Violence against women in politics (VAWIP) is a widespread phenomenon that deters women from fully engaging with political activities, particularly from running for office. Not only office seekers but also a broader range of women actors, such as journalists, human rights defenders, and civil servants, experience sexual harassment and assault perpetrated by political actors (Krook Reference Krook2020). While much of the literature on violence against women in politics focuses on the incidence of such violence and policy solutions, this article broadens the analytical scope to theorize how institutional responses to redress harms may not resolve but instead exacerbate violence through further layers of victimization.
I propose that, in addition to initial experiences of violence, targets of VAWIP may confront two further types of violence as they try to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts — a process that I call “triadic victimization.” Secondary victimization occurs when those who report sexual harassment encounter adversarial treatment that can be as, if not more, traumatic than the initial incident. Once cases become public, victims can be subjected to a third layer of harm: large-scale online harassment characterized by blaming and demeaning rhetoric. This third form of victimization is typically perpetrated by numerous anonymous users with chilling effects, discouraging other women observing this treatment from coming forward as victims or expressing their political opinions more broadly.
Drawing on field research in Japan, this article argues that the triadic process of victimization — encompassing violence, injustice, and the punishment of women — must be analyzed in an integrated manner.Footnote
1 Across these three dimensions, violence not only harms individual victims but also undermines democratic processes by constraining women’s freedom of expression and political participation across a wide range of political roles. The persistence of institutional arrangements that allow toxically masculinized political actors to remain in power thus requires urgent redress in order to prevent the erosion of fair and inclusive democratic processes.
The Triadic Victimization Process
Violence against women in politics refers to acts that target women because of their gender; take gendered forms, such as sexist threats and sexual violence; and undermine women’s political participation by discouraging their engagement (National Democratic Institute 2017, 12). Yet it is helpful to distinguish between motives, forms, and impacts of such violence (Bardall et al. Reference Bardall, Bjarnegård and Piscopo2020). For example, sexual violence perpetrated by political actors is not always driven by explicit political motives, such as disrupting women’s participation or damaging political rivals. Reported cases in Japan illustrate how high-ranking political officials may abuse their authority for sexual gain, even when such acts are not overtly political in intent. Nevertheless, regardless of perpetrator’s motives, gendered forms of violence perpetrated by political actors produce gendered political effects. They can deter women’s political participation by reinforcing the message that women in politics are likely to face — and expected to endure — gendered forms of harassment and violence.
The framework developed in this article is based on reported — and often litigated — cases of sexual violence, both psychological and physical, perpetrated by political actors in Japan, including members of parliament, mayors, political staffers, local councilors, and senior civil servants. The victims in these cases include women journalists, local councilors, office-seekers, human rights defenders, and junior civil servants. Although the empirical cases examined involve only women victims, the gendered framework can also be applied to LGBTQ political actors.
The first dimension of victimization takes the form of interpersonal offenses perpetrated by identifiable individuals. In cases of sexual harassment, those in positions of political authority may abuse their power by seeking sexual gratification as an extension of their perceived entitlement. In Japan, where cultivating personal relationships with male political elites in informal settings — such as bars or other private spaces — is frequently treated as a routine aspect of accessing information, women journalists are often targeted. Women local councilors and candidates likewise face unwanted sexual advances and, in some cases, even sexual assault, reflecting their vulnerable positions both as political actors seeking office and as women.
The second dimension of victimization involves institutional failures in redressing violence. Although formal reporting systems that address harassment are set up in most organizations in Japan, actual implementation processes remain obscure and sometimes arbitrary. Victims’ claims are often dismissed; they may be blamed for provoking the abuse; and the severity of the harm they suffered may be minimized. Victims frequently comment that the secondary victimization they experience after filing a complaint is even more traumatic than the initial harm. Because secondary victimization is a key mechanism through which victims are silenced — and through which existing power structures are reinforced — I argue that it should be analyzed as an integral part of the broader phenomenon of violence, rather than as a subsidiary issue.
Perpetrators of abuse, by definition, occupy positions of authority within political organizations, such as politicians’ offices, parties, and governments. In a hierarchical power structure, those tasked with addressing harassment and bullying are incentivized to prioritize the protection of perpetrators over their sanctioning. This pattern of impunity shields wrongdoing and thus facilitates the continued misuse of positional power. Victims who are already in vulnerable positions within organizations are often further isolated during remedial procedures.
Moreover, victims’ accounts in their complaints are not always heard or recognized in the manner they wish. The concept of “epistemic injustice,” first articulated by Miranda Fricker (Reference Fricker2007), highlights the dynamism of silencing, ignorance, and false belief, and thus provides a useful framework for understanding this dimension of secondary victimization. Epistemic injustice takes two forms. “Testimonial injustice” arises when the credibility of a speaker’s account is dismissed due to prejudice. “Hermeneutical injustice” occurs when gaps in “collective interpretive resources” place individuals at an unfair disadvantage in comprehending their social experiences. Fricker illustrates testimonial injustice through cases in which, for example, “the police do not believe you because you are black” (2007, 1). Sexual harassment, in contexts where the concept has not yet been socially or institutionally recognized, exemplifies hermeneutical injustice: victims lack the shared language or frameworks necessary to articulate and validate their experiences.
The third dimension of victimization is shaped by the political economy of attention in social media environments. Unlike the first dimension, in which perpetrators are typically identifiable individuals, this form of victimization is characterized by diffuse and multiple actors who are usually anonymous. Such dynamics generate a form of political spectacle that disciplines and punishes women who deviate from patriarchal norms. Women who come forward to allege sexual violence, as well as those who publicly advocate for women’s rights and feminism, are particularly likely to become targets of such attacks.
This pattern of hostility can be understood through the concept of misogyny developed by Kate Manne (Reference Manne2017). Distinct from sexism, which encompasses prejudicial beliefs, stereotypes, and the sexual objectification of women, misogyny operates as the enforcement mechanism of a patriarchal order, punishing women who fail to conform to prescribed roles and expectations. As such, misogyny selectively targets women who challenge male hegemony. Victims therefore include feminist activists, journalists, human rights defenders, and elected officials.
Social media environments are especially susceptible to the circulation of misogynistic narratives. The so-called “manosphere” — a collection of online spaces where toxic masculinities are extensively manifested and thus promoted — has developed as a site for the production and dissemination of antifeminist discourse. Influential actors frequently initiate coordinated campaigns of online harassment. Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner (Reference Banet-Weiser and Miltner2016) conceptualize this phenomenon as “networked misogyny,” through which toxic influencers orchestrate cyber mobbing against targets. These dynamics are further driven by the political economy of digital platforms. Initiators of coordinated offenses often derive financial benefits by increasing engagement metrics, such as clicks, views, shares, or time spent. Networked and monetized misogyny thus aligns closely with the logic of the attention economy, in which visibility is converted into financial gain.
In this third dimension of victimization, the motivations underlying online violence against women might not necessarily appear political. Targets are any individuals who gain visibility through the promotion of feminist discourses. Formal political actors might be absent from these dynamics either as perpetrators or as victims. Nevertheless, it should be noted that misogyny constitutes a political practice, as it functions to reproduce patriarchal order regardless of the perpetrators’ relations with political parties. At the same time, misogynistic discourses also exhibit strong affinity with far-right populist ideologies, thereby creating a fertile ground for such political forces to gain recognition in the manosphere.
Influential online actors increasingly transcend the boundary between formal and informal politics, moving between electoral arenas and digital platforms. This fluidity is facilitated by a shared reliance on metric-driven logics, whereby visibility and engagement function as key sources of power in both domains. In Japan, this convergence is evident in the case of Himasora Akane, a pseudonymous influencer associated with coordinated attacks against feminist activists, who subsequently ran in the Tokyo gubernatorial election, albeit unsuccessfully. More broadly, some local councilors have also been noted for engaging in harassment and other forms of offensive behavior online and offline toward feminist and racial minorities.
In recent years, electoral campaigns have increasingly become sites in which harmful content, including sexism and racism, circulates due to legal loopholes in campaign regulation, often justified in the name of freedom of speech. Those skilled at attracting digital attention find elections as another arena to test and expand their influence. The practices of maximizing engagement on social media penetrate electoral campaigns, risking crowding out traditional vote-mobilizing strategies. The current ecosystem of elections thus poses a challenge to the democratic principle of free, fair, and safe elections for all voters, including those from vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Toward Effective Institutional Reform and Cultural Change
The triadic victimization process exerts multidimensional effects on democracy. It generates a chilling effect that deters women from speaking out, thereby narrowing the range of perspectives discussed in public spaces. It also constrains women from entering and staying in politics, which diminishes the quality of representative democracy by reinforcing the overrepresentation of men. Moreover, the sexual violence that women journalists frequently encounter erodes the public’s right to know, thereby undermining a fundamental foundation of democracy.
Addressing these effects requires a comprehensive set of countermeasures operating across institutional and cultural domains. A crucial legal deficiency in Japan lies in the absence of anti-harassment and anti–hate speech legislation capable of addressing abusive practices, which aggravates the three forms of victimization. The development of robust legal frameworks is, therefore, fundamental. Furthermore, the sanctioning of elected officials who fall outside conventional labor regulations presents specific challenges, as only legislative bodies themselves can determine appropriate disciplinary measures. However, perpetrators are often shielded by internal networks of protection, making it difficult to ensure meaningful accountability.
This leads to variations in the degree to which perpetrators are held to account. The former governor of Fukui Prefecture was forced to resign after an independent investigative committee revealed that he had made inappropriate and sexist comments toward female subordinates over nearly twenty years. In contrast, two local assemblies, Nanjo City (Okinawa) and Wakamiya City (Fukuoka), repeatedly voted down motions of no-confidence even after investigative committees formally recognized the misconduct of the mayors of each city. Establishing independent investigative bodies and strengthening their mandates are essential for ensuring accountability. At the same time, public pressure on perpetrators and legislators is also critical.
Cultural and epistemic interventions are vital for addressing secondary and tertiary forms of victimization. The mere establishment of formal complaint and grievance procedures, or the strengthening of anti-harassment legislation, is often insufficient for providing adequate remedies for victims. Such institutional responses often fail to recognize epistemic injustice, thereby inadvertently reproducing the conditions for secondary victimization.
Since structural prejudice against women and minorities gives rise to epistemic injustice, the acknowledgment of intersectional forms of prejudice and discrimination must also be placed at the forefront of both procedural design and implementation, as well as in the training of professionals involved in complaint handling and investigative processes. Thus far, gender- and intersectionality-sensitive training in the judiciary has been unheard of in Japan. While the government promotes and provides “unconscious bias” training for teachers and corporate managers to eliminate gender stereotypes, more specific training focusing on sexual harassment and violence needs to be implemented.
Academic knowledge can play a critical role in expanding collective interpretive resources, particularly for marginalized groups whose experiences have historically been misunderstood or dismissed. Institutional support for the systematic documentation and accumulation of victims’ experiences is therefore essential. Such efforts can contribute to the development of more responsive and context-sensitive policy frameworks that more effectively address both primary and secondary forms of victimization.
In the digital sphere, where the third form of victimization typically occurs, stricter regulation of harmful content and enhanced platform accountability are urgently needed to counter the amplification and monetization of misogyny. The attention economy, intensified by digital environments, operates through metric-driven logics that increasingly align with strategies of electoral vote mobilization. This convergence of the two domains risks eroding the deliberative quality of democracy, as it privileges visibility and engagement over reasoned debate, thereby undermining the principles of equal and free participation among citizens. It is thus urgent to develop effective regulations for tackling the evolving dynamics of digitally mediated abuse and information distortion.
These various countermeasures should be implemented in a comprehensive manner to effectively address the triadic process of victimization in VAWIP, affecting women in all political roles. Women seeking or holding public office are particularly vulnerable because coming forward could jeopardize their professional careers, while those outside of formal political institutions may be able to rely on their organizations for legal and moral support. In either case, holding political actors accountable for wrongdoing is crucial not only because it remedies the suffering of the actual victims. It can also help create a safer and fairer environment for women to engage fully and equally in all aspects of democratic politics.
You have
Access
Violence against women in politics (VAWIP) is a widespread phenomenon that deters women from fully engaging with political activities, particularly from running for office. Not only office seekers but also a broader range of women actors, such as journalists, human rights defenders, and civil servants, experience sexual harassment and assault perpetrated by political actors (Krook Reference Krook2020). While much of the literature on violence against women in politics focuses on the incidence of such violence and policy solutions, this article broadens the analytical scope to theorize how institutional responses to redress harms may not resolve but instead exacerbate violence through further layers of victimization.
I propose that, in addition to initial experiences of violence, targets of VAWIP may confront two further types of violence as they try to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts — a process that I call “triadic victimization.” Secondary victimization occurs when those who report sexual harassment encounter adversarial treatment that can be as, if not more, traumatic than the initial incident. Once cases become public, victims can be subjected to a third layer of harm: large-scale online harassment characterized by blaming and demeaning rhetoric. This third form of victimization is typically perpetrated by numerous anonymous users with chilling effects, discouraging other women observing this treatment from coming forward as victims or expressing their political opinions more broadly.
Drawing on field research in Japan, this article argues that the triadic process of victimization — encompassing violence, injustice, and the punishment of women — must be analyzed in an integrated manner.Footnote 1 Across these three dimensions, violence not only harms individual victims but also undermines democratic processes by constraining women’s freedom of expression and political participation across a wide range of political roles. The persistence of institutional arrangements that allow toxically masculinized political actors to remain in power thus requires urgent redress in order to prevent the erosion of fair and inclusive democratic processes.
The Triadic Victimization Process
Violence against women in politics refers to acts that target women because of their gender; take gendered forms, such as sexist threats and sexual violence; and undermine women’s political participation by discouraging their engagement (National Democratic Institute 2017, 12). Yet it is helpful to distinguish between motives, forms, and impacts of such violence (Bardall et al. Reference Bardall, Bjarnegård and Piscopo2020). For example, sexual violence perpetrated by political actors is not always driven by explicit political motives, such as disrupting women’s participation or damaging political rivals. Reported cases in Japan illustrate how high-ranking political officials may abuse their authority for sexual gain, even when such acts are not overtly political in intent. Nevertheless, regardless of perpetrator’s motives, gendered forms of violence perpetrated by political actors produce gendered political effects. They can deter women’s political participation by reinforcing the message that women in politics are likely to face — and expected to endure — gendered forms of harassment and violence.
The framework developed in this article is based on reported — and often litigated — cases of sexual violence, both psychological and physical, perpetrated by political actors in Japan, including members of parliament, mayors, political staffers, local councilors, and senior civil servants. The victims in these cases include women journalists, local councilors, office-seekers, human rights defenders, and junior civil servants. Although the empirical cases examined involve only women victims, the gendered framework can also be applied to LGBTQ political actors.
The first dimension of victimization takes the form of interpersonal offenses perpetrated by identifiable individuals. In cases of sexual harassment, those in positions of political authority may abuse their power by seeking sexual gratification as an extension of their perceived entitlement. In Japan, where cultivating personal relationships with male political elites in informal settings — such as bars or other private spaces — is frequently treated as a routine aspect of accessing information, women journalists are often targeted. Women local councilors and candidates likewise face unwanted sexual advances and, in some cases, even sexual assault, reflecting their vulnerable positions both as political actors seeking office and as women.
The second dimension of victimization involves institutional failures in redressing violence. Although formal reporting systems that address harassment are set up in most organizations in Japan, actual implementation processes remain obscure and sometimes arbitrary. Victims’ claims are often dismissed; they may be blamed for provoking the abuse; and the severity of the harm they suffered may be minimized. Victims frequently comment that the secondary victimization they experience after filing a complaint is even more traumatic than the initial harm. Because secondary victimization is a key mechanism through which victims are silenced — and through which existing power structures are reinforced — I argue that it should be analyzed as an integral part of the broader phenomenon of violence, rather than as a subsidiary issue.
Perpetrators of abuse, by definition, occupy positions of authority within political organizations, such as politicians’ offices, parties, and governments. In a hierarchical power structure, those tasked with addressing harassment and bullying are incentivized to prioritize the protection of perpetrators over their sanctioning. This pattern of impunity shields wrongdoing and thus facilitates the continued misuse of positional power. Victims who are already in vulnerable positions within organizations are often further isolated during remedial procedures.
Moreover, victims’ accounts in their complaints are not always heard or recognized in the manner they wish. The concept of “epistemic injustice,” first articulated by Miranda Fricker (Reference Fricker2007), highlights the dynamism of silencing, ignorance, and false belief, and thus provides a useful framework for understanding this dimension of secondary victimization. Epistemic injustice takes two forms. “Testimonial injustice” arises when the credibility of a speaker’s account is dismissed due to prejudice. “Hermeneutical injustice” occurs when gaps in “collective interpretive resources” place individuals at an unfair disadvantage in comprehending their social experiences. Fricker illustrates testimonial injustice through cases in which, for example, “the police do not believe you because you are black” (2007, 1). Sexual harassment, in contexts where the concept has not yet been socially or institutionally recognized, exemplifies hermeneutical injustice: victims lack the shared language or frameworks necessary to articulate and validate their experiences.
The third dimension of victimization is shaped by the political economy of attention in social media environments. Unlike the first dimension, in which perpetrators are typically identifiable individuals, this form of victimization is characterized by diffuse and multiple actors who are usually anonymous. Such dynamics generate a form of political spectacle that disciplines and punishes women who deviate from patriarchal norms. Women who come forward to allege sexual violence, as well as those who publicly advocate for women’s rights and feminism, are particularly likely to become targets of such attacks.
This pattern of hostility can be understood through the concept of misogyny developed by Kate Manne (Reference Manne2017). Distinct from sexism, which encompasses prejudicial beliefs, stereotypes, and the sexual objectification of women, misogyny operates as the enforcement mechanism of a patriarchal order, punishing women who fail to conform to prescribed roles and expectations. As such, misogyny selectively targets women who challenge male hegemony. Victims therefore include feminist activists, journalists, human rights defenders, and elected officials.
Social media environments are especially susceptible to the circulation of misogynistic narratives. The so-called “manosphere” — a collection of online spaces where toxic masculinities are extensively manifested and thus promoted — has developed as a site for the production and dissemination of antifeminist discourse. Influential actors frequently initiate coordinated campaigns of online harassment. Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner (Reference Banet-Weiser and Miltner2016) conceptualize this phenomenon as “networked misogyny,” through which toxic influencers orchestrate cyber mobbing against targets. These dynamics are further driven by the political economy of digital platforms. Initiators of coordinated offenses often derive financial benefits by increasing engagement metrics, such as clicks, views, shares, or time spent. Networked and monetized misogyny thus aligns closely with the logic of the attention economy, in which visibility is converted into financial gain.
In this third dimension of victimization, the motivations underlying online violence against women might not necessarily appear political. Targets are any individuals who gain visibility through the promotion of feminist discourses. Formal political actors might be absent from these dynamics either as perpetrators or as victims. Nevertheless, it should be noted that misogyny constitutes a political practice, as it functions to reproduce patriarchal order regardless of the perpetrators’ relations with political parties. At the same time, misogynistic discourses also exhibit strong affinity with far-right populist ideologies, thereby creating a fertile ground for such political forces to gain recognition in the manosphere.
Influential online actors increasingly transcend the boundary between formal and informal politics, moving between electoral arenas and digital platforms. This fluidity is facilitated by a shared reliance on metric-driven logics, whereby visibility and engagement function as key sources of power in both domains. In Japan, this convergence is evident in the case of Himasora Akane, a pseudonymous influencer associated with coordinated attacks against feminist activists, who subsequently ran in the Tokyo gubernatorial election, albeit unsuccessfully. More broadly, some local councilors have also been noted for engaging in harassment and other forms of offensive behavior online and offline toward feminist and racial minorities.
In recent years, electoral campaigns have increasingly become sites in which harmful content, including sexism and racism, circulates due to legal loopholes in campaign regulation, often justified in the name of freedom of speech. Those skilled at attracting digital attention find elections as another arena to test and expand their influence. The practices of maximizing engagement on social media penetrate electoral campaigns, risking crowding out traditional vote-mobilizing strategies. The current ecosystem of elections thus poses a challenge to the democratic principle of free, fair, and safe elections for all voters, including those from vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Toward Effective Institutional Reform and Cultural Change
The triadic victimization process exerts multidimensional effects on democracy. It generates a chilling effect that deters women from speaking out, thereby narrowing the range of perspectives discussed in public spaces. It also constrains women from entering and staying in politics, which diminishes the quality of representative democracy by reinforcing the overrepresentation of men. Moreover, the sexual violence that women journalists frequently encounter erodes the public’s right to know, thereby undermining a fundamental foundation of democracy.
Addressing these effects requires a comprehensive set of countermeasures operating across institutional and cultural domains. A crucial legal deficiency in Japan lies in the absence of anti-harassment and anti–hate speech legislation capable of addressing abusive practices, which aggravates the three forms of victimization. The development of robust legal frameworks is, therefore, fundamental. Furthermore, the sanctioning of elected officials who fall outside conventional labor regulations presents specific challenges, as only legislative bodies themselves can determine appropriate disciplinary measures. However, perpetrators are often shielded by internal networks of protection, making it difficult to ensure meaningful accountability.
This leads to variations in the degree to which perpetrators are held to account. The former governor of Fukui Prefecture was forced to resign after an independent investigative committee revealed that he had made inappropriate and sexist comments toward female subordinates over nearly twenty years. In contrast, two local assemblies, Nanjo City (Okinawa) and Wakamiya City (Fukuoka), repeatedly voted down motions of no-confidence even after investigative committees formally recognized the misconduct of the mayors of each city. Establishing independent investigative bodies and strengthening their mandates are essential for ensuring accountability. At the same time, public pressure on perpetrators and legislators is also critical.
Cultural and epistemic interventions are vital for addressing secondary and tertiary forms of victimization. The mere establishment of formal complaint and grievance procedures, or the strengthening of anti-harassment legislation, is often insufficient for providing adequate remedies for victims. Such institutional responses often fail to recognize epistemic injustice, thereby inadvertently reproducing the conditions for secondary victimization.
Since structural prejudice against women and minorities gives rise to epistemic injustice, the acknowledgment of intersectional forms of prejudice and discrimination must also be placed at the forefront of both procedural design and implementation, as well as in the training of professionals involved in complaint handling and investigative processes. Thus far, gender- and intersectionality-sensitive training in the judiciary has been unheard of in Japan. While the government promotes and provides “unconscious bias” training for teachers and corporate managers to eliminate gender stereotypes, more specific training focusing on sexual harassment and violence needs to be implemented.
Academic knowledge can play a critical role in expanding collective interpretive resources, particularly for marginalized groups whose experiences have historically been misunderstood or dismissed. Institutional support for the systematic documentation and accumulation of victims’ experiences is therefore essential. Such efforts can contribute to the development of more responsive and context-sensitive policy frameworks that more effectively address both primary and secondary forms of victimization.
In the digital sphere, where the third form of victimization typically occurs, stricter regulation of harmful content and enhanced platform accountability are urgently needed to counter the amplification and monetization of misogyny. The attention economy, intensified by digital environments, operates through metric-driven logics that increasingly align with strategies of electoral vote mobilization. This convergence of the two domains risks eroding the deliberative quality of democracy, as it privileges visibility and engagement over reasoned debate, thereby undermining the principles of equal and free participation among citizens. It is thus urgent to develop effective regulations for tackling the evolving dynamics of digitally mediated abuse and information distortion.
These various countermeasures should be implemented in a comprehensive manner to effectively address the triadic process of victimization in VAWIP, affecting women in all political roles. Women seeking or holding public office are particularly vulnerable because coming forward could jeopardize their professional careers, while those outside of formal political institutions may be able to rely on their organizations for legal and moral support. In either case, holding political actors accountable for wrongdoing is crucial not only because it remedies the suffering of the actual victims. It can also help create a safer and fairer environment for women to engage fully and equally in all aspects of democratic politics.