, threats, and other harmful behaviors within an intimate relationship.
Legal Framework: The set of laws and regulations a country adopts to criminalize and prevent gender-based violence. This includes statutes on IPV, sexual violence, FGM, trafficking, and related offenses.
Legal Recourse: The process of seeking redress or justice through legal means, such as courts, police, or legal aid services.
Legal Reform: The process of changing and updating laws to improve justice, reflect social progress, and address previously unregulated or inadequately addressed issues.
Lockstep: A situation where two or more things move in exact coordination or progress simultaneously without deviation.
Normative Change: A shift in societal beliefs, values, or behaviors that redefines what is socially acceptable or unacceptable. It is essential for reducing the social approval of violence against women.
Patriarchal Norms: Cultural beliefs and social systems that privilege male authority and reinforce the subordination of women. These norms often sustain harmful practices and hinder legal or institutional responses.
Prevalence: The proportion of a population affected by a particular condition or behavior at a specific time. In this report, prevalence typically refers to the percentage of women who have experienced IPV or FGM.
Social Institutions: Structures and systems—like family, religion, education, and law—that govern behavior and can either challenge or sustain discriminatory practices against women.
Social Order: The structured pattern of relationships and expectations that maintain stability and predictability in a society.
Survivor-Centered Approach: A method of addressing gender-based violence that prioritizes the rights, needs, and agency of survivors in all stages of response, including legal, medical, psychological, and social services.
Survivor-Centered Services: Support mechanisms that prioritize the needs, safety, dignity, and autonomy of those who have experienced violence, including legal aid, shelters, and counseling.
Underreporting: A widespread issue in gender-based violence data, where survivors do not disclose abuse due to fear, stigma, or lack of trust in institutions—leading to underestimated prevalence rates.
Weak Institutional Protection: Inadequate or ineffective systems and structures—such as law enforcement, healthcare, and social services—that fail to protect individuals from harm or deliver justice.
Databases
World Bank. Gender Data Portal: Violence. The World Bank Group, https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/topics/violence.
UN Women. Global Database on Violence against Women. UN Women, https://data.unwomen.org/global-database-on-violence-against-women.
OECD. Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) Data Explorer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df%5Bid%5D=DSD_GID%40DF_GID_2023.
Sources
[1] World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256
[2] Amnesty International. (2022). Afghanistan: Human rights under Taliban rule. https://www.amnesty.org
[3] Freedom House. (2023). Saudi Arabia: Legal reforms and gender rights. https://freedomhouse.org
[4] Marta Badenes-Sastre, Chelsea M. Spencer (2024). Justifying violence: The cultural roots of intimate partner abuse. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000156
[5] Cunha, O., Pereira, B., Cruz, A. R., Gonçalves, R., & de Castro Rodrigues, A. (2022). Gender norms and the law: Cultural justifications of IPV and implications for reform. Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24732850.2022.2133663
[6] OECD. (2020). SIGI 2020 Global Report: Social Institutions and Gender Index. https://www.genderindex.org
[7] UN Women. (2023). Norms and narratives: Understanding the roots of gender-based violence. https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org
[8] WHO. (2022). Female genital mutilation: Key facts. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation
[9] Mohammed, E.S., Seedhom, A.E. & Mahfouz, E.M. Female genital mutilation: current awareness, believes and future intention in rural Egypt. Reprod Health 15, 175 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0625-1
[10] UN Women. (2023). Legal frameworks and national action plans to end violence against women and girls. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/end-violence-against-women/2014/mechanisms
[11] UN Women. (2020). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: Gender snapshot 2020. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2020
[12] Wang, S., Elefante, M., & Bonfert, A. T. (2024). Ensuring women's safety: data insights on gender-based violence legislation and policies. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/ensuring-women-s-safety--data-insights-on-gender-based-violence-World Bank Blogs
