Protectors or perpetrators? The paradox of male guardianship and gender-based violence in Libya: A multi-method qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender-based violence (GBV) remains a pervasive public health issue and human rights violation, deeply entrenched in patriarchal norms and legal frameworks. In Libya, systems and institutions regulate women's autonomy, reinforcing structural barriers that limit access to protection and justice. This study explores how sociocultural and structural factors shape women's vulnerability to GBV within the Libyan context. Using a multi-methods qualitative approach, we conducted 16 in-depth interviews, nine focus group discussions with 54 women, and 11 key informant interviews with GBV service providers and policymakers across Tripoli, Benghazi, and Sabha. Our thematic analysis revealed that Libyan women face multiple intersecting vulnerabilities, including economic dependence, restricted mobility, and legal ambiguities that sustain GBV. Many women rely on male guardians for protection, yet this dependency often facilitates cycles of control and violence. While some women have begun to challenge traditional gender roles through financial independence and social activism, systemic barriers continue to constrain their agency. Findings highlight the urgent need for legislative reforms criminalizing GBV, expanded survivor-centered support services, and awareness and education campaigns to challenge deeply embedded gender norms. Policy interventions should address the lack of legal protections, promote alternative support structures, and engage men as allies in GBV prevention. A holistic approach integrating legal, social, and economic reforms is essential to dismantle structural inequalities and ensure women's safety, rights, and autonomy in Libya. • Gender-based violence in Libya is shaped by structural and sociocultural factors. • Male guardianship functions as a both protective and controlling mechanism. • Women face barriers to autonomy due to legal, economic, and social constraints. • Emerging narratives of resistance reveal shifts in gender norms and empowerment. • Policy reforms and institutional support are needed to address gender-based violence in Libya.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".