ONE IN THREE WOMEN. EVERY HOUR,
ELEVEN ARE KILLED BY FAMILY.

Treats IPV as a measurable, preventable public-health problem with quantifiable risk factors and intervention pathways. The WHO Global Burden of Disease analyses put IPV among the top causes of disability-adjusted life-years lost among women aged 15-49. The public-health frame produces interventions but can elide structural-power questions.

“Violence against women is everywhere a problem of magnitude that warrants the responses we give to any other major public-health epidemic.”

Frames IPV and femicide as outcomes of structural patriarchy: economic dependence, legal asymmetries, normalisation of coercive control. Argues for legal reforms (criminalising coercive control, Istanbul Convention compliance, removing marital rape exemptions) and broader political-economic redistribution.

From those who've been inside the systems: what makes a difference is safe housing first, economic independence second, perpetrator accountability third, in that order. Generic legal reform without funded service infrastructure produces glossy laws with no implementation.

In communities where family honour is structurally tied to women's perceived sexual conduct, both the violence and the silence around it are reproduced inside families and tolerated by local authorities. Western-style legal reforms run into reporting suppression that legal codes alone cannot fix.

Religious communities are simultaneously protective (mutual-aid networks, marriage-counsel infrastructure, men's-accountability practices in some Pentecostal and Sufi traditions) and complicit (theology of female submission, refusal to recognise marital rape, sheltering perpetrators inside congregational structures). Both readings are honest.

The Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls movement frames the violence as both gendered and colonial: the product of dispossession, residential-school trauma, and state-tolerated impunity, not just patriarchy. The Canadian National Inquiry concluded that what is happening to Indigenous women constitutes 'a Canadian genocide'.

Most IPV is committed by men. Treating men as un-intervenable subjects (vs as people who can be re-socialised through accountability programmes) is empirically wrong. Programmes like Caledonian, ManKind Project, Caring Dads show measurable re-offence reduction: small effects but real.

From service providers: the single highest-leverage intervention is access to safe emergency accommodation. Without it, leaving is impossible; with it, everything else becomes available. UK Women's Aid trials show housing-first dramatically reduces post-separation IPV exposure.

Cash transfers to women, micro-finance to women, equal-pay enforcement, parental-leave reform. The IMF-WB review of 30+ studies: ~10-15% reductions in IPV prevalence in trials where women's independent income materially increases.

Criminalising coercive control, removing marital-rape exemptions, mandatory prosecution policies, Istanbul Convention compliance. UK 2015 coercive control law: ~30,000 convictions to date, normative effect possibly larger than direct prosecution count.

Court-mandated batterer-intervention programmes with regular supervision. Effect sizes modest (~5-15% reduction in re-offending) but consistent. Best-evidenced versions integrate substance-abuse and mental-health support.

Long-running community-level programmes that shift gender-norm attitudes among men and women alike. SASA! in Uganda is the best-evidenced; reduced past-year IPV by ~52% over 4 years. Norm change is slow; without it, legal reform under-performs.