Breaking down the question
The question asks specifically for the structural factors behind violence against women — not the psychology of individual offenders, but the arrangements of society that generate and sustain such violence. The word structural directs you toward institutions, norms and power relations rather than isolated incidents or pathological personalities.
A strong answer defines violence against women broadly, invokes the concept of structural violence, and then identifies the deep-rooted social factors — patriarchy, gender socialisation, economic dependence, the caste and class order, and the commodification of women — that make such violence systematic. The sociological point is that this violence is produced by structures, not merely committed by individuals.
How to approach it
Begin by defining violence against women and distinguishing direct from structural violence, using Johan Galtung. Establish patriarchy, following Sylvia Walby, as the overarching structure, then unpack its several sites — family, economy, culture and the state.
Bring in the Indian specificity through Uma Chakravarti's idea of brahmanical patriarchy, which links gender control to caste and endogamy. Treat each structural factor analytically rather than as a list, and close by noting that structural change, not merely legal punishment, is the sociological remedy. See the note on violence against women.
Model answer
Violence against women — physical, sexual, psychological and economic harm directed at women because they are women — spans domestic violence, dowry deaths, sexual assault, trafficking and female foeticide. Sociologically, its persistence cannot be explained by individual deviance alone; it is rooted in the structure of society. Following Johan Galtung's distinction, alongside direct violence stands structural violence — harm built into the very arrangement of institutions and unequal power.
Patriarchy as the master structure. The fundamental factor is patriarchy — a system of male dominance that Sylvia Walby locates across several interlocking structures: the household, paid work, the state, culture, sexuality and male violence itself. Violence is not incidental to patriarchy but one of its enforcement mechanisms, disciplining women who transgress prescribed roles and reproducing male control.
Gender socialisation and cultural norms. From childhood, socialisation naturalises female subordination — teaching obedience, self-sacrifice and shame while valorising male aggression and honour. Cultural ideals of family honour place the burden of purity on women, so that assertions of autonomy invite punishment, sometimes lethal, as in so-called honour killings.
Economic dependence. Women's limited access to property, income and secure employment leaves many economically dependent on men, trapping them in abusive households and weakening their capacity to resist or exit. Structural exclusion from resources thus underwrites everyday coercion.
Caste, class and intersectionality. In India, Uma Chakravarti's concept of brahmanical patriarchy shows how the control of women's sexuality is bound up with caste endogamy and the preservation of purity, making gender violence inseparable from the caste order. Dalit and tribal women face compounded vulnerability — an intersectional location where gender, caste and class oppression reinforce one another.
Commodification and the state. The commodification of women's bodies in media, advertising and pornography objectifies women and normalises aggression against them. Meanwhile weak enforcement, delayed justice and the insensitivity of policing amount to a form of institutional complicity, allowing violence to go unpunished.
Assessment. These factors are not separate causes but facets of a single patriarchal structure that positions women as subordinate and their bodies as sites of control. It follows that reducing such violence requires more than harsher penalties — it demands transformation of the underlying structures: women's economic empowerment, egalitarian socialisation, dismantling of caste-gender hierarchies, and a responsive state. Structural violence yields only to structural change.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for the candidate to honour the word structural — weak answers describe types of violence or blame individual men, missing the systemic focus. The distinction between direct and structural violence, and the framing of patriarchy as a set of interlocking structures, are the marks of a sociologically literate script.
The strongest answers integrate the Indian dimension through brahmanical patriarchy and intersectionality, showing that gender violence is entangled with caste and class rather than free-floating. Ending on the implication for policy — that structural remedies must accompany legal ones — demonstrates the analytical maturity that secures the top band.