• Recognizes that violence can occur across various familial relationships.
• Useful in addressing violence involving children or other family members who may not be women.

Critique:

• Gender-Neutral Framing: The term obscures the gendered nature of violence, failing to highlight that women are overwhelmingly the victims and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators in intimate partner violence.
• Systemic Oversight: By focusing on the family unit, it may individualize the issue, ignoring systemic patriarchy and societal norms that fuel violence against women.
• Dilution of Accountability: It avoids identifying the role of male violence, potentially framing the issue as a private family matter rather than a public and systemic crisis.

• Gendered Lens: Centres women’s experiences and acknowledges that such violence stems from systemic patriarchy and misogyny.
• International Recognition: Supported by frameworks like the UN’s Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, linking it to human rights violations.

Critique:

• Exclusion of Other Genders: While effective in addressing the specific experiences of women, it does not explicitly include violence against gender-diverse people who may also experience violence rooted in misogyny and patriarchy.
• Potentially Over-Simplistic: It might fail to address the intersections of race, class, sexuality, and colonialism, which exacerbate the vulnerability of some groups, such as Indigenous women.

• Direct Accountability: Removes ambiguity by naming the perpetrators of most gender-based violence, ensuring the focus is on male aggression and systemic patriarchy.
• Structural Analysis: Recognizes male dominance and entitlement as root causes rather than framing violence as an interpersonal or isolated phenomenon.

Critique:

• Exclusion of Non-Binary Experiences: While accurately centring the dynamics of most violence, it may not account for violence against gender-diverse individuals or women victimized by other women.
• Political Sensitivity: The explicitness of this term can provoke resistance, especially in patriarchal societies, potentially limiting its adoption in mainstream policy or discourse.

Strengths:

1. Inclusivity:
   • GBV acknowledges the experiences of diverse populations, including women, gender-diverse individuals, LGBTQ+ individuals, and men targeted for not conforming to traditional gender norms.
   • It ensures policies and strategies address violence across varied contexts, including intimate partnerships, workplaces, and public spaces.
2. Policy Versatility:
   • The broad framework supports the development of interventions that address a wide range of violence, including intimate partner violence, sexualized violence, and sexual assault, while linking these to underlying societal and systemic causes.
   • This versatility encourages a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, survivor support, and systemic reform.

Critiques:

1. Dilution of Patriarchy’s Role:
   • By encompassing a wide range of experiences, the term GBV can obscure the gendered power dynamics that fuel the majority of violence. For instance:
     • Intimate partner violence (IPV) is predominantly perpetrated by men against women, often stemming from male entitlement and control.
     • Sexualized violence and sexual assault are overwhelmingly targeted at women and gender-diverse people, reflecting systemic misogyny and rape culture.
   • Failing to center these dynamics risks underplaying the systemic role of patriarchy in perpetuating violence.
2. Gender-Neutral Framing:
   • While inclusivity is essential, the gender-neutral language often associated with GBV may deprioritize the unique vulnerabilities of women and girls, who are disproportionately impacted by intimate partner violence, sexualized violence, and sexual assault.
   • This neutrality can result in interventions that fail to hold perpetrators accountable or address the societal norms that sustain male violence against women.
3. Intersectionality Concerns:
   • Despite its broad scope, GBV may not always adequately emphasize the intersecting factors—such as race, colonialism, and class—that compound violence for marginalized groups. For example:
     • Indigenous women face disproportionately high rates of IPV, sexualized violence, and sexual assault due to systemic racism, colonial legacies, and social inequality.
   • Without a clear intersectional lens, GBV strategies risk overlooking the specific needs of vulnerable populations.
4. Potential Over-Simplification:
   • Using GBV interchangeably with terms like intimate partner violence or sexual assault may inadvertently diminish the complexity of these specific forms of violence. IPV, for example, involves unique dynamics of power and control within intimate relationships, while sexualized violence and assault often reflect broader societal norms like rape culture.