Summary of Online Tactics and Narratives Targeting Women Candidates
Table 7 consolidates all identified tactics and narratives used against women candidates across federal
Iraq and the KRI. Each row summarizes one tactic, its underlying logic, and the corresponding examples
and figures, enabling identification of how distinct cases reflect a common pattern while keeping
individual examples numbered and easily traceable.
No.
Tactic (short label)
Core narrative / how it works
Examples
Figures
Case 1: Clipped TikTok live labelled
“she sold her honour”;
Case 2: Swimming‑pool video of Noor
Riyadh used to question her morals
Case 3: Manipulated clip of Rawaa
Al‑Fehdawi merged with unrelated
audio: “even nightclub girls are running
in the elections”.
Case 4: Video + audio alleging powerful
businessman will waive service fees for
those who vote for candidate Kawe (no
evidence).
Case 5: Post implying relationship with
PUK influencer using sexualized
symbolism
Fig. 4a, 4B
,5,6
Case 6: Sayyed Rashid Al‑Husseini
videos naming nine women;
Case 7: pages listing “hostile”
candidates to Jaafari law
Fig. 8-9
Case 8: Post describing feminist
candidates as externally funded
“infiltration” across lists
Fig. 10
Case 9: Taqaddum women compared
to beauty salon;
Case 10: candidate called “silicone
bitch” with comments like “whore”,
“cheap woman”;
Case 11: campaign stage video where
women are sexualized and insulted
Case 12: Mocking Taqaddum women as
“bloggers” or influencers rather than
real political candidates, using sarcastic
text/emojis
Case 13: “Most beautiful candidate”
captions;
Case 14: “Truth speakers of PUK with
filters” post comparing filtered vs
unfiltered photos, implying visual and
political deception.
Case 15: “apple vs owl” comparison;
Fig. 11, 13,
14, 15
1
Content Recycling
Candidates described as having “sold
their honour” or lacking morals; old
or neutral footage is reframed to
question their chastity and
community acceptance, triggering
moral outrage and harassment.
2
Manipulating content
3
Amplification and
Posts imply sexual relations between
a woman candidate and a male
influencer, using suggestive language
and unrelated imagery to frame her
as morally compromised and
politically dependent.
Religious or political actors publish
lists of women candidates as
“hostile” to religion or family law,
urging voters not to support them
and portraying feminist positions as
dangerous.
Feminism and women’s organizations
are portrayed as a foreign‑backed
plot infiltrating parliament; male
candidates are framed as a necessary
“defensive barrier” against this
threat.
Women candidates reduced to their
bodies, cosmetic procedures, and
“plasticity”; vulgar insults and emojis
frame them as artificial, immoral, or
“for sale”, encouraging mass mockery
in comments.
coordination
4
Framing gender
ideology as a threat
5
Body‑shaming &
sexualized
degradation
6
Misogynistic abuse
32
Posts rank women by beauty, filters,
age or emojis, suggesting that
attractiveness determines political
worth, while older or less “attractive”
women are mocked.
Fig. 7
Fig. 12, 13,
16, 17, 18,
19