6. Existing efforts
6. Existing efforts
Women-led and feminist CSOs are at the forefront of
efforts to address GBVO in Syria, particularly in the
absence of consistent institutional pathways that survivors perceive as safe, confidential, and effective. Their
efforts span prevention, survivor support, and evidencebuilding, and are often delivered through a mix of
online engagement and community-based approaches.
Examples include:
– Online support groups like ( ةرذح ينوكBe careful) and
تنإ
ِ ( اهدقYou can handle it) including invitations to
educational webinars and resources.
– Physical storytelling and psychosocial support sessions
by (Mobaderoon).
– Research studies and reports by SecDev and the
Syrian Feminist Lobby.
– Online initiatives like Salamatech and Peace Circuit.
– Awareness raising videos and reels by Mobaderoon,
the Syrian Female Journalists Network and the Syrian
Feminist Lobby.
Exploratory scans and primary data collection reveal that
the broader civil society sector faces reputational challenges among segments of the Syrian public, often being
accused of financial opportunism. These perceptions are
particularly acute for women-led and feminist organizations, which are sometimes accused of being “homewreckers.” While initiatives to counter such reputational
issues, such as those addressing anti-feminist backlash
in the MENA region, do exist, negative public perceptions
continue to undermine their credibility and weaken the
effectiveness of their GBVO interventions. Such backlash
is not merely rhetorical; it functions as a barrier to prevent and response by undermining credibility, discouraging survivor disclosure, and limiting the ability of CSOs
to mobilize broad-based support for addressing GBVO.
In practice, reputational pressure can shrink civic space
further, pushing organizations toward defensive communication and reducing the reach of advocacy that depends
on public trust and community solidarity.
At the policy level, there are early indications of official
attention to online harm. In December 2025, the Minister
of Information publicly referenced efforts to establish
a professional code of conduct for the media sector
intended to regulate practice and address harmful content
and disputes within the media environment (SANA, 2025).
However, available evidence suggests that these steps
remain concentrated within the media portfolio and are
not yet reflected in coordinated measures with the justice
sector to ensure accessible remedies and accountability
for perpetrators of GBVO, particularly in cases involving
threats, extortion, or image-based abuse.
Similarly, the 2025 Constitutional Declaration includes
explicit language on women’s rights and protection, stating
in Article 21 that the State shall “guarantee the social, economic and political rights of women, and protect them from
all forms of oppression, injustice and violence” (Constitution.
net, 2025). Nevertheless, constitutional recognition does not
automatically translate into protection in practice. Without
executive regulations, implementation mechanisms, and
survivor-centered procedures that make reporting safe and
remedies realistic, these provisions remain largely declarative, particularly in a context where survivors’ primary barriers include fear of escalation, reputational consequences,
and limited confidence in institutional response.
Overall, existing efforts demonstrate a growing ecosystem of women-led prevention, support, and documentation initiatives, alongside emerging policy signals. Yet the
effectiveness and reach of these efforts continue to be
constrained by anti-feminist backlash, reputational attacks,
and gaps in coordinated legal and institutional response,
reinforcing the need for stronger referral pathways, dutyof-care standards within media institutions, and survivorcentered support options that are trusted, discreet, and
practically accessible.
47