Genta Abdiji *
The Power of Naming
There is something deeply uncomfortable about naming violence. Words force societies to confront truths they might prefer to avoid. Naming violence such as femicide makes it harder to describe these killings as “random,” “rare,” or “unfortunate,” and instead requires acknowledging them as part of a wider social problem. This is where the broader challenge emerges. Gender-based violence is rooted in long-standing inequality, discrimination, and power imbalances affecting women. These dynamics are reflected not only in physical violence, but also in cultural and digital environments where misogyny is both expressed and socially reinforced.Violence rarely begins with physical harm alone. It is often preceded by normalization through public discourse that makes hostility toward women appear socially acceptable before it escalates into direct violence.
Hate speech does not merely reflect social attitudes; it can also reinforce misogyny and contribute to environments in which aggression against women becomes more tolerated. Research by international organizations, including UN Women and the Council of Europe, has repeatedly highlighted the relationship between misogynistic discourse, discrimination, and gender-based violence. Femicide represents the most extreme outcome of these dynamics. It is not a standalone act, but the endpoint of violence that may begin with coercion, harassment, intimidation, and abuse.
Despite decades of progress in gender equality, the killing of women because they are women is still not consistently acknowledged across Europe for what it is. According to UN Women, approximately 50,000 women and girls are killed each year by intimate partners or family members – around 137 per day. In total, 60% of all intentional killings of women occur in these contexts.
The concept itself is not new. John Corry first used the term “femicide” in 1801 to describe the killing of a woman, and it later appeared in Wharton’s Law Lexicon in 1848. Its contemporary meaning, however, was shaped by second-wave feminism, which reframed violence against women as a systemic issue rather than a series of isolated incidents.
What Is Femicide? Beyond Homicide
Femicide refers not only to the act of killing a woman, but also to a framework for understanding how gendered power relations shape lethal violence. Unlike homicide – a neutral legal category – femicide captures the role of misogyny, control, and gendered norms in motivating these killings.
The term is important because it highlights patterns that are often hidden by gender-neutral legal language. Many killings of women are preceded by psychological abuse, coercive control, threats, stalking, or domestic violence. Identifying femicide therefore shifts attention from isolated incidents toward failures in prevention and protection. Within this dynamic, misogynistic memes, harassment, and anti-feminist rhetoric are not trivial. They shape perceptions about women’s value and legitimacy, reinforce tolerance for aggression, and contribute to environments where warning signs are more easily ignored.
Understanding this connection matters because femicide is rarely sudden or unpredictable. In many cases, it reflects escalating violence that institutions failed to identify or address in time.
European Context
These dynamics are clearly reflected across Europe.
According to EuroNews, an estimated four women per million are killed by intimate partners or family members – nearly double the rate for men in similar contexts. Latvia and Lithuania report some of the highest rates, followed by countries such as Austria, Greece, Spain, and the Netherlands. However, these variations reflect not only differences in prevalence, but also inconsistencies in how such killings are defined and recorded. In many European states, femicide is not recognized as a distinct legal category and is instead classified under the neutral term “homicide.”
This creates a significant disconnect. While Europe presents itself as a global leader in human rights and gender equality, gender-based killings are often statistically and legally neutralized. As a result, patterns become harder to identify and prevention failures remain less visible. Cross-European evidence further supports this concern. A large-scale investigation by the European Data Journalism Network found that femicides are frequently preceded by physical, psychological, and economic abuse, while major inconsistencies in data collection continue to obscure the scale of the problem across Europe.
At the institutional level, the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention already recognizes violence against women as a structural form of gender-based violence requiring prevention, protection, and coordinated policy responses. Yet despite broader European commitments, many states still lack consistent monitoring systems or specific legal recognition of femicide.
Albania Case Study
Albania provides a clear example of why naming femicide matters.
Recent data from UN Women Albania shows that many women killed in contexts of domestic violence had previously experienced psychological violence, physical abuse, or coercive control. This indicates that femicide is rarely an isolated event, but often the final stage of escalating violence.
In recent years, dozens of women in Albania have been killed in contexts of domestic and gender-based violence. Yet where femicide is not explicitly recognized, such cases are frequently treated as separate incidents rather than indicators of broader failures in protection and prevention systems.
According to the Ombudsman’s Femicide Observatory, 37 women and girls were killed in Albania in the last four years, of which 27 cases were classified as femicide. In 2024 alone, most examined cases involved prior experiences of domestic violence, and several victims had previously reported abuse to the police, although none were under active protection measures at the time of the killings. This highlights a critical issue: naming femicide is directly linked to prevention. Without clear recognition, institutions struggle to identify recurring risk factors, improve intervention systems, and develop effective prevention strategies.
Legal and Structural Dimensions
Addressing violence against women requires more than statistical recognition. Legal frameworks, law enforcement responses, and public institutions must reflect the gendered nature of this violence.
While data provides an important overview, it cannot fully capture lived realities or institutional shortcomings. Failures in prevention are often reinforced by social environments in which violence against women is minimized, excused, or dismissed. Reluctance to recognize femicide is therefore not only a legal issue, but also a reflection of persistent societal reluctance to confront misogyny and gender inequality. Naming femicide changes the frame. Violence is no longer viewed simply as an individual tragedy, but as a preventable outcome connected to gaps in protection systems, social tolerance of abuse, and institutional inaction.
This is precisely why recognition remains politically and institutionally sensitive across many contexts.
Gendered Hate Speech and Misogyny
Legal recognition alone is insufficient without addressing the environments that enable violence.
Gendered hate speech – both online and offline – reinforces victim-blaming, normalizes aggression, and reproduces inequality. These expressions are not isolated; they function as cultural signals that shape how women are perceived and treated. Research increasingly suggests that environments characterized by widespread misogynistic discourse are more likely to experience intensified forms of gender-based hostility and harassment. Social media platforms can further amplify these narratives through visibility algorithms, while weak institutional responses may reinforce these dynamics through institutional inaction.
Recognizing femicide therefore also means recognizing the broader social climate in which violence develops. It signals that these killings are not private tragedies, but preventable outcomes connected to discrimination, tolerance of abuse, and institutional failures.
Barriers to Recognizing Femicide
Why does Europe still struggle to recognize femicide? Several factors intersect.
- Legal and political resistance: Some policymakers argue that “murder is murder,” presenting gender- specific recognition as unnecessary or ideological.
- Institutional limitations: Fragmented reporting systems and inconsistent definitions make it difficult to identify patterns across countries.
- Entrenched gender norms: Persistent social attitudes surrounding domestic privacy, victim-blaming, and gender roles continue to minimize violence against women.
- Resource gaps: Even where recognition exists, prevention systems and support services are often underfunded or poorly coordinated.
These factors reinforce one another, making meaningful recognition more difficult.
Europe has made important progress in addressing violence against women. However, the continued difficulty in recognizing femicide reveals the persistence of institutional and cultural resistance across Europe.
Naming femicide is more than a linguistic or symbolic act. It is a necessary step toward understanding how misogyny, coercion, abuse, and institutional failures are connected.
Without this recognition, violence remains fragmented in data, policy, and public understanding. Ultimately, failing to recognize femicide means failing to fully understand – and therefore effectively prevent – the violence women continue to face.
