One woman is killed every 11 minutes. Is EA paying attention?

Dee Tomic25 Nov 2025 19:04 UTC
3 points
4 comments14 min readEA link

Link post

Every 11 minutes, a man kills a woman, often his partner, often in her own home (UNODC and UN Women, 2021)[1]. Sometimes her story makes the news. Most of the time, it doesn’t. But behind each statistic is a pattern of systemic failure: violence ignored, justice denied, lives lost.

During the EA In-Depth program, one question kept resurfacing in our discussions: Why isn’t femicide considered a cause area in effective altruism?

The numbers are hard to ignore. Femicide and men’s violence against women (MVAW) account for tens of thousands of deaths and millions of DALYs each year, more than many well-funded EA priorities like schistosomiasis or vitamin A deficiency. Effective interventions do exist. Funding is limited. The problem is widespread, neglected, and in many cases, preventable.

So why the silence?

In this post, we explore femicide and men’s violence against women as a potential EA cause area—examining its scale, tractability, and neglectedness. We don’t assume it’s an obvious fit, but we do think it’s time for a deeper look, grounded in data, empathy, and impact. While we don’t claim to have all the answers, we ask whether EA’s frameworks, funding norms, and epistemic habits may have unintentionally filtered out one of the world’s deadliest and most persistent forms of violence. We offer a cause area profile of femicide, a review of what’s known to work, and some thoughts on what the EA community might do next.

How big is the problem?

Men’s violence, as well as the killing of women, is among the most deadly and widespread forms of preventable harm in the world today.

According to the UNODC Global Study on Homicide, 87,000 women were intentionally killed in 2017, and over half (58%) were murdered by a partner or family member. That means around 137 women are killed every day by someone they know and often once trusted (UNODC, 2019)[2].

Femicide kills more women annually than natural disasters and armed conflict combined. More recent estimates suggest this figure has remained alarmingly consistent. In 2022, around 48,800 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or family members. In 2023, that number rose to approximately 51,100 - translating to 140 women and girls killed every day by someone they know. This increase is partly attributed to improved data collection, not necessarily an increase in incidence, but the scale remains staggering (UNODC and UN Women, 2023)[3].

Note on scale: It is important to emphasise that global femicide figures represent only recorded and confirmed cases—those successfully identified, reported, and classified by authorities. In many contexts, a substantial “dark figure” of unrecorded cases remains. Many women go missing and are never found, or their deaths are misclassified as accidents, suicides, or disappearances rather than homicides. These gaps stem from weak data infrastructure, inconsistent legal definitions of femicide, and systemic bias in how violence against women is reported and investigated (UNODC and UN Women, 2022)[4].

Under-reporting is particularly severe among women of colour, migrants, and Indigenous women. In the United States, of 5,712 reported missing American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls in 2016, only 116 - just 2% - were logged in the federal missing-persons database (National Congress of American Indians, n.d.)[5]. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates there are more than 4,200 unsolved cases of missing or murdered Indigenous persons in the U.S. at any time (Bureau of Indian Affairs, n.d.)[6]. In Canada, Indigenous women and girls face homicide rates six times higher than non-Indigenous women (Statistics Canada, 2023)[7] and are twelve times more likely to go missing or be murdered (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2024)[8].

This invisibility is compounded by inconsistent police response and media attention. Disappearances of non-white women are often treated as less urgent or newsworthy—a dynamic sometimes described as “Missing White Woman Syndrome” (PBS NewsHour, 2021; University of Portsmouth, 2021)[9][10]. These biases affect not only public awareness but also the speed and seriousness of investigations. Even in countries with robust homicide monitoring, many cases remain unclassified because the gender of the victim or the relationship to the perpetrator is missing from records (UNODC and UN Women, 2022)[4].

Globally, this bias in visibility and reporting shapes the data we rely on to assess harm. When cases go unsolved, are misclassified, or never reported at all, entire categories of femicide remain invisible—skewing burden estimates and reinforcing the perception that the problem is smaller or less solvable than it truly is. This epistemic gap is not just a data problem; it is a justice problem. Whose lives are searched for, counted, and mourned shapes whose lives are protected. A truly impartial approach to reducing suffering must ask: Which women are missing from our statistics—and why aren’t we doing more to find them?

Beyond deaths: Broader violence prevalence

Femicide represents only the most visible and extreme manifestation of a much broader continuum of male violence against women. For every woman killed, many more endure sustained abuse that rarely reaches the public record. Physical and sexual violence, whether within or outside intimate relationships, remains one of the most widespread forms of preventable harm globally. According to WHO and global meta-analyses, about 31% of women aged 15-49 worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner or non-partner, meaning nearly one in three women alive today (WHO, 2021; Sardinha et al., 2022)[11][12].

The consequences extend far beyond immediate physical injury. Survivors face chronic mental health problems, long-term disability, increased risk of HIV infection, economic insecurity, and in many cases, premature death. A recent analysis by Xiong et al. (2025)[13], using Global Burden of Disease 2019 data, estimated that intimate partner violence caused 86,500 deaths in 2019 - a 44% increase since 1990 - and accounted for 8.5 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), or 0.32% of global DALYs. This burden exceeds that of several established global health priorities often discussed within effective altruism.

The highest toll is borne by women aged 30-39 and by those in low socio-demographic index countries, particularly in Southern Sub-Saharan Africa, where social and economic inequalities amplify risk and limit access to protection and support services.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) vs. EA cause areas

To contextualise the scale of intimate partner violence and femicide, we compared their global health burden to other widely recognised EA cause areas using Global Burden of Disease (2019)[14][15][16] data. This dataset allows direct comparison across health conditions and risk factors commonly evaluated in EA’s global health and wellbeing frameworks.

CauseDeaths (millions)% of global deathsDALYs (millions)% of global DALYs
Malaria0.6431.0%46.41.75%
Intimate partner violence (IPV)0.08650.14%8.50.32%
Vitamin A deficiency0.02380.04%3.30.12%
Schistosomiasis0.01150.02%1.90.07%

Although malaria causes substantially more total harm, IPV accounts for three to five times the burden of several long-standing EA cause areas such as vitamin A deficiency and schistosomiasis.

Nearly every preventable harm can appear neglected if compared to an ideal level of response. What matters for prioritisation is neglect relative to other causes drawing from the same funding and attention pools. Within the EA community, intimate partner violence and femicide receive virtually no institutional funding, dedicated research, or cause prioritisation - suggesting not abstract neglect, but a structural blind spot in how global harm is conceptualised.

Unlike many complex social issues, this area is not intractable. Promising, evidence-based interventions already exist—from community mobilisation to cash transfer programmes—and have shown measurable reductions in violence (Abramsky et al., 2014; Buller et al., 2018; Pronyk et al., 2006; WHO, 2019)[17][18][19][20]. This makes men’s violence against women an area where EA’s strengths in evidence-building, cost-effectiveness analysis, and scaling impact could be especially valuable.

Why has femicide been overlooked in Effective Altruism?

The relative neglect of femicide within EA cannot be explained simply by oversight or lack of compassion. Rather, it points to a deeper design flaw in how the movement identifies, evaluates, and legitimises cause areas. EA’s frameworks were built to prioritise problems that are clearly measurable, morally universal, and tractable through scalable interventions. These criteria have yielded enormous good—but they also create systematic blind spots for harms that are structural, relational, or rooted in power.

Below, we outline several overlapping dynamics—financial, epistemic, and cultural—that together make men’s violence against women unusually hard for EA’s current infrastructure to detect and prioritise. Recognising this is not a critique of EA’s intentions, but of its design. And design flaws can be fixed.

  1. Minimal EA funding relative to the scale of harm
    To our knowledge, there are currently no major EA funders or large-scale programmes explicitly focusing on femicide or violence against women as core cause areas. Some notable exceptions exist—for example, SASA! demonstrated a 52% reduction in past-year physical intimate partner violence in a Ugandan trial (Abramsky et al., 2014)[20], and NOVAH is piloting radio-based behaviour change in East Africa (still in early evaluation stages and has yet to undergo formal impact assessment). However, these remain outliers rather than part of a well-resourced EA ecosystem. Meanwhile, better-funded areas such as vitamin A supplementation or deworming continue to receive institutional EA support—despite men’s violence against women (MVAW) causing a greater global burden than both.

    This lack of EA funding contributes to a circular dynamic: because few EA-aligned organisations work in this space, there are relatively few RCTs and cost-effectiveness analyses, which in turn makes violence against women less likely to appear in cause-prioritisation models.

  2. Evidence gaps and perceived tractability
    EA’s most established cause areas, such as malaria or deworming, are supported by extensive RCTs and cost-effectiveness estimates. Violence against women, by contrast, has a smaller and more fragmented evidence base, making it appear less tractable under EA’s evaluative norms.

    This perception is outdated. Over 100 experimental and quasi-experimental studies have now assessed prevention programmes, with interventions like SASA! and IMAGE in South Africa showing sustained declines in violence (Pronyk et al., 2006)[18]. Yet these successes are rarely translated into EA-style impact evaluations or funding models.

    The result is again, a feedback loop: because evidence remains outside EA’s preferred frameworks, men’s violence against women continues to be seen as less “evidence-backed” and is deprioritised accordingly.

  3. Demographic and epistemic filters
    The EA community is not demographically representative of the world, and this affects what is seen as important or solvable. According to the 2024 EA Survey[21]:

    • 68.8% of respondents are men (a slight increase from 2022)

    • 75% identify as White

    • The median age is 31, and nearly 80% attended a top 200 university

    These demographics influence EA’s norms and blind spots. The movement’s roots in analytical philosophy and quantitative modelling often lead to a focus on abstract, decontextualised harms over injustices tied to gender, power, or social structures. As a result, socially embedded or relational harms—like men’s violence against women—can appear less legible to the evaluative tools most trusted in EA.

    Feminist scholars such as Amia Srinivasan (2018)[22] have shown how dominant frameworks privilege evidence that fits within existing metrics while excluding insights grounded in lived experience or analyses of power. This is not only an epistemic gap but a practical one: when most decision-making roles are held by men, certain forms of suffering remain underexamined.

    Femicide is not a problem women can solve alone. In a world where men still hold most positions of influence—in funding, research, and agenda-setting—engagement from male allies is not optional; it is decisive. EA’s demographic reality can become a strength if men use their positions to confront the violence committed by other men with the same seriousness they bring to any other preventable harm. Ending this injustice requires a collective response—one that treats gendered violence not as a “women’s issue,” but as a test of how deeply we mean our claim that all lives are truly equal.

  4. Attention saturation
    EA also faces a kind of inertia: once early cause areas like global health, animal welfare, and AI safety became established, they continued to attract most of the funding and attention. This makes it harder for ‘newer’ priorities, such as violence against women, to gain traction—even when the case for impact is strong.

Beyond funding gaps and evidence limitations, femicide may be overlooked in EA due to deeper structural, cultural, and epistemic dynamics:

  • Falls between domains: Men’s violence against women resists tidy categorisation. It’s part global health, part human rights, part social justice—yet it fits cleanly into none of EA’s dominant buckets. Without a clear home in existing frameworks, it risks being passed over by cause prioritisation efforts that rely on established taxonomies.

  • Epistemic and methodological biases: Feminist theorists such as Miranda Fricker and Amia Srinivasan have shown how certain forms of knowledge—particularly those grounded in lived experience, relational harm, or systemic injustice—are often marginalised within dominant epistemic frameworks. In EA, this can appear as a methodological bias toward what is individualised, quantifiable, and easily scalable. Such preferences make structural or cultural problems, like men’s violence against women, seem less tractable simply because their impact is harder to isolate or measure through RCTs. Feminist approaches challenge this not by rejecting rigour, but by expanding it—recognising that some of the world’s most pervasive harms operate precisely in the spaces our current tools struggle to count.

  • Perceived as ‘too political’: Gender-based violence is often associated with feminist or rights-based activism, leading some EAs to view it as ideologically charged or outside EA’s remit. Yet this hesitation is inconsistent. The community has already engaged with other politically sensitive domains—from AI governance and pandemic preparedness to climate change. The discomfort may stem less from genuine concern about politicisation and more from unease with feminist framing itself.

  • No internal champion: Cause areas in EA tend to gain traction when a dedicated advocate or institution takes ownership. AI safety grew after Open Philanthropy and 80,000 Hours defined it as a strategic priority; farmed animal welfare followed a similar path through ACE and The Humane League. No equivalent effort exists for violence against women. Despite strong moral and empirical grounds, it lacks a dedicated funder, research agenda, or cause report. Without institutional ownership, progress stalls and attention remains locked on earlier priorities—a form of path dependence that perpetuates the status quo.

These gaps are not signs of indifference but of design. EA’s methods excel at measuring certain types of harm yet struggle to register those rooted in power or social structure. Expanding what counts as rigorous evidence would make EA’s commitment to impartiality more complete. The following section explores how seemingly neutral principles, like impartiality itself, can obscure gendered patterns of suffering. If EA’s goal is to act impartially, it must first ensure that its epistemic tools are not partial by design.

Structural blind spots beyond EA

EA is not unique in overlooking gendered harm. Across medicine, economics, and development, evidence shows that women’s suffering is routinely undercounted or de-prioritised. Women were excluded from most clinical trials until the 1990s; only one in three countries collects consistent data on violence against women (WHO, 2021)[12]. This systemic blind spot shows how impartial ideals, when applied without attention to inequality, can reproduce bias rather than eliminate it. Recognising this pattern can help EA strengthen its own methods—not by abandoning impartiality, but by applying it more fully to the invisible.

What works and what we still don’t know about preventing femicide

The belief that men’s violence against women is too difficult to measure or prevent is increasingly challenged. Over the last decade, a growing evidence base—comprising RCTs and systematic reviews—has emerged, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Key intervention types include:

  • Community mobilisation and norm change: For example, the SASA! intervention in Uganda, evaluated via a cluster RCT, reported a ~52% reduction in past-year physical intimate partner violence in intervention communities (Abramsky et al., 2014)[20].

  • Cash transfers and financial incentives: Mixed-methods reviews show that unconditional or conditional cash transfers can reduce IPV across multiple settings (Buller et al., 2018; Sahay, 2023)[23][19].

  • Economic empowerment plus gender training: Combined microfinance and participatory gender training programmes such as IMAGE in South Africa have been shown to reduce IPV and improve women’s agency (Del Campo & Steinert, 2020)[24].

Other interventions, like school-based self-defence, parenting programmes, or justice-sector reforms, show more mixed or early evidence. Survivors’ services such as shelters and helplines remain essential but play a limited role in prevention alone.

Nonetheless, critical gaps remain: many studies lack long-term follow-up, scalability assessments, or cost-effectiveness metrics. Evidence is particularly limited for marginalised groups such as older women, LGBTQ+ survivors, and conflict-affected populations. Overall, however, the trajectory is clear: prevention is possible, and several interventions are already validated. With improved data, cost-effectiveness estimates, and targeted investment, there is meaningful scope for EA-aligned scaling and impact.

One of the world’s deadliest injustices—and one EA can help solve

Femicide and men’s violence against women cause immense and preventable suffering—claiming thousands of lives and harming millions more through trauma, fear, and lost opportunity. Yet these harms remain almost invisible in global priority setting. Despite its scale, gender-based violence receives less than 1% of global official development assistance (UN Women, 2024)[25].

Most of this funding is short-term or project-based, with limited evaluation or follow-up, leaving evidence and implementation gaps unaddressed.Unlike many complex social problems, this one is tractable. Community mobilisation, economic empowerment, and cash transfer programmes have already shown measurable reductions in violence (Abramsky et al., 2014; Buller et al., 2018; Pronyk et al., 2006)[18][19][20]. What is missing is not moral clarity, but sustained investment and rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis. EA’s strengths—evidence-building, scalable funding, and commitment to neglected yet solvable causes—are exactly what this issue needs.

What we, as EA community, can do about femicide

EA is well-positioned to bring rigour, prioritisation, and evidence-based strategy to one of the world’s most pervasive and preventable sources of suffering. Several high-leverage pathways stand out:

  • Fund cause prioritisation and foundational research. Further work is needed to assess the scale, neglectedness, and tractability of interventions addressing men’s violence against women. EA researchers could produce cause area reports, cost-effectiveness models, and evidence maps to clarify where additional funding or experimentation would have the highest expected value.

  • Generate and strengthen evidence. EA funders could collaborate with implementers already running promising interventions—such as SASA! or IMAGE—to fund RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, and long-term follow-ups. This would expand the empirical base needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and scalability in line with EA standards.

  • Pilot innovative funding mechanisms. Challenge funds, regranting pools, or seed-funding models could help identify and support high-impact organisations currently outside major donor ecosystems. EA’s comparative advantage lies in spotting neglected opportunities early and providing catalytic capital to test and scale what works.

Even small investments at this stage could produce large informational returns: improving the evidence base, crowding in larger funders, and accelerating the growth of a high-impact field. The opportunity is not simply to redirect resources, but to apply EA’s core strengths—rigour, curiosity, and strategic cause prioritisation—to one of humanity’s most enduring yet solvable injustices.

Conclusion

Femicide and men’s violence against women are among the most devastating and preventable forms of suffering in the world today. Their scale rivals—and in many cases exceeds—that of well-established EA cause areas, yet these issues remain vastly underfunded, understudied, and institutionally overlooked.

This neglect is not the product of apathy, but of design. Effective altruism’s frameworks were built to identify measurable, scalable interventions—an approach that has saved and improved countless lives. But the same tools that make EA powerful can also constrain its vision, struggling to register harms rooted in power, norms, and relationships. Rigour can save lives—but only if it dares to look where suffering hides. True rigour means recognising that what we cannot measure may still demand our attention. The absence of data does not mean the absence of harm; sometimes it marks the places where speaking out is most dangerous.

Violence against women is not only a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral test of whether our compassion extends beyond what is easily measured. Passing that test demands courage beyond calculation: the courage to treat power as a variable of harm, to measure what resists easy quantification, to name violence with the same clarity we bring to disease or disaster, and to speak plainly where silence has long prevailed.

This is not a demand that “EA should” act—it’s an invitation for those within the movement who can act to do so. Whether through research, funding, or advocacy, we each have a part to play in ensuring this violence is no longer invisible to the frameworks that shape our moral attention, because addressing this will require collective resolve. This is not a problem women can solve alone. In a world where men still hold most positions of influence—in leadership, funding, and research—engagement from male allies is not optional; it is crucial. A movement capable of saving lives at scale can also help stop men from taking them.

Far from diluting EA’s integrity, this would strengthen it: accepting a challenge few communities have yet been willing to confront.

If we want to keep saving lives, we must first count them all.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Hanna Kraska, Pauliina Laine, Zahra Boudalaoui-Buresi, Vincent Niger and David Varga for comments. All opinions and mistakes are our own.

FAQ

We recognise that this post may raise questions, especially for readers encountering these issues through an effective altruism lens for the first time. Our aim is not to provoke, but to prompt deeper reflection on a large-scale, preventable form of harm that has received too little attention within the EA community.

Below, we address some common questions and concerns—not to shut down discussion, but to encourage honest, good-faith engagement. If you disagree, we welcome responses grounded in curiosity, data, and shared moral concern.

  1. Isn’t this just a political or feminist issue? Isn’t EA meant to be apolitical?
    Preventing large-scale, preventable suffering shouldn’t be considered “political”, and EA has already engaged with many normatively charged areas (e.g. AI governance, global health policy). Feminist thinkers have raised legitimate concerns about epistemic exclusion, and engaging with their insights doesn’t mean abandoning rigour. Instead, it means expanding what we consider knowable and solvable.

  2. Why focus on women? Men also face violence—in war, in suicide, in homicide statistics.
    All suffering matters. The focus on femicide here is not meant to diminish other forms of harm, but to highlight a specific, gendered and structurally patterned form of violence that is widespread, underfunded, and preventable. Men are indeed more likely to die in war or from suicide, but those deaths are not primarily caused by women (they are, in fact, also caused by men). In contrast, femicide is overwhelmingly committed by men against women, often in intimate or family settings. Addressing men’s violence is not just about protecting women; it’s also about preventing harm men cause to each other (e.g., male-on-male homicide, war). Naming this pattern helps us find better solutions.

  3. Isn’t femicide already being addressed by NGOs and governments? Is it really neglected?
    While some organisations do valuable work in this space, less than 1% of global development aid goes toward addressing violence against women (UN Women, 2024)[25]. Furthermore, EA has not meaningfully engaged with this cause area, despite the scale of the problem and the existence of promising interventions.

  4. Where’s the ITN (Importance, Tractability, Neglectedness) framework?
    We’ve tried to outline the ITN case throughout the post:

    • Importance: Femicide and IPV cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of DALYs annually—more than some well-established EA cause areas.

    • Tractability: Multiple interventions (e.g. SASA!, IMAGE, cash transfers) show promising results and are ready for evaluation and scale-up.

    • Neglectedness: Despite its burden, this cause is severely underfunded by both EA and global actors, and lacks champions within the EA community.

    A deeper ITN analysis could and should be the next step—ideally supported by EA funders or cause prioritisation researchers.

  5. Isn’t “men are killing women” a needlessly inflammatory way to put it?
    We use this phrasing deliberately to make patterns of responsibility visible. Phrases like “violence against women” often obscure who is committing the violence, which can hinder both diagnosis and prevention. As philosopher Miranda Fricker argues, omitting the agent of harm can be a form of epistemic injustice.

    This is not a statement that all men are violent. Rather, it reflects the empirical fact that the overwhelming majority of femicides are committed by men. Clear language helps us understand the problem—and therefore, solve it.

  6. Isn’t this issue too tied to cultural norms or social systems to be tractable for EA?
    That perception is changing. Several RCTs and long-term evaluations now support the effectiveness of community mobilisation, norm change, and combined economic-gender interventions. Not all solutions will be easy to scale, but many are more tractable than previously assumed, especially with better data and funding. EA has a track record of helping scale hard-to-measure but high-impact interventions.

  1. ^

    UNODC and UN Women. (2021). Killings of women and girls by their intimate partner or other family members: Global estimates (brief). Vienna/​New York: UNODC & UN Women. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  2. ^

    UNODC. (2019). Global Study on Homicide 2019: Gender-related killing of women and girls (Booklet 5). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  3. ^

    UNODC and UN Women. (2023). Gender-related killings of women and girls (femicide/​feminicide): Global estimates 2022. Vienna/​New York: UNODC & UN Women. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  4. ^

    UNODC and UN Women. (2022). Gender-related killings of women and girls: Improving data to improve responses to femicide/​feminicide. Vienna/​New York: UNODC & UN Women. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  5. ^

    National Congress of American Indians. (n.d.). Key Statistics – Violence Against Indigenous Women. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  6. ^

    Bureau of Indian Affairs. (n.d.). Missing and Murdered Indigenous People Crisis. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  7. ^

    Statistics Canada. (2023). Court outcomes in homicides of Indigenous women and girls, 2009–2021. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  8. ^

    Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2024). Federal progress to address the national crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse people – news release, 3 June 2024. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  9. ^

    University of Portsmouth. (2021). Missing White Woman Syndrome: Why racial bias dominates coverage of missing-person cases. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  10. ^

    PBS NewsHour. (2021). How prejudice affects official search for missing Indigenous women, other women of colour. 27 September. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  11. ^

    Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S.R. and Garcia-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual intimate partner violence against women aged 15–49 years: a systematic analysis for the WHO Global Database on Prevalence of Violence Against Women. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813.

  12. ^

    World Health Organization. (2021). 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 against women. Geneva: WHO. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  13. ^

    Xiong, P., Liu, X., Luo, G., Guo, S., Huang, X. and Zhang, Y. (2025). Global burden of diseases attributable to intimate partner violence from 1990 to 2019: An analysis based on GBD 2019 data. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 60(2), 487–513.

  14. ^

    IHME Pathogen Core Group. (2024). Global burden associated with 85 pathogens in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Infectious Diseases, 24(8), 868–895.

  15. ^

    Zhang, Y., and Ming, Y. (2024). Burden of schistosomiasis in global, regional, and national 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 61, 102751.

  16. ^

    Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. (2020). Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Seattle, WA: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  17. ^

    World Health Organization. (2019). RESPECT Women: Preventing Violence Against Women. Geneva: WHO. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  18. ^

    Pronyk, P.M., Hargreaves, J.R., Kim, J.C., Morison, L.A., Phetla, G., Watts, C., Busza, J. and Porter, J.D.H. (2006). Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: a cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1973–1983.

  19. ^

    Buller, A.M., Peterman, A., Ranganathan, M., Bleile, A., Hidrobo, M. and Heise, L. (2018). A mixed-method review of cash transfers and intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health, 3(5), e000779.

  20. ^

    Abramsky, T., Devries, K.M., Kiss, L., Nakuti, J., Kyegombe, N., Starmann, E., Cundill, B., Francisco, L., Kaye, D., Musuya, T., Michau, L. and Watts, C. (2014). Findings from the SASA! Study: a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 122.

  21. ^

    Sleegers, W., and Moss, D. (2025). EA Survey 2024: Demographics. Effective Altruism Forum. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

  22. ^

    Srinivasan, A. (2018). The aptness of anger. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26(2), 123–144.

  23. ^

    Sahay, A., Dervišević, E., and Perova, E. (2023). Conditional cash transfers and violence against women—Does the type of violence matter? Social Science & Medicine, 333, 116136.

  24. ^

    Del Campo, I.E., and Steinert, J.I. (2022). The Effect of Female Economic Empowerment Interventions on the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 810–826.

  25. ^

    UN Women. (2024). Less than 1 per cent of aid spending targets gender-based violence, according to new reports. Available here (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

Dee Tomic25 Nov 2025 19:04 UTC
3 points
4 comments14 min readEA link