When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology

Abstract

Social science research demonstrates that the many manifestations of sexual proprietariness are among the most important predictors of male partner violence cross-culturally. However, evolutionary explanations for this manifestly male behavior continue to trouble many feminists. This article reflects on the enduring influence of Margo Wilson’s pioneering work with Martin Daly on the evolutionary origins of male partner violence with specific attention to large-scale population surveys. One of Margo Wilson’s many lasting contributions is an empirically based theoretical explanation for male sexual ownership over women that, it is argued, is not in opposition to feminist structural analysis or feminist political aims.

Keywords

evolutionary psychology sexual proprietariness feminist theory gender femicide intimate partner homicide

It is an honor to be able to count myself among the many friends and colleagues inspired by Margo Wilson’s scientific discoveries, her mentorship, and her infectious enthusiasm for science and for life. Only now that tributes such as this volume are springing up in her honor do I appreciate the tremendous impact she had both in her field of evolutionary psychology and far beyond. I am able to speak about a small but important aspect of Margo’s work that has influenced quantitative researchers in the domains of psychology, sociology, public health, and criminology as they search for answers to questions about motivation in men’s use of violence against female partners in intimate relationships.

By “crossing over” to other domains, Margo and her partner in work and life, Martin Daly, made evolutionary psychology accessible. I found the idea that male sexual jealousy could have evolutionary roots to be fascinating, particularly as it was laid out with such clarity and backed up by a breadth of empirical evidence. But this also made uncomfortable that part of me which is committed to a feminist social-structural analysis.

A critical focus of feminism has been, and continues to be, to identify and challenge formal and substantive gender inequalities in social, economic, religious, and legal spheres. Gender is understood by feminist and gender theorists as a social construct around which social life is organized but which is shifting and open to change. Different behavior exhibited by men and women is thought to accord with socially ascribed gender roles; behavior is not biologically determined but is conditioned by normative beliefs about what is appropriate for men and women and by differences in skills and attitudes that have developed from enacting these ascribed roles (Eagly & Wood, 1991, p. 314). A critical point is that differences in behavioral exhibited by men and women are small compared to the much larger variation in behaviors among women or among men. Physical aggression, which demonstrates large and consistent sex differences, is an exception, although anthropological evidence of wide variation in the use of violence to construct masculinity over time and across cultures is taken as further indication that male violence is dictated by social circumstances (Hyde, 2005; Sanday, 1981, 2008). Rather than something immutable, gender is constructed and reproduced in everyday social interaction and varieties of violence and aggression are legitimate ways for men to position themselves in dominant positions over women and other men. Gender differences, therefore, are the product of structural and social inequalities and not the reverse (Kimmel, 2004, p. 4). With respect to intimate partner violence, the cultural creation and maintenance of gender differences are at the root of, and sustains, a set of social relationships in which male violence against female partners is able to thrive (Hird, 2002, p. 26).

Feminists and gender theorists have pushed to de-essentialize and delink biological sex and socially constructed gender, and to underscore that masculinities are produced and reproduced by individual men with available resources while also being influenced by dominant hegemonic masculinities (Connell, 2005). Therefore, any attempt to reify gender differences along biological lines is often deeply suspect and more often rejected outright. Feminist evolutionary biologists do exist and consider natural selection ideas to be important for understanding women’s oppression and guiding political action (Gowaty, 1997). However, based on my own personal nonrepresentative observances, convincing feminist social scientists to consider the importance and relevance of evolutionary bases for male partner violence is a tough sell. In fact, many express unambiguous hostility, claiming that an evolutionary framework is “inherently misogynistic and provides a justification for the oppression of women” (Tang-Martinez, 1997, p. 116). There is a general belief or fear that evolutionary psychologists are overly deterministic and that vigilance is essential lest evolutionary arguments are evoked to rationalize or justify the oppression of women on the basis of evidence that male superiority over women is natural and biologically determined (Tang-Martinez, 1997, p. 117). Such justifications do not find support among evolutionary psychologists, who stress that very few of the characteristics required to perform most tasks are gender specific (though behavioral traits once had an evolutionary purpose, most are not directly motivating), and that human behavior displays tremendous variation, largely due to diversities in social and cultural environments (Sork, 1997). Already, we can begin to see that these two worldviews are not so divergent after all. In this article, I attempt to reconcile feminist researchers to the legitimacy and important contributions of an evolutionary perspective by tracing some of the commonalities of language and purpose and by using as an example how the two perspectives have come together to influence quantitative research on male violence against women. I will do this by drawing on the articulate and persuasive body of work on the evolutionary origins of male sexual jealousy produced by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, and by demonstrating how this work has been incorporated into large-scale population surveys.

Sexual Proprietariness

After decades of social research, it is now an accepted truth that male sexual jealousy and possessiveness are leading correlates of lethal and nonlethal violence against female intimate partners cross-culturally, and that attempts to control female partners often exist independently of physical or sexual violence (Campbell, 1992; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala, 2008; Krahé, Bieneck, & Moller, 2005; Stark, 2007). What is contested is the source of male sexual jealousy and control. Feminist theories locate the source in patriarchal cultural and social processes, while the evolutionary psychology perspective asserts that, although social environment is part of the equation, it cannot be divorced from evolved psychological mechanisms that are at the foundation of all human behavior. In an international and historical study of homicide, Daly and Wilson (1988) found that, although there is variability in rates of homicide cross-culturally, men outnumber women as perpetrators regardless of whom they kill and, when they kill female partners, there is consistency in context and motives. The ubiquitous nature of male violence across time and settings therefore challenges the idea that it can be attributed to culture or social conditioning alone. Furthermore, it suggests that an exploration of evolutionary causes might be fruitful to explain why men manifest sexual jealousy through attempts to control female partners in ways that women do not, why violence is primarily an activity of males, and how most acts of male violence—including violence against female partners—concern competition among men for respect and status (Wilson & Daly, 1985).

According to evolutionary psychology, evolved psychological mechanisms are responsible for the way in which men and women register and process certain environmental information and respond to it through specific behaviors or physiological activity. These mechanisms have evolved to respond to specific problems that affected reproductive success throughout human history. Since males and females face different reproductive challenges, they have evolved different psychological mechanisms to deal with them. Sexual proprietariness is the term devised by Wilson and Daly (1998) to describe manifestations of male sexual jealousy, presumptions of entitlement, general efforts to possess and control women, and the threat or use of violence to maintain this control. Sexual proprietariness as defined by Wilson and Daly is a mindset specific to males. It has evolved to respond to reproductive competition among men, which does not exist in the same way for women, and is triggered in situations that represent loss of exclusive rights over the female partner (and therefore ground lost in the reproductive competition among men), such as suspected adultery or desertion. Of course, women also exhibit jealousy when their mates turn their attention to other women, but the physiological and behavioral arousal is qualitatively different: jealousy of women toward male adulterers is more often linked to the potential loss of economic resources, attention, and emotional commitment, while male sexual jealousy is more often focused on the sexual act and the fear that female partners will produce another man’s child (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). Sexual jealousy and attempts to control the sexuality of women through the threat or use of violence is cross-culturally universal and can motivate men to kill intimate partners.

The human mind is designed to adjust to a vast diversity of social circumstances; herein lies the source of variation in human behavior and in men’s use of violence (Gowaty, 1997). According to evolutionary psychologists, all behavior is fitness-maximizing and the use of violence to respond to threats of loss of sexual exclusivity over female partners is no exception—it is contingent on the costs and benefits entailed in its use and on other social cues. So, while there is a biological basis for male violence, the use of violence depends not only on arousal of sexually proprietary feelings but also on whether the use of violence might incur costs or produce benefits to status and respect, which, in the evolutionary history of males, has had a selective advantage. The capacity for controlled violence has contributed to male status throughout human history, but men tend not to use violence in contexts where it is not status-enhancing or results in other personal costs (Daly & Wilson, 1988). As a result, not only are cues of sexual infidelity important, but social and environmental context also matters a great deal. Even though suspected infidelity by female partners is viewed as a provocation likely to elicit male violence in all societies—including those where such violence is not tolerated and those where violence is expected to be used to preserve male honor—it is far less likely to be used where tolerance is low and the social costs are high (Wilson & Daly, 1996). In societies where violent revenge against female partners is not widely endorsed as a route to male status and respect, other status-seeking strategies will be routinely used, such as demonstrations of wealth, knowledge, and physical strength and daring, as well as attempts to dominate and control women in ways that are socially acceptable or at least not subject to strong social condemnation.

In short, evolutionary psychologists assert that human behavior has evolved to be extremely adaptable, so that fitness can be maximized in a wide variety of environments. Thus, while evolved psychological processes explain sources of conflict and motivations for using violence, social influences are possibly even more important for understanding when those conflicts and motivations will be acted upon (Sork, 1997, p. 107). This is the persuasive point for sociostructural theorists—that biological does not equate with genetic. Whereas genetics are fixed and inherited, biological conditions such as serotonin levels (among other things) can be altered by environmental factors that, in turn, can affect behaviors. Serotonin is correlated with risk taking and violence, and men (and other primates) who are lowest on the social status hierarchy have been found to have lower levels than those who are higher up. However, once social status rises as a result of social cues and opportunities, serotonin levels also rise while risk taking and aggression declines (Edwards & Kravitz, 1997). The object of study for evolutionary psychologists, therefore, is not genetics but species-specific psychological adaptations and the power of biology in interaction with the environment to produce great variation in behavior (Wilson & Daly, 1998).

On the basis of an interaction between evolved psychological mechanisms and social influences, we can understand why some men are violent and others are not, why some are violent in some social situations and not others, why men recruit other nonviolent resources in a seemingly unending quest for status and respect, why adultery in women is universally considered a provocation for male violence (even sometimes in cases of rape), why violent struggles among men typically take place in front of an audience of other men, and why apparently trivial conflicts can have a fatal end. Going beyond intimate partners as the targets of violence, supposed “senseless” killings can be understood as the defense of male honor in social contexts where a man’s reputation and saving face depends on the maintenance of a credible threat of violence (Daly & Wilson, 1988, p. 128). Men are most likely to use violence, including against female partners, in adolescence and young adulthood when competition to achieve status and resources is fiercest. This is especially true for males with poor prospects, for whom violence might be one of the few legitimate resources within the immediate social environment for acquiring or maintaining status and respect.

Wilson and Daly’s concept of sexual proprietariness was groundbreaking in both its complexity and its simplicity. While the gendered nature of sexual jealousy and possessiveness has been well known among feminist activists, researchers, and agencies responding to abused women since the early days of the battered women’s movement, an evolutionary underpinning identifies what it is about the actions of female partners that men try to control, why women may be motivated to pursue these actions despite the potential for violence, and the personal characteristics of the victim and perpetrator (as well as social and environmental factors) affecting the risk that men will respond violently toward their partners (Wilson & Daly, 1998). It also helps explain men’s continued use of violence to the point of killing female partners they supposedly wish to control and keep.

Empirical Tests of Evolutionary Psychology

Explanations offered by evolutionary psychology for male partners’ lethal and nonlethal violence are empirically testable. Two available avenues are population surveys and police or coroner records of partner homicide, which, in some countries, include considerable detail. As researchers in the 1980s and 1990s increased pressure on governments to improve prevalence estimates of male violence against women, Statistics Canada, the country’s national statistical agency, responded by fielding a population survey in 1993 dedicated to the topic of violence against women (Johnson, 1996). In addition to prevalence estimates, the survey was designed to test certain theories concerning the correlates and contexts in which partner violence occurred. At that time, small-scale qualitative studies with women in shelters and studies of men in behavioral change programs following conviction for partner violence were beginning to show that, in addition to physical and sexual violence, men frequently used psychological abuse and tactics to control and restrict the behavior of women, such as taking keys and vehicles to isolate them and prohibiting access to money and contact with outsiders (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 2000). How to accurately measure controlling tactics on a quantitative survey became a major preoccupation for survey designers. Statistics Canada researchers ultimately created the following short list of autonomy-limiting behaviors based on discussions with grassroots feminist activists who were advocating at the time for “dating audits” where young women were educated to recognize emotional abuse and controlling behaviors not as signs of love but as precursors to physical and sexual violence. This short list serves as an operationalization of sexual proprietariness (Johnson, 1996, p. 161):

He insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times

He calls you names to put you down or make you feel bad

He is jealous and doesn’t want you to talk to other men

He tries to limit your contact with family and friends

He prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income, even if you ask.

Not only are these and similar autonomy-limiting behaviors correlated with male partner violence in every setting in which they are studied, but the prevalence of these behaviors increases with the severity and frequency of physical violence, suggesting that violence is not distinct from but constitutes an additional set of controlling tactics (Block, 2000; Wilson & Daly, 1996; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995). Assaults against female partners also vary according to indicators of risk of infidelity and the intensity of competition from rivals, as predicted by evolutionary theory (Wilson & Daly, 1998). For example, separation elevates the risk of violence: half of Canadian women assaulted by previous partners were assaulted after separation and in one third of these cases the violence began or became more severe during separation (Hotton, 2001). Risks are also higher when men are young and when they have lower economic success, particularly when their masculine status associated with paid work is usurped by female partners (Macmillan & Gartner, 1995). Autonomy-limiting tactics remain the most important predictors of serious intimate violence, even when controlling for other common risk factors, such as income, male unemployment, age, and alcohol abuse (Johnson, 2001).

Canadian homicide data show that men are three times as likely as women to kill intimate partners and that the gender difference for killing spouses who have left them is even higher (Johnson & Hotton, 2003). Almost one third of women killed by partners were estranged compared to 11% of men (Johnson & Hotton, 2003, p. 70). These figures underestimate the risk posed by separation, since they do not count those who were in the process of or who had plans of leaving. Simply put, men more often hunt down and kill women who have left them. In fact, a small number of men each year kill women from whom they are divorced, which suggests some very determined men who act on conflicts and grievances that accumulated over a period of time and are completely undeterred by social or legal strictures (Johnson & Hotton, 2003). What is more, 97% of spousal homicide perpetrators who committed suicide are male (Statistics Canada, 2005, p. 61). A common theme in many homicide-suicides is the dissolution of the relationship or a pending break-up and, although case file information was available for a only a minority, one third of cases with relevant information showed that homicide-suicides occurred within the first 2 weeks of separation and one third of the women were killed when returning to the shared home to retrieve belongings (Statistics Canada, 2005, p. 62).

Incorporating indicators of sexually proprietary and controlling behaviors to understand motivations behind men’s use of violence toward partners has become standard practice on prevalence surveys of male violence against women. Major international comparative surveys now routinely include variations on these questions. For example, the International Violence Against Women Survey, which was hosted and supported by the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI) and interviewed women in nine countries, measured controlling and proprietary behavior by way of the following items (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 109 and 114):

Gets angry if you speak with other men

Is supportive of your work, studies or other activities (reverse coded)

Tries to limit your contact with family and friends

Follows you or keeps track of your whereabouts in a way you find controlling or frightening

Calls you names, insults you or behaves in a way to put you down or make you feel bad

Damages or destroys your possessions or property

Is constantly suspicious that you have been unfaithful

Insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times

Harms or threatens to harm your children

Harms or threatens to harm someone else close to you

Threatens to kill you

Threatens to kill himself

Threatens to hurt you or your children if you leave him.

Individually and in combination, these items were predictive of partner violence and, the more frequently they were used, the greater was the risk of violence (Johnson et al., 2008). Table 1 presents the results of logistic regression analyses in the six countries that included a core set of these and additional risk factors. With the exception of Switzerland, male partners’ use of controlling and emotionally abusive behaviors “frequently” or “all the time” produced the highest adjusted odds ratio while controlling for the effects of other common risk factors. In Switzerland, the predictive power of controlling and emotionally abusive behaviors came a close second to male partners’ use of violence against others outside the home (in all likelihood other men), a behavior that is also indicative of an evolutionary male mindset to use violence in male status competitions.

Table 1.

Logistic Regression Predicting Lifetime Current Partner Violence

				95% CI
	B	SE	AOR	Lower	Upper
Australia
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39	0.937	0.185	2.553*	1.775	3.672
40-49	1.028	0.189	2.796*	1.932	4.045
50+	0.491	0.202	1.634*	1.099	2.430
Heavy drinking	0.882	0.171	2.415*	1.727	3.378
Partner violent outside the home	1.132	0.155	3.103*	2.290	4.204
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	2.052	0.162	7.784*	5.667	10.693
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	0.546	0.131	1.726*	1.336	2.231
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	−0.026	0.338	0.974	0.502	1.891
2nd quartile	0.131	0.178	1.140	0.805	1.615
3rd quartile	0.238	0.129	1.269	0.985	1.635
Constant	−3.773	0.181	0.023*
−2 Log likelihood 2249.5
Model X² = 352.7 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.17
Costa Rica
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39	−0.022
40-49	0.686	0.373	1.985	0.955	4.126
50+	0.116	0.408	1.123	0.505	2.497
Heavy drinking	1.134	0.534	3.110*	1.092	8.856
Partner violent outside the home	1.607	0.281	4.987*	2.874	8.655
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	1.671	0.292	5.317*	2.999	9.426
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	0.322	0.280	1.380	0.798	2.388
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	0.256	0.396	1.292	0.594	2.811
2nd quartile	−0.235	0.406	0.791	0.357	1.751
3rd quartile	0.152	0.400	1.164	0.532	2.547
Constant	−3.063	0.422	0.047*
−2 Log likelihood 365.9
Model X² = 122.2 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.35
Czech Republic
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39
40-49	0.518	0.268	1.678	0.993	2.838
50+	0.328	0.251	1.388	0.849	2.269
Heavy drinking	−0.271	0.326	0.763	0.402	1.446
Partner violent outside the home	1.524	0.230	4.592*	2.928	7.203
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	2.108	0.207	8.231*	5.490	12.340
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	0.306	0.211	1.357	0.898	2.052
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	−0.029	0.289	0.971	0.552	1.710
2nd quartile	−0.707	0.253	0.493*	0.300	0.809
3rd quartile	−0.244	0.252	0.784	0.478	1.285
Constant	−2.452	0.270	0.086*
−2 Log likelihood 818.8
Model X² = 261.8 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.33
Philippines
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39
40-49	0.761	0.270	2.140*	1.259	3.635
50+	−0.200	0.392	0.819	0.380	1.765
Heavy drinking	0.853	0.223	2.347*	1.517	3.631
Partner violent outside the home	0.840	0.321	2.317*	1.234	4.349
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	1.730	0.203	5.641*	3.786	8.406
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	−1.075	0.463	0.341*	0.138	0.846
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	0.231	0.338	1.260	0.649	2.444
2nd quartile	−0.270	0.469	0.763	0.305	1.911
3rd quartile	−0.872	0.510	0.418	0.154	1.137
Constant	−3.703	0.231	0.025*
−2 Log likelihood 769.8
Model X² = 125.5 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.17
Poland
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39
40-49	1.627	0.480	5.088*	1.984	9.132
50+	1.432	0.467	4.186*	1.675	10.462
Heavy drinking	2.236	0.560	9.356*	3.121	28.045
Partner violent outside the home	1.388	0.349	4.009*	2.021	7.950
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	2.588	0.270	13.297*	7.830	22.581
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	0.161	0.317	1.174	0.631	2.187
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	0.118	0.401	1.125	0.513	2.470
2nd quartile	0.075	0.375	1.078	0.517	2.246
3rd quartile	0.260	0.339	1.297	0.667	2.521
Constant	−5.012	0.523	0.007*
−2 Log likelihood 492.2
Model X² = 222.1 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.37
Switzerland
Respondent age (18-29 reference category)
30-39
40-49	0.901	0.756	2.461	0.560	7.409
50+	1.263	0.682	3.538	0.929	13.478
Heavy drinking	0.989	0.759	2.690	0.607	11.909
Partner violent outside the home	1.909	0.484	6.747*	2.614	17.418
Partner frequently controlling/emotionally abusive	1.794	0.415	6.013*	2.668	13.552
Respondent victim of physical abuse by parents	−0.354	0.490	0.702	0.269	1.832
Household income (4th quartile [lowest 25%] reference category)
1st quartile (highest 25%)	−0.762	0.813	0.467	0.095	2.299
2nd quartile	−0.671	0.797	0.511	0.107	2.438
3rd quartile	−0.240	0.769	0.787	0.174	3.554
Constant	−5.069	0.917	0.006*
−2 Log likelihood 228.6
Model X² = 55.1 (df = 10)
Nagelkerke R² = 0.21

p < .05.

Source. Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008). Violence against women: An international perspective (Table 5.11, pp. 126-129). New York, NY: Springer. Reprinted with permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

The World Health Organization’s Multi-Country Study of Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women, which surveyed women in ten mainly developing countries, found a strong association between partner violence and a similar set of questions (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005, p. 148):

Tries to keep you from seeing your friends

Tries to restrict contact with your family of birth

Insists on knowing where you are at all times

Ignores you and treats you indifferently

Gets angry if you speak with another man

Is often suspicious that you are unfaithful

Expects you to ask his permission before seeking health care for yourself

Insulted you or makes you feel bad about yourself

Belittled or humiliated you in front of other people

Did things to scare or intimidate you on purpose (e.g., by the way he looked at you, by yelling and smashing things)

Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about.

The United Nations guidelines for conducting violence against women surveys, designed to assist countries to meet the Secretary-General’s goal of producing reliable prevalence estimates in all countries by 2015, recommends including this same module of questions to measure emotionally abusive and controlling behaviors by male partners, in recognition that the questions elicit reports of behaviors that are both a risk factor for physical violence and a form of violence in themselves (United Nations, In Press).

Conclusion

Feminism and evolutionary psychology have not been easy bedfellows. That there may be an evolved masculine mindset sounds utterly deterministic, and on the surface, it would appear impossible that feminists could find value in it. Indeed, this is where many stop reading. However, the assertion that there is great variation in male behavior, and that this is due to social and environmental factors, is where the two can find common ground. Evolutionary psychologists point out that biological factors are but one aspect of variation in gender differences, and that political, social, economic and environmental factors may be equally, if not more, important determinants of behavior (Sork, 1997).

The rejection by many feminists of a theory suggestive of a biological underpinning to male violence is based in part on a realistic fear. Biologically based arguments have historically provided justification for maintaining the oppression of women at the levels of normative beliefs and practices that ascribed to women characteristics and aptitudes unsuited to public life. Such arguments have also supported social, legal, and economic policies that kept women dependent on men and unable to assume positions of power to challenge these policies. However, it is possible to accept the evolutionary basis for much of human behavior while rejecting biological determinism and gender inequality. Once it becomes clear that biological processes are not immutable (and do not equate with genetics) and that great variation exists due to the diversity of social and environmental factors to which humans are subjected, feminism and evolutionary psychology arrive at the same place: the problem lies not with the biology of individuals but with the environments in which they find themselves and to which they must adapt. The answer to changing behavior lies in changing environments. Thus, the same conclusion is arrived at through a different lens.

Most importantly, conclusions drawn by evolutionary psychology have practical application that is not in opposition to feminist aims. Contrary to current policy directions and public discourse that degender partner violence with an oversimplified “women do it too” approach, both the feminist and evolutionary psychology worldviews know that gender matters a great deal and, therefore, specific responses are needed for men who use violence. If sexual jealousy and possessiveness are qualitatively different for men and women, and if violence is a ubiquitous male activity with consistency in context and motives, then gender-differentiated strategies for preventing and responding to violence are essential. Both feminist and evolutionary psychology points of view would agree that male partner violence requires strong social condemnation, and that the creation of social norms that support achievement of male status and respect through means other than violence and control of female partners and subordination of women more generally is required to reduce this violence.

Gowaty (1997), a self-identified Darwinian feminist, aptly reminds us that, regardless of which social problem is of concern, social scientists from different perspectives approach the problem from different viewpoints and emphasize different causal factors in the search for solutions. Furthermore,

If one is aware that there are multiple “causes” of women’s oppression, the variety of political philosophies among us . . . can be—in theory—discussed without defensiveness about whether one is “right or wrong.” Perhaps all are correct or partially correct—and we would all be better off for knowing that. (1997, p. 5)

The understanding of male (sometimes lethal) violence against women was considerably advanced by the creative insights and discipline-crossing inquiries of Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, and indeed we are better off for it.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bio

Holly Johnson has been engaged in research on violence against women for 30 years, first at Statistics Canada where she was principal investigator on the first national survey on violence against women, and more recently as Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa.

References

Block

C. R.

(2000). Chicago women’s health risk study: Risk of serious injury or death in intimate violence: A collaborative research project. NCJ 183128. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Campbell

J. C.

(1992). “If I can’t have you, no one can”: Power and control in homicide of female partners. In Radford

Russell

D. E. H.

(Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman-killing (pp. 99-113). New York, NY: Twayne.

Connell

R. W.

(2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Daly

Wilson

(1988). Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Daly

Wilson

Weghorst

S. J.

(1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology & Sociobiology, 3, 11-27.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

R. P.

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

Cavanagh

Lewis

(2000) Changing violent men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eagly

Wood

(1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315.

Edwards

D. H.

Kravitz

E. A.

(1997). Serotonin, social status and aggression. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 812-819.

10.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

11.

Gowaty

P. A.

(1997). Introduction: Darwinian feminists and feminist evolutionists. In Gowaty

P. A.

(Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology. (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.

12.

Hird

(2002). Engendering violence: Heterosexual interpersonal violence from childhood to adulthood. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.

13.

Hotton

(2001). Spousal violence after marital separation. Juristat, 21, 7. Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

14.

Hyde

J. S.

(2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-892.

15.

Johnson

(1996). Dangerous domains: Violence against women in Canada. Toronto, ON: Nelson.

16.

Johnson

(2001). Contrasting views of the role of alcohol in cases of wife assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(1), 54-72.

17.

Johnson

Hotton

(2003). Losing control: Homicide risk in estranged and intact intimate relationships. Homicide Studies, 7, 58-84.

18.

Johnson

Ollus

Nevala

(2008). Violence against women: An international perspective. New York, NY: Springer.

19.

Kimmel

(2004). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford.

20.

Krahé

Bieneck

Moller

(2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807-827.

21.

Macmillan

Gartner

(1995). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 947-958.

22.

Sanday

(1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 5-27.

23.

Sanday

(2008). Rape-prone versus rape free campus cultures. In Kimmel

Aronson

(Eds.) The gendered society reader (pp. 594-606). New York, NY: Oxford.

24.

Sork

V. L.

(1997). Quantitative genetics, feminism, and evolutionary theories of gender differences. In Gowaty

P. A.

(Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology (pp. 86-115). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.

25.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford.

26.

Statistics Canada. (2005). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. 1Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

27.

Tang-Martinez

(1997). The curious courtship of sociobiology and feminism: A case of irreconcilable differences. In Gowaty

P. A.

(Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology. (pp. 116-150). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.

28.

United Nations. (In Press). Guidelines for producing statistics on violence against women: Statistical survey. New York, NY: United Nations Statistical Division.

29.

Wilson

Daly

(1985). Competitiveness, risk-taking and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6, 59-73.

30.

Wilson

Daly

(1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 2-7.

31.

Wilson

Daly

(1998). Lethal and non-lethal violence against wives and the evolutionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

R. P.

(Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 199-230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Wilson

Johnson

Daly

(1995). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 331-361.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

13.99 MB