Fighting Violence Against Women: - Ricerca sull'intelligenza artificiale specializzata al MIT

Fighting Violence Against Women:
Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

In the 1990s and 2000s, pressure from feminist movements and allies succeeded in
pushing scores of states to reform their laws to prevent and punish violence against
women (VAW). Even in states with progressive legislation, Tuttavia, activists face
challenges to induce citizens to comply with the law, compel state authorities to en-
force the law, and ensure the adequate allocation of resources for social support ser-
vices. In this essay, we take stock of legislative developments related to VAW around
the world, with a focus on the variation in approaches toward intimate partner vio-
lence and sexual harassment. We analyze efforts to align behavior with progressive
legislation, and end with a discussion of the balance activists must strike between
fighting VAW aggressively with the carceral and social support dimensions of state
power, while exercising some restraint to avoid the potentially counterproductive ef-
fects of state action.

U ntil quite recently, states took little action to combat violence against

women (VAW), a comprehensive concept encompassing diverse phe-
nomena including rape, intimate partner violence, trafficking, honor
killings, and female genital mutilation. Infatti, most states endorsed many types
of violence, for example through laws stating that sex was a marital obligation,
that rapists could escape charges by marrying victims, that parents could marry
off their girl children, or that men who murdered adulterous wives were merely
“defending honor.” The diverse phenomena we today call VAW was hardly recog-
nized as a crime, let alone as a fundamental question of human rights.

Feminists began to use the VAW concept in the 1960s and 1970s as they probed
how women’s unequal social position enables sexual and gender violence. In 1993,
the global community framed VAW as a question of human rights and as a manifes-
tation of gender subordination in the Vienna Declaration of the World Conference
on Human Rights. Today, this connection between VAW, human rights, and wom-
en’s status is well established in international law and global discourses of demo-
cratic legitimacy. By signing on to international conventions and agreements such as
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
the Vienna Declaration, the Inter-American Convention on Violence against Wom-

144

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

en, the Maputo Protocol, the Beijing Platform for Action, and the Istanbul Conven-
zione, most states have committed to adhere to these norms, at least rhetorically.

In the 1990s and 2000s, pressure from feminist movements and allies succeed-
ed in pushing scores of states to reform their laws to ban violent practices against
women and girls. Many states adopted specialized legislation, first to prevent and
punish domestic violence, and then later to combat a broader range of violent and
harassing practices. Often, Tuttavia, laws look good on paper but violence and ha-
rassment remain common. The major challenge is to align behavior with the let-
ter and spirit of progressive legislation.

In this essay, we take stock of legislative developments around the world and
the variation in approaches toward intimate partner violence and sexual harass-
ment. Dozens of states still resist the demands of feminist activists and refuse to
conform to international standards on violence against women. Tuttavia, even in
states with progressive legislation, activists face challenges to induce citizens to
comply with the law, compel state authorities to enforce the law, and ensure the
adequate allocation of resources for social support services. We conclude with a
discussion of how activists must strike a balance between fighting VAW aggres-
sively with the carceral and social support dimensions of state power, while exer-
cising restraint to avoid overreaching in ways that produce counterproductive ef-
fects, such as the revictimization of women and the violation of other rights.

S exual and gender violence and harassment are widespread. Worldwide, IL

World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 35 percent of women have ex-
perienced sexual or domestic violence. In Mexico, the ENDIREH survey (Na-
tional Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships) of more than 140,000
households in 2016 found that some 16 percent of women in a relationship had expe-
rienced serious physical violence at the hands of their current partner. Over 80 per-
cent of women parliamentarians surveyed in thirty-nine countries say they suffered
harassment. In universities in the United States, between 11 percent and 25 per cento
of women students report experiences of sexual assault. Across the MENA region,
40 percent to 60 percent of women say they have been harassed on the street, while
30 percent to 65 percent of men report having perpetrated such acts.1

The theoretical development of the VAW concept has enabled scholars, activ-
ist, and policy-makers around the world to develop policies and analyze behavior
related to violence in multiple ways.

Primo, activists’ elaboration of the mechanisms needed to fight VAW, rang-
ing from specialized legislation to support services and administrative coordina-
zione, has enabled scholars to operationalize and measure multiple policy changes.
We now have access to a large amount of data about efforts to combat VAW. IL
World Bank’s Women, Business, and the Law (WBL) insieme di dati, which we use in this es-
Dire, contains four waves of data from across the world on laws in multiple areas

145

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

of legislation related to gender and sexual violence.2 The OECD’s Social Institu-
tions and Gender Index’s physical integrity ranking orders countries according to
the comprehensiveness of their approach toward intimate partner violence, rape,
and sexual harassment.3 The Womanstats database has scales on the scope and
depth of national legislation on domestic violence, rape (including marital rape
and date rape), and honor killings, as well as indicators of social practice in all of
these areas, up until 2017 E 2018.4 The Htun-Weldon data set contains four de-
cades of comprehensive data on state approaches to VAW, encompassing domes-
tic violence, rape, and sexual harassment legislation, services to victims and vul-
nerable groups of women, and policies such as training, public awareness cam-
paigns, and administrative coordination.5

Such data sets make it easier to evaluate governments’ approaches to VAW and to
assess whether or not a state is attempting seriously to combat the problem. The fact
that the data sets disaggregate types of VAW also allows insights into how changes
may be taking place in some arenas but not in others. A challenge with these data,
Tuttavia, is that such large, cross-national databases usually do not include informa-
tion on within-country differences in approaches and implementation, which may
be significant in places with pronounced socioeconomic inequalities–driven, for
esempio, by urban-rural divides–or the application of customary or religious laws.
Secondo, activists’ expansion of the VAW concept to include multiple forms of
violence has identified the range of behaviors–including not just rape and phys-
ical battery, but also stalking, psychological violence, female genital mutilation,
harassment, forced pregnancy testing, and more–that need to be measured to as-
sess the prevalence of VAW. Tuttavia, it is difficult to gather statistics on these ex-
periences. Episodes of violence and harassment are notoriously underreported,
which makes official crime and police data a poor reflection of actual behavior.
Infatti, official data may be misleading, as more women tend to report violence as
norms change and they feel more empowered.

Our best estimates of the incidence of VAW thus come from household surveys
that probe respondents’ experiences. The most sophisticated of these surveys ask
about experiences across types of violence and in multiple spheres, such as at home
and at work, on the street, with family members and with strangers, in the past year
and over the course of a lifetime. Surveys with large sample sizes permit us to get
a comprehensive overview of the experiences of differently situated women. Yet
there are challenges with such data, pure: they are often not comparable across stud-
ies and countries due to differences in definitions of violence, questions asked, E
survey methodology. Even within the same study, scholars have found “interview-
er effects,” with different response patterns according to the gender of the inter-
viewer and whether or not another person is present during the interview.

Finalmente, activists and scholars have long argued that VAW is attributable not
only to individual-level factors such as aggression, alcohol and drug use, or fam-

146

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

ily history, but also to cultural attitudes and social norms that legitimize violent
behavior, and above all to the gender structure of society, which tends to subordi-
nate women and render them vulnerable to men’s economic and social power. Us-
ing opinion surveys and other tools, Perciò, we can measure and evaluate social
contexts that enable violence and impunity.

Evidence from around the world, Per esempio, demonstrates a strong associa-
tion between norms and attitudes condoning male authority and endorsing wife
beating and the perpetration of violence. Analysis of Demographic and Health
Sondaggi (DHS) conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development re-
veals that in thirty Sub-Saharan African countries, a majority of women respon-
dents say that it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife for various reasons, includ-
ing if she argues with him, refuses to have sex, or burns food. Geographic variation
in attitudes closely corresponds to experiences of violence. In Nepal, perceptions
that prevailing social norms endorse male dominance, value family honor, and ac-
cept violence are related to women’s experiences of physical and sexual intimate
partner violence. In Mexico, women who say that violence belongs in the family–
more than one-quarter of a large national sample–are more likely to be victims of
violence, and also less likely to report such incidents.6

I n this essay, our empirical focus is primarily on domestic violence and sexual

harassment. These issues do not exhaust the range of the VAW phenomenon,
which is far broader, but are arguably the issues that activists have struggled
hardest to change beliefs about. It is rare today to find people who defend forms of
violence against women such as gang rape, honor killings, and female genital mu-
tilation, though defenders do exist in some places. By contrast, as we mentioned
earlier, large numbers of people hold on to attitudes that explicitly or implicitly
condone intimate partner violence and sexual harassment.

Even as dysfunctional beliefs persist, feminist activists, often allied with wom-
en politicians and human rights movements, have compelled states to take action
to combat violence. Progressive VAW laws, especially when adopted by authori-
tarian and otherwise conservative regimes, are subject to criticism as parchment
institutions intended to look good abroad and placate critics at home. Ancora, even
when not fully enforced or implemented, VAW laws uphold aspirational rights
that signal consensus and state commitment. By codifying a plan for aggressive
state action, the laws lend support and legitimacy to feminist efforts to change so-
cial norms and empower women.7

T he World Bank’s Women, Business, and the Law data show that most coun-

tries have taken some action on domestic violence.8 The most compre-
hensive laws specify that domestic violence is a crime, create mechanisms
to investigate and punish perpetrators, and offer resources and protection to vic-

147

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

tims, such as restraining orders, shelters, hotlines, and legal assistance. Many laws
also provide training for police, judges, social workers, and health care profession-
COME, as well as social marketing campaigns to change norms and encourage women
to report violence and seek help.

According to the WBL data from 2018, a large majority of countries (144 out of
IL 189 included) have adopted specialized laws on domestic violence.9 As we can
see in Figure 1, this includes most countries in Europe and in the Americas, anche
as a large number of countries in the southern parts of Africa and Asia. A smaller
group of countries–Belgium, Canada, Chad, Djibouti, Estonia, Libya, Madagas-
car, Morocco, and Tunisia–lacks specialized legislation about domestic violence,
but includes aggravated penalties in the criminal law for violence against spouses
and other family members. A third group of thirty-six countries–mostly in Africa,
Asia, and the Middle East–has no legal mechanisms that seriously address do-
mestic violence.10

Domestic violence laws vary in their degree of comprehensiveness, depend-
ing on the timing of their adoption and national discourses on violence. For ex-
ample, Figura 2 shows that almost all countries with domestic violence legisla-
tion recognize both physical violence and psychological violence.11 In addition,
many countries acknowledge sexual violence (119 countries, including 82.6 per-
cent of the countries with specialized domestic violence legislation) and econom-
ic violence (95 countries, 66 percent of the countries with specialized legislation).
An important part of sexual domestic violence is marital rape. Feminists
worldwide have struggled for decades to get the concept of marital rape recog-
nized. Opposition to the marital rape concept derives from two patriarchal prin-
ciples: that sex is an obligation of marriage and that women must do what their
husbands say. Even in contexts in which there is broad agreement that domes-
tic violence is wrong, some social actors reject the idea that nonconsensual sex
in marriage is rape. In discussions over a violence against women law in Myan-
mar in the 2010s, Per esempio, multiple groups reportedly opposed criminalizing
marital rape, including women officials from the National Committee for Wom-
en’s Affairs.12

Marital rape is a widespread problem: in the United Kingdom, for instance, IL
National Health Service estimates that about 45 percent of all rape is committed
by current partners. In a survey of 9,200 Indian men conducted by United Nations
Population Fund, about one-third of the respondents said they had forced a sexual
act on their wives. Without laws that explicitly criminalize marital rape, the prac-
tice is subject to legal interpretation and contestation, and it is easier for people to
continue thinking it is not a serious crime. In Norway, Per esempio, the criminal
code does not explicitly mention marital rape, E, historically, rape within a mar-
riage was not considered a crime. Infatti, it was not until 1974 that a man was con-
demned for raping his wife.13

148

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

Figura 1
Countries with Legislation on Domestic Violence

Legislation
Penalties
Neither

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

Fonte: Figure created by the authors using data from World Bank Group, Women, Business and
the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018).

Figura 2
Percentage of National Domestic Violence Laws Recognizing Different
Types of Violence

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

Physical

Psicologico

Sexual

Economic

98.6%

97.9%

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

82.6%

66%

100

Fonte: Figure created by the authors using data from World Bank Group, Women, Business and
the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018).

149

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

Figura 3 shows that some seventy-eight of the 189 countries (41 per cento) in the
WBL dataset have legislation that explicitly criminalizes marital rape, including
Australia, Canada, France, and Sweden, as well as most of the countries in Latin
and Central America and some countries in the southern part of Africa. In another
seventy-seven countries (41 per cento)–including the United States, most European
countries, as well as a large share of the countries in Africa and Asia–a woman
can file criminal charges against her husband in the case of marital rape.

In the remaining thirty-four countries (18 per cento)–mostly in Africa, the Mid-
dle East, and Asia–married women have no legal protection against marital rape
and social actors continue to contest the concept. In India, Per esempio, IL 1860
Penal Code states explicitly that sexual coercion in marriage does not amount to
rape. In 2013, parliament reformed the law to criminalize marital rape, but only if
the wife is under fifteen years old. Then, the Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that it
is unconstitutional to permit the marital rape of minors between the ages of fif-
teen and eighteen, thereby enabling wives younger than eighteen to allege mari-
tal rape. In 2018, a justice in the Gujarat High Court ruled that a man who had re-
peatedly raped his wife was guilty of sexual harassment and spousal cruelty, Ma
not rape due to the spousal exception. In a move heralded by activists, the justice
called for the nationwide criminalization of marital rape regardless of age.

A different, though related, topic is whether countries exempt rapists from
criminal penalties if they marry their victims. Though most societies have re-
formed laws to remove these marriage provisions, a stubborn group has not, In-
cluding Angola, Bahrain, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Lib-
ya, the Philippines, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and the West Bank and Gaza.

A nother major issue on the agenda for women’s rights activists is sexual ha-

rassment, which encompasses sexual coercion, unwanted sexual advanc-
es, and gender harassment. In the past few decades, feminist demands
have compelled states to take action against sexual harassment in the workplace,
schools, public institutions, and common spaces.

Some countries, such as the United States, expanded legal understandings of sex
discrimination to encompass sexual harassment. Many European countries broad-
ened labor protections to cover sexual coercion, gender harassment, and bullying
in the workplace. In yet other contexts, laws intended to combat gender and sexual
violence incorporated harassing behavior. Per esempio, Mexico’s 2007 federal law,
which guarantees women a “life free from violence,” purports to combat various
forms of violence including psychological, physical, economic, patrimonial, sexu-
al, and other violence intended to “harm women’s dignity, integrity, or liberty.”14

Figura 4 identifies the 154 countries in the world that have adopted legislation
against some form of sexual harassment as of 2018.15 Only a minority of countries
lacks any legislation, including large countries such as Russia, Japan, and Indone-

150

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

Figura 3
Countries that Criminalize Marital Rape

Criminalization
Can Complain
Neither

Fonte: Figure created by the authors using data from World Bank Group, Women, Business and
the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018).

Figura 4
Countries that Have Legislation on Sexual Harassment

Legislation
No Legislation

Fonte: Figure created by the authors using data from World Bank Group, Women, Business and
the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018).

sia, as well as several countries in Africa and the Middle East, including Angola,
Liberia, and Saudi Arabia.

Tuttavia, laws vary considerably in the domains they apply to (Guarda la figura 5).
In 130 countries (84.4 per cento), sexual harassment legislation covers harassment
in employment, though criminal penalties are stipulated in only seventy-nine of

151

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

Figura 5
Percentage of Sexual Harassment Laws Addressing Different Types of
Harassment

Employment

84.4%

Education

42.9%

Public Places

20.8%

100

Fonte: Figure created by the authors using data from World Bank Group, Women, Business and
the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018).

these countries. In sixty-six countries (42.9 per cento), sexual harassment legisla-
tion addresses educational contexts. In only thirty-two countries (20.8 per cento)
does the law cover sexual harassment in public spaces.

Even when the law does not explicitly address a particular form of sexual ha-
rassment, it may still be possible to challenge harassing behavior in court. As in the
case of domestic violence discussed earlier, Tuttavia, the failure explicitly to typ-
ify proscribed behaviors may make it harder to get authorities, peers, colleagues,
and family members to take women’s grievances seriously and to respond appro-
priately. Gender harassment, for example, tends to be far more pervasive than
sexualized advances and sexual coercion in U.S. workplaces, and frequently just
as detrimental to women’s health, their careers, and organizational climates. Yet
gender harassment often skirts below the legal radar, and some evidence suggests
that gender harassment, but not other forms of sexual harassment, has increased
since the #MeToo movement.16

T he existence of laws criminalizing domestic violence and sexual harass-

ment does not mean that people comply or that state authorities enforce
them. The letter of the law in many places is far more progressive than so-
cial norms and individual attitudes, which implies that behavioral alignment with
the law is a primary challenge facing VAW activists today.

152

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

As we mentioned earlier, studies show that the problem of violence against
women persists across social groups and contexts, even in countries where laws
combatting VAW are decades old. What is more, only a small share of women who
experience violence or harassment report this to the authorities. Analysis of DHS
surveys in twenty-four countries finds that the average share of women victims
who report gender-based violence to public institutions is 7 per cento, though a larger
condividere (40 per cento) say they spoke with family or friends about their experiences.17
Reluctance to report is attributable partially to attitudes that see violence as
normal, common, and a private or family matter. Underreporting may also be
strategic, as women choose to avoid emotional, financial, and personal risks asso-
ciated with police intervention and legal proceedings. Women who report incur
costs, including disbelief and demeaning treatment by the authorities, retaliation,
and ostracism by family and community. Forty-five percent of the approximate-
ly ninety thousand charges of discrimination made to the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in 2015 included a complaint of retaliation (and those
are the reported incidents!).18

High attrition rates for VAW cases increase reporting risks faced by women.
Across much of the world, legal authorities end up prosecuting very few allega-
tions of domestic and sexual violence. Women often drop charges. In the rare
event that a case of rape or domestic violence goes to court, judges and prosecu-
tors often question victims about their morality and sexual practices. Convictions
are rare. Infatti, in most European countries, reporting rates have increased, Ma
conviction rates have actually fallen.19

Governments, international organizations, and civil society groups around
the world have adopted a range of interventions to change social norms, make
it easier and safer for victims to report, and encourage bystanders to intervene
to stop violence. Many groups focus on social norms marketing via the mass me-
dia, which are less costly and easier to implement than improvements in govern-
ment services and infrastructure or person-to-person training. A large campaign
in Uganda, Per esempio, involves showing videos depicting the consequences of
intimate partner violence and modeling bystander interventions during village
film festivals. Follow-up studies find that, among people who had seen the videos,
there was a greater tendency to report abuse and some reduction in experiences of
violence, even as attitudes endorsing violence did not change.20

Every normative intervention, Tuttavia, runs the risk of producing unintend-
ed consequences. For example, it is common for gender violence campaigns to
emphasize the prevalence of violations–for example, with billboards stating that
half of women are victims of intimate partner violence–in order to elicit outrage
and mobilize a commitment to change. Yet social psychologists’ research implies
that such campaigns may promote complicity with existing trends by increasing
people’s awareness of what is actually typical in their community.21

153

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

In the United States, a vast majority of companies and universities require
that workers and students participate in trainings intended to prevent sexual
misconduct. Trainings typically cover federal law, organizational policies, E
reporting procedures; many also seek to communicate principles of equality
and affirmative consent. Yet a growing body of evidence has shown that train-
ing, though well intentioned, frequently backfires. Studies show that some men
have adverse reactions to training, growing more extreme in sexist views and
in their proclivity to harass; that people’s embrace of traditional gender stereo-
types increases; and that women say they are less likely to report assault. In U.S.
corporations, employee training programs have led to fewer women rising to
management ranks.22

More effective interventions against sexual assault and harassment involve
leaders and influential social referents as change agents. Programs aiming to alter
community norms and empower bystanders to intervene to stop assault and ha-
rassment have produced good results. Bystander intervention training, for exam-
ple, has been linked to behavioral and attitudinal changes as well as a reduction in
rates of assault on college campuses and in the U.S. military.23

A key remaining challenge for women’s rights activists and their support-

ers, particularly in the Global North where wide consensus exists about
the most serious forms of VAW, is to find the right balance between us-
ing and restraining state power. Almost everyone wants violence and harassment
to be taken more seriously, and we are far from a situation in which prisons are
packed with rapists and harassers. Yet there is a risk that campaigns against sexual
misconduct may strengthen the carceral state, produce unintended consequenc-
es such as reduced reporting and exclusion of women, and infringe on other im-
portant rights.

How hard should society punish acts of violence against women? Some stud-
ies show that tougher sentences and longer prison terms help to deter serial perp-
etrators, but many activists object to using the criminal justice system and mech-
anisms of policing, prosecution, and incarceration to fight gender and sexual vi-
olence. So-called carceral feminism and its instruments, such as mandatory ar-
rest laws, may empower law enforcement authorities at the expense of individual
women, particularly intersectionally disadvantaged groups of women. Di conseguenza,
women may be more likely to suffer revictimization by police and prosecutors,
and minority communities may experience biased treatment. Inoltre, carcer-
al feminism runs the risk of diverting attention from structural conditions condu-
cive to gender violence, such as social inequalities and the concentration of eco-
nomic and political power in men’s hands.24

A related issue is how expansively violence, assault, and harassment should be
defined. It is crucial to recognize the multiple ways that women are violated and to

154

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

enforce legislation that punishes serious crimes. But many human encounters are
ambiguous. Laws that draw clear lines in these gray areas, and that authorize offi-
cial scrutiny of intimate relations, may lead to unintended results.

Per esempio, laws in several U.S. stati, and policies in many hundreds of uni-
versities and colleges, apply the “affirmative consent” standard to define sexual
assault. All participants in a sexual interaction must explicitly express their con-
sent at each stage, or one or more have assaulted the other(S). In order to clarify
misunderstandings, the standard classifies a great deal of behavior as assault, con
potentially severe penalties for the perpetrator. Critics, including prominent fem-
inists and legal scholars, have raised concerns that the affirmative consent stan-
dard is unenforceable, violates the presumption of innocence and due process
rights of the accused, and fails to address the underlying causes of assault, Quale
include gender hierarchies pervading the “hookup culture.”25 Our own field ex-
periments on the effects of mandatory sexual misconduct training on a university
campus suggest that emphasizing affirmative consent may make women less like-
ly to report an incident of sexual harassment or assault.26

Enhanced surveillance of everyday behavior for patterns of sexual misconduct
may lead some men simply to avoid interactions with women. Recent U.S. sur-
veys show that around half of male managers are afraid to work with women col-
leagues, and that the number afraid to mentor women has tripled since the rise of
the #MeToo movement. Afraid that casual comments and jokes will be miscon-
strued as harassment, more men endorse the “Mike Pence rule” of not having din-
ner with any woman except their own wife.27 As a result, more women may end up
excluded from professional networks.

In definitiva, the broad characterization of VAW has advantages and disadvan-
tages. We have a more precise understanding of the range of phenomena that harm
women’s dignity and limit their opportunities. But such an enhanced understand-
ing does not imply that we are able to engineer precise interventions. Our legal
categories and policy tools are still too blunt to eliminate VAW from the top down.
Individual women and local communities, when they have access to resources and
bargaining power, may be able to more consistently impose costs to deter perpe-
trators and generate new norms than the criminal justice hand of the state.

M any states have made dramatic progress to combat violence against

women, at least on paper. Some countries remain stubborn, refusing
to recognize the possibility of marital rape, sexual harassment, or re-
sisting a comprehensive approach to domestic violence. Even in countries with
progressive legislation, law-practice gaps remain. As some powerful men go down
on allegations of harassment, millions of ordinary women endure it. Yet to a much
greater extent than in the past, society is mobilized against extreme forms of vio-
lence and the problem of impunity, and international organizations and civil soci-

155

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

ety groups test interventions to change social norms and attitudes, encourage re-
porting, and reduce perpetration.

Global efforts to end VAW are impressive and important. The ongoing chal-
lenge, particularly in the Global North, is to strike a good balance between aggres-
sive state action against violent behavior and state restraint to enable the unfold-
ing of social processes that generate legitimate norms and empower women. IL
state enforces right and wrong, but many states are weak and state actors have
conflicting motives. Even strong states cannot engineer social change completely.
State-sponsored projects have the potential to produce unintended and unfortu-
nate consequences, such as reducing women’s autonomy.

Combating violence requires attention to beliefs and norms and above all to
power asymmetries that render women vulnerable to abuse. Women need a firm
structural foundation–resources, land, jobs, social support–to contest, and to
exit from, violence and harassment in their daily lives. Many studies show that
women with access to resources are better able to leave abusers and bargain for
more equitable treatment in marriage. Reforming discriminatory family laws that
subordinate women to male guardians, and limit their ability to work, manage,
and inherit property, will contribute to reducing violence. Social policies that al-
leviate the financial penalties of divorce and single motherhood, combat discrim-
ination in the workplace, and enable women to combine mothering and wage
work are also essential.28 Empowered women are the key to ending gender and
sexual violence.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

authors’ note

This research was conducted with support from the Andrew Carnegie Fellows Pro-
gram and the Norwegian Research Council (project number 250753). Replication
data and code can be accessed at www.francesca.no.

about the authors

Mala Htun is Professor of Political Science, Deputy Director and Co-Principal In-
vestigator of ADVANCE at UNM, and Special Advisor for Inclusion and Climate in
the School of Engineering at the University of New Mexico. She is the author of The
Logics of Gender Justice: State Action on Women’s Rights around the World (with S. Lau-
rel Weldon, 2018), Inclusion without Representation: Gender Quotas and Ethnic Reser-
vations in Latin America (2016), and Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce, and the Family
under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracies (2003).

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

156

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

Francesca R. Jensenius is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Universi-
ty of Oslo and Senior Research Fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International
Affairs. She is the author of Social Justice through Inclusion: The Consequences of Elec-
toral Quotas in India (2017) and her work has been published in journals including
AEJ: Applied Economics, Comparative Political Studies, Electoral Studies, and Social Poli-
tic: International Studies in Gender, State & Società.

endnotes

1 World Health Organization, “Violence Against Women,” November 29, 2017, https://
www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women; Mala Htun and
Francesca R. Jensenius, “Aspirational Laws as Weak Institutions: Legislation to Com-
bat Violence Against Women in Mexico,” in Understanding Institutional Weakness: Pow-
er and Design in Latin American Institutions, ed. Daniel M. Brinks, Steven Levitsky, E
Maria Victoria Murillo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019); UN Women,
“Facts and Figures: Ending Violence Against Women,” https://www.unwomen.org/
en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures; and Leila Wood,
Caitlin Sulley, Matt Kammer-Kerwick, et al., “Climate Surveys: An Inventory of Un-
derstanding Sexual Assault and Other Crimes of Interpersonal Violence at Institutions
of Higher Education,” Violence Against Women 23 (10) (2017): 1249–1267.

2 World Bank Group, Women, Business and the Law 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank,

2018).

3 See The OECD Development Centre, Social Institutions and Gender Index, https://www

.genderindex.org/.

4 WomanStats, https://www.womanstats.org.

5 Mala Htun and S. Laurel Weldon, States and the Logics of Gender Justice: State Action on

Women’s Rights around the World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
6 Lori L. Heise and Andreas Kotsadam, “Cross-National and Multilevel Correlates of Part-
ner Violence: An Analysis of Data from Population-Based Surveys,” The Lancet Global
Health 3 (6) (2015): e332–e340; Sara Cools and Andreas Kotsadam, “Resources and In-
timate Partner Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa,” World Development 95 (2017): 211–230;
Cari Jo Clarka, Gemma Ferguson, Binita Shrestha, et al., “Social Norms and Women’s
Risk of Intimate Partner Violence in Nepal,” Social Science & Medicine 202 (2018): 162–
169; and Htun and Jensenius, “Aspirational Laws as Weak Institutions.”

7 Ibid.

8 World Bank Group, Women, Business and the Law 2018.
9 Their data cover “economies” rather than countries. This includes mostly international-
ly recognized countries, but also some contested areas, such as the West Bank, Gaza,
and Hong Kong.

10 Some of the thirty-six countries may have laws that recognize violence, but that lack
sanctions or protective measures. World Bank Group, Women, Business and the Law
2018, 56.

11 Physical violence includes punching, slapping, hitting, biting, kicking, pulling hair, burn-
ing, and strangling. See Domestic Violence London, “Physical Abuse,” https://www.do
mesticviolencelondon.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/4-physical-abuse.html.

157

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

149 (1) Winter 2020Mala Htun & Francesca R. Jensenius

The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention defines psychological violence as “inten-
tional conduct that seriously impairs another person’s psychological integrity through
coercion or threats.” See Council of Europe, Convention on Preventing and Combating Vi-
olence Against Women and Domestic Violence and Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe
Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Is-
tanbul: Council of Europe, 2011).

12 Amy Barrow, “Contested Spaces during Transition: Regime Change in Myanmar and Its

Implications for Women,” Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender 22 (75) (2015).

13 Domestic Violence London, “Sexual Abuse,” https:// www.domesticviolencelondon
.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/5-sexual-abuse.html; Dominique Mosbergen,
“India’s Marital Rape Crisis Reaches ‘Tragic Proportions,’” HuffPost, novembre 24,
2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/india-marital-rape_us_564d8c21e4b00
b7997f9469e; and Minerva, “Voldtektslovgivningen må endres,” https://www.minerva
nett.no/voldtektslovgivningen-ma-endres/.

14 Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, The General Law on
Women’s Access to a Life Free of Violence (Ley General de Acceso de las Mujeres a un Vida Libre
de Violencia) (Mexico City: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Estados Unidos Mexi-
canos, 2007), art. 6.

15 World Bank Group, Women, Business and the Law 2018.
16 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women:
Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2018); Lilia M. Cortina and Jennifer L. Ber-
dahl, “Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Decade of Research in Review,” in The
SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed. Julian Barling and Cary L. Cooper, vol. 1
(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publishing, 2008), 469–497; Emily A. Leskinen and Lilia
M. Cortina. “Dimensions of Disrespect: Mapping and Measuring Gender Harassment
in Organizations,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 38 (1) (2014): 107–123; and Ksenia
Keplinger, Stefanie K. Johnson, Jessica F. Kirk, and Liza Y. Barnes, “Women at Work:
Changes in Sexual Harassment between September 2016 and September 2018,” PLOS
One 14 (7) (2019).

17 Tia Palermo, Jennifer Bleck, and Amber Peterman, “Tip of the Iceberg: Reporting and
Gender-Based Violence in Developing Countries,” American Journal of Epidemiology 179
(5) (2013): 602–612.

18 Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” Harvard Business

Review 94 (7–8) (2016): 56.

19 Per esempio, see Sonia M. Frías, “Resisting Patriarchy within the State: Advocacy and
Family Violence in Mexico,” Women’s Studies International Forum 33 (6) (2010): 542–
551; and Jo Lovett and Liz Kelly, Different Systems, Similar Outcomes? Tracking Attrition in
Reported Rape Cases across Europe (London: Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit, Lon-
don Metropolitan University, 2009).

20 Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Laurie Ball, Chloe Poynton, and Sarah Sieloff, Social Norms Mar-
keting Aimed at Gender Based Violence: A Literature Review and Critical Assessment (Nuovo
York: International Rescue Committee, 2010); and Donald P. Verde, Anna Wilke, E
Jasper Cooper, “Silence Begets Violence: A Mass Media Experiment to Prevent Vio-
lence Against Women in Rural Uganda,” working paper (2019), https://www.poverty
-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/GreenWilkeCooper2019.pdf.

158

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
4
9
1
1
4
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
2
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
1
7
7
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesFighting Violence Against Women: Laws, Norms & Challenges Ahead

21 Margaret E. Tankard and Elizabeth Levy Paluck, “Norm Perception as a Vehicle for
Social Change,” Social Issues and Policy Review 10 (1) (2016): 181–211; and Paluck et al.,
Social Norms Marketing Aimed at Gender Based Violence.

22 Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, “The Promise and Peril of Sexual Harassment Pro-
grams,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (25) (2019): 12255–12260; Jus-
tine E. Tinkler, “How Do Sexual Harassment Policies Shape Gender Beliefs? An Ex-
ploration of the Moderating Effects of Norm Adherence and Gender,” Social Science
Research 42 (5) (2013): 1269–1283; and Mala Htun, Carlos Contreras, Melanie Sayuri
Dominguez, et al., “Effects of Mandatory Sexual Misconduct Training on College Cam-
puses,” paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting,
Boston, Massachusetts, August 30–September 2, 2018.

23 Alison C. Cares, Victoria L. Banyard, Mary M. Moynihan, et al., “Changing Attitudes
about Being a Bystander to Violence: Translating an In-Person Sexual Violence Preven-
tion Program to a New Campus,” Violence Against Women 21 (2) (2015): 165–187; Sharyn
J. Potter and Mary M. Moynihan, “Bringing in the Bystander In-Person Prevention Pro-
gram to a U.S. Military Installation: Results from a Pilot Study,” Military Medicine 176
(8) (2011): 870–875; and Dobbin and Kalev, “The Promise and Peril of Sexual Harass-
ment Programs.”

24 Leigh Goodmark, A Troubled Marriage: Domestic Violence and the Legal System (New York:
NYU Press, 2013); Alesha Durfee, “Situational Ambiguity and Gendered Patterns of Ar-
rest for Intimate Partner Violence,” Violence Against Women 18 (1) (2012): 64–84; E
Elizabeth Bernstein, “Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: IL
Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns,"
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36 (1) (2010): 45–71.

25 Vedere, Per esempio, the multiple contributions to the “In Theory” symposium in The Wash-
ington Post, beginning with Christine Emba, “Affirmative Consent: A Primer,” The Wash-
ington Post, ottobre 12, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/
2015/10/12/affirmative-consent-a-primer/?utm_term=.a4fda178706e.

26 Htun et al., “Effects of Mandatory Sexual Misconduct Training on College Campuses.”
27 Lean In, “Working Relationships in the #MeToo Era: Key Findings,” http://leanin.org/

sexual-harassment-backlash-survey-results (accesso ottobre 28, 2019).

28 Pradeep Panda and Bina Agarwal, “Marital Violence, Human Development and Women’s
Property Status in India,” World Development 33 (5) (2005): 823–850; Torben Iversen and
Frances Rosenbluth, “The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National
Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap,” American
Journal of Political Science 50 (1) (2006): 1–19; Mala Htun, Francesca R. Jensenius, E
Jami Nelson-Nuñez, “Gender-Discriminatory Laws and Women’s Economic Agency,"
Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Società 26 (2) (2019): 193–222; E
Heise and Kotsadam, “Cross-National and Multilevel Correlates of Partner Violence.”