https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
106
THE CONCEPT OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND ITS TYPES
Sevara Shukhratjanovna Ishmuratova
Researcher at the National Center of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights
sevara.ishmuratova@bk.ru
Annotation:
This article explores the theoretical underpinnings of gender-based violence (GBV),
tracing its historical development from cultural norms to its recognition in legal and human
rights frameworks. The study also provides a comparative overview of legal and sociological
definitions, emphasizing the difference between GBV and domestic violence, presenting a
comprehensive typology of gender-based violence, classifying it into physical, psychological,
sexual, economic, digital, and structural forms. It emphasizes how these forms are interconnected
and often reinforced by digital platforms and institutional structures. It analyzes the sociocultural
and psychological roots of gender-based violence and examines how patriarchal power structures,
gender norms, and systemic inequalities shape perpetrator behavior and affect victims’ mental
health
Keywords:
Gender-based violence, patriarchy, human rights, feminist theory, social structures,
symbolic violence, physical violence, sexual abuse, economic violence, cyber violence,
institutional violence, digital harassment
Gender-based violence (GBV) has emerged as a significant area of interdisciplinary study
and policy concern, engaging scholars and practitioners in fields as diverse as sociology, law,
psychology, public health, and human rights. The theoretical foundations of GBV are deeply
rooted in historical developments, socio-political contexts, and evolving legal norms. The
recognition of gender-based violence as a social problem is a relatively recent phenomenon in
legal and academic discourses, although the practices it encompasses are historically entrenched.
In pre-modern societies, violence against women and gender minorities was often
institutionalized and normalized through religious, cultural, and patriarchal systems. Acts such as
marital rape, female genital mutilation, and honor killings were not only tolerated but sanctioned
under certain customary and religious laws.
The rise of feminist movements in the 1960s and 1970s marked a pivotal moment in the
conceptual development of GBV. Radical and socialist feminists critiqued the patriarchal
structures that subordinated women and identified violence as a mechanism of male dominance
and control. Seminal works, such as Susan Brownmiller’s
Against Our Will
(1975), redefined
rape as an act of political power rather than mere sexual deviance. By the 1990s, GBV had
become an established concept in international human rights law, particularly following the 1993
United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which formally
recognized violence against women as a violation of human rights. [1]
Over time, the term “gender-based violence” expanded beyond violence against cisgender
women to include individuals of all gender identities, especially recognizing the vulnerabilities
of transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people. Contemporary scholarship thus
frames GBV as a multidimensional phenomenon resulting from the intersection of gender norms,
power hierarchies, and structural inequalities. The definitions of GBV differ across legal systems
and academic disciplines, reflecting varying understandings of gender, violence, and social
justice. From a legal perspective, GBV is typically defined in terms of acts that result in, or are
likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to individuals on the basis
of their gender. The United Nations defines GBV as: “Any act of gender-based violence that
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
107
results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering... including
threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in
private life.” This legal definition has been adopted and adapted in various international treaties,
such as the Istanbul Convention (2011), and national legislations. [2]
In sociological terms, GBV is analyzed not only as discrete acts of harm but as systemic
practices rooted in gendered power relations. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of
symbolic violence
, for
example, helps elucidate how subtle, everyday practices – such as sexist language or
institutional exclusion – reproduce inequality and normalize aggression against marginalized
genders. Gender-based violence is thus seen not merely as deviant behavior but as a reflection of
broader socio-structural conditions, including patriarchy, heteronormativity, economic
dependency, and state inaction.
Moreover, intersectionality theory, as advanced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, has added
complexity to sociological definitions by highlighting how race, class, sexuality, and other
identities compound vulnerability to GBV. [3] For instance, a low-income Black transgender
woman may face multiple, intersecting forms of violence that cannot be understood through a
single-axis framework. Although often used interchangeably, gender-based violence and
domestic violence are distinct yet overlapping concepts. Clarifying the difference is essential for
accurate legal categorization, policy design, and academic analysis.
The theoretical foundations of gender-based violence are built upon decades of
interdisciplinary research and activism. From its historical emergence as a feminist issue to its
current status as a global human rights concern, the concept of GBV continues to evolve. Legal
definitions provide the necessary tools for prosecution and protection, while sociological
frameworks uncover the deeper structural roots of violence. Differentiating GBV from domestic
violence allows for more targeted and effective interventions. A comprehensive understanding of
these foundations is essential for scholars, lawmakers, and practitioners committed to combating
all forms of gendered harm and fostering a more just and equitable society.
Gender-based violence (GBV) encompasses a wide spectrum of harmful behaviors directed
at individuals based on their gender identity or expression. Its multidimensional nature requires a
nuanced typology that accounts for the forms, mechanisms, and contexts in which such violence
occurs. The most commonly recognized typologies of GBV fall under these four interrelated
categories. These forms may occur simultaneously or independently and often overlap in
complex ways.
Physical Violence: Physical gender-based violence refers to the intentional use of
physical force with the potential to cause harm, injury, disability, or death. Common
manifestations include hitting, slapping, choking, burning, or use of weapons. In many societies,
physical violence is most often perpetrated by intimate partners, reflecting deep-rooted power
imbalances and patriarchal norms. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a major subcategory here,
disproportionately affecting women and marginalized gender identities. World Health
Organization (WHO) data show that globally, 1 in 3 women experiences physical and/or sexual
violence in her lifetime, most often by a partner. [4]
Psychological Violence: Also known as emotional or mental abuse, psychological GBV
includes behaviors that cause emotional harm and undermine a person’s sense of self-worth,
agency, and mental stability. It encompasses threats, intimidation, humiliation, isolation, and
manipulation. Unlike physical violence, psychological abuse leaves no visible scars, yet its
impact is equally profound and long-lasting. Victims often experience anxiety, depression, PTSD,
and suicidal ideation. Despite its severity, psychological GBV remains underreported and often
underestimated due to societal normalization of emotional control, particularly within patriarchal
family structures.
Sexual Violence: Sexual GBV includes any non-consensual sexual act or attempt to
obtain a sexual act through coercion, threats, or force. It ranges from harassment to rape and
includes practices such as marital rape, sexual exploitation, and trafficking for sexual purposes.
Cultural taboos and victim-blaming attitudes contribute to widespread underreporting of sexual
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
108
violence, especially in conservative or patriarchal societies. Furthermore, legal systems in many
countries still lack specific legislation criminalizing spousal rape or addressing consent
comprehensively.
Economic Violence: Economic GBV involves actions that control or restrict a person’s
access to financial resources, employment, or economic independence. It can manifest in forced
financial dependence, denial of inheritance or property rights, wage theft, and prohibiting access
to education or work. In many cases, economic abuse is embedded in traditional gender roles that
prioritize male financial control within families or communities. It reinforces dependency and
limits the victim’s ability to leave abusive relationships or assert autonomy. Economic violence
also includes discriminatory workplace practices, such as unequal pay, sexual extortion
(sextortion), and occupational segregation based on gender.
In the digital age, the internet has become a new frontier for gender-based violence,
introducing novel forms of abuse that mirror and amplify offline harms. Online/digital GBV
refers to acts of violence carried out through digital means, including social media, messaging
platforms, and other online technologies. Cyberbullying involves the repeated use of digital
communication to harass, intimidate, or threaten someone. Gendered cyberbullying often targets
women, feminists, and LGBTQ+ individuals through misogynistic messages, public shaming,
and death or rape threats. Online harassment may be orchestrated by individuals or coordinated
groups (e.g., digital mobs), particularly targeting outspoken or visible figures such as journalists,
activists, and politicians.
Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images (Revenge Porn): This form of digital
sexual violence entails sharing private sexual content without consent, often by former partners
as an act of retaliation or control. Victims suffer from reputational damage, psychological trauma,
professional consequences, and, in extreme cases, suicidal behavior. The gendered nature of this
phenomenon is evident, as women are overwhelmingly targeted, while perpetrators often remain
legally unpunished due to legislative gaps. Emerging technologies like deepfakes have enabled
the creation of non-consensual explicit content using synthetic media, disproportionately
targeting women and public figures. These manipulated images are used to discredit, blackmail,
or sexually exploit victims. Additionally, gendered disinformation campaigns – false narratives
that reinforce gender stereotypes or attack gender equality – undermine democratic institutions
and human rights advocacy efforts.
Digital tools are increasingly used by abusers to monitor, control, or stalk victims. This
includes GPS tracking, spyware installation, or constant checking of communication logs. Such
digital coercion limits autonomy and fosters a climate of fear and dependency. Online GBV is
especially concerning because of its global reach, anonymity of perpetrators, and the viral nature
of harmful content. Yet, digital platforms have been slow to address abuse, and existing legal
frameworks are often inadequate for redress. Beyond individual acts, gender-based violence is
embedded within and perpetuated by larger societal structures and institutions, making it
systemic in nature.
Structural GBV refers to the normalization of violence through gender ideologies that
position men as dominant and women as subordinate. Cultural norms that valorize male
aggression, female submissiveness, and heteronormative family roles contribute to the
widespread social acceptance of GBV. From early childhood, gendered socialization perpetuates
beliefs that justify male entitlement and female obedience, laying the groundwork for tolerating
abuse. Judicial systems in many countries reflect and reinforce gender inequalities. Police may
dismiss complaints of domestic violence as “private matters,” courts may blame victims for
sexual assault, and legal definitions of rape may exclude marital or non-penetrative acts.
Furthermore, institutions such as religious authorities, traditional councils, and even healthcare
systems may trivialize or ignore GBV due to patriarchal biases. For example, some legal systems
require corroborating evidence or proof of physical resistance in rape cases, effectively placing
the burden of proof on victims. Others fail to criminalize forced marriage or treat honor killings
as mitigated crimes. These legal blind spots serve to institutionalize impunity for perpetrators.
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
109
Economic systems that limit women’s access to resources, land, or credit reinforce
dependency and increase vulnerability to violence. Political structures that exclude women from
leadership or policy-making perpetuate male-dominated agendas, often sidelining GBV as a low-
priority issue. Moreover, conflict and displacement exacerbate structural GBV. During war,
women and girls are often subjected to mass sexual violence, trafficking, or forced labor, with
little institutional recourse. Gendered violence is used as a weapon of war, a strategy of terror,
and a method of ethnic cleansing.
Understanding gender-based violence (GBV) requires more than categorizing its forms or
documenting its frequency. A comprehensive academic investigation must explore the
sociocultural and psychological dimensions that sustain, justify, and reproduce such violence
across generations and geographies. These dimensions include the root causes embedded in
patriarchy and power structures, the psychological impact on victims, and the behavioral and
socialization patterns of perpetrators. Gender-based violence is not random or episodic – it is
deeply embedded in the power hierarchies of patriarchal societies. Patriarchy, understood as a
system of male dominance institutionalized through cultural, legal, and religious means, is the
principal ideological engine of GBV.
Patriarchal systems position men as natural authority figures in family, political, and
economic spheres. In such systems, male violence against women is often normalized, excused,
or minimized. Feminist scholars such as Sylvia Walby and Judith Lorber argue that patriarchy is
not merely about individual attitudes but about systemic privilege and institutional control,
wherein male aggression is socialized as protective or disciplinary rather than oppressive. [5]
Religious doctrines, customary laws, and family traditions frequently reinforce male superiority,
thereby legitimizing control over women’s bodies, movements, and choices.
From early childhood, individuals are socialized into rigid gender roles – men are expected
to be assertive, dominant, and unemotional; women are encouraged to be submissive, nurturing,
and self-sacrificing. These prescriptive norms create a fertile ground for GBV, as any deviation
from the ideal gender role may invite punishment. For instance, women who assert independence,
express sexuality, or reject male advances are often subjected to verbal abuse, harassment, or
violence. Men who exhibit vulnerability or refuse to conform to aggressive masculinity may also
become targets of violence, showing how GBV enforces gender conformity through coercion.
At the core of GBV lies an unequal distribution of power – economic, social, legal, and
emotional. This imbalance manifests in various contexts: husbands exerting control over wives,
employers over female workers, teachers over female students, or institutions over marginalized
gender identities. Michel Foucault’s theory of power illustrates that such control is not always
overt but often internalized, normalized, and diffused across relationships and institutions. [6]
Violence becomes a tool to assert or re-establish lost dominance, particularly in moments when
women gain economic independence or challenge traditional roles.
The sociocultural and psychological dimensions of gender-based violence reveal the depth
and complexity of the problem. Rooted in patriarchal power structures, reinforced by gender
norms, and perpetuated through institutional complicity, GBV is sustained by systems as much
as individuals. The psychological toll on victims – ranging from trauma to social stigma – is
compounded by societal neglect and legal failures. Meanwhile, perpetrators are often socialized
into violent roles, operating under entitlement and seeking control rather than mutuality or
respect. Any serious response to GBV must therefore address not only the symptoms of violence
but its causes. This includes transforming cultural narratives, reforming legal institutions,
expanding mental health services for survivors, and restructuring the socialization of boys and
men. Only then can the cycle of violence be broken – not temporarily, but structurally and
enduringly.
REFERENCES
1.
United Nations. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. –
A/RES/48/104, 1993. – URL:
(date of access: 02.07.2025).
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
110
2.
Istanbul Convention. Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating
violence against women and domestic violence. – Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 210. –
Istanbul, 2011. – 37 P.
3.
Crenshaw K. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color // Stanford Law Review. – 1991. – Vol. 43, No. 6. – P. 1241 – 1299.
4.
World Health Organization. Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018:
Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women
and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence. – Geneva: WHO,
2021. – 61 P.
5.
Walby S. Theorizing Patriarchy. – Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1990. – 256 P.
6.
Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. – New York: Pantheon
Books, 1977. – 333 P.
