When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology: The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology: The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology: The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology: The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson Document Transcript

  • Homicide Studies http://hsx.sagepub.com/When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology : The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson Holly Johnson Homicide Studies 2012 16: 332 originally published online 20 September 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1088767912457169 The online version of this article can be found at: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/16/4/332 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Homicide Research Working Group Additional services and information for Homicide Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/16/4/332.refs.html Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 4571697912457169Homicide StudiesJohnson HSXXXX10.1177/108876 Homicide Studies When Feminism Meets 16(4) 332­–345 © 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: Evolutionary Psychology:  sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1088767912457169 The Enduring Legacy http://hs.sagepub.com of Margo Wilson Holly Johnson1 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, gender, 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 1 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada Corresponding Author: Holly Johnson, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, 120 University Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 Email: Holly.Johnson@uottawa.ca Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 333domains of psychology, sociology, public health, and criminology as they search foranswers to questions about motivation in men’s use of violence against female part-ners 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 malesexual jealousy could have evolutionary roots to be fascinating, particularly as it waslaid out with such clarity and backed up by a breadth of empirical evidence. But thisalso 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 challengeformal and substantive gender inequalities in social, economic, religious, and legalspheres. Gender is understood by feminist and gender theorists as a social constructaround 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 sociallyascribed gender roles; behavior is not biologically determined but is conditioned bynormative beliefs about what is appropriate for men and women and by differences inskills 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 menand women are small compared to the much larger variation in behaviors amongwomen or among men. Physical aggression, which demonstrates large and consistentsex differences, is an exception, although anthropological evidence of wide variationin the use of violence to construct masculinity over time and across cultures is takenas further indication that male violence is dictated by social circumstances (Hyde,2005; Sanday, 1981, 2008). Rather than something immutable, gender is constructedand reproduced in everyday social interaction and varieties of violence and aggressionare legitimate ways for men to position themselves in dominant positions over womenand other men. Gender differences, therefore, are the product of structural and socialinequalities and not the reverse (Kimmel, 2004, p. 4). With respect to intimate partnerviolence, 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 part-ners is able to thrive (Hird, 2002, p. 26). Feminists and gender theorists have pushed to de-essentialize and delink biologicalsex and socially constructed gender, and to underscore that masculinities are producedand reproduced by individual men with available resources while also being influencedby dominant hegemonic masculinities (Connell, 2005). Therefore, any attempt to reifygender differences along biological lines is often deeply suspect and more often rejectedoutright. Feminist evolutionary biologists do exist and consider natural selection ideasto 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 evo-lutionary bases for male partner violence is a tough sell. In fact, many express unam-biguous hostility, claiming that an evolutionary framework is “inherently misogynistic andprovides a justification for the oppression of women” (Tang-Martinez, 1997, p. 116). Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 334 Homicide Studies 16(4)There is a general belief or fear that evolutionary psychologists are overly determinis-tic and that vigilance is essential lest evolutionary arguments are evoked to rationalizeor justify the oppression of women on the basis of evidence that male superiority overwomen is natural and biologically determined (Tang-Martinez, 1997, p. 117). Suchjustifications do not find support among evolutionary psychologists, who stress thatvery few of the characteristics required to perform most tasks are gender specific(though behavioral traits once had an evolutionary purpose, most are not directly moti-vating), and that human behavior displays tremendous variation, largely due to diver-sities in social and cultural environments (Sork, 1997). Already, we can begin to seethat these two worldviews are not so divergent after all. In this article, I attempt toreconcile feminist researchers to the legitimacy and important contributions of an evo-lutionary perspective by tracing some of the commonalities of language and purposeand by using as an example how the two perspectives have come together to influencequantitative research on male violence against women. I will do this by drawing on thearticulate and persuasive body of work on the evolutionary origins of male sexualjealousy produced by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, and by demonstrating how thiswork has been incorporated into large-scale population surveys.Sexual ProprietarinessAfter decades of social research, it is now an accepted truth that male sexual jealousyand possessiveness are leading correlates of lethal and nonlethal violence againstfemale intimate partners cross-culturally, and that attempts to control female partnersoften 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. Feministtheories locate the source in patriarchal cultural and social processes, while the evolu-tionary psychology perspective asserts that, although social environment is part of theequation, it cannot be divorced from evolved psychological mechanisms that are at thefoundation 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 homicidecross-culturally, men outnumber women as perpetrators regardless of whom they killand, when they kill female partners, there is consistency in context and motives. Theubiquitous nature of male violence across time and settings therefore challenges theidea that it can be attributed to culture or social conditioning alone. Furthermore, itsuggests that an exploration of evolutionary causes might be fruitful to explain whymen manifest sexual jealousy through attempts to control female partners in ways thatwomen do not, why violence is primarily an activity of males, and how most acts ofmale violence—including violence against female partners—concern competitionamong men for respect and status (Wilson & Daly, 1985). According to evolutionary psychology, evolved psychological mechanisms areresponsible for the way in which men and women register and process certain environ-mental information and respond to it through specific behaviors or physiological Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 335activity. These mechanisms have evolved to respond to specific problems that affectedreproductive success throughout human history. Since males and females face differ-ent reproductive challenges, they have evolved different psychological mechanisms todeal with them. Sexual proprietariness is the term devised by Wilson and Daly (1998)to describe manifestations of male sexual jealousy, presumptions of entitlement, gen-eral efforts to possess and control women, and the threat or use of violence to maintainthis control. Sexual proprietariness as defined by Wilson and Daly is a mindset specificto males. It has evolved to respond to reproductive competition among men, which doesnot exist in the same way for women, and is triggered in situations that represent loss ofexclusive rights over the female partner (and therefore ground lost in the reproductivecompetition among men), such as suspected adultery or desertion. Of course, womenalso exhibit jealousy when their mates turn their attention to other women, but thephysiological and behavioral arousal is qualitatively different: jealousy of womentoward male adulterers is more often linked to the potential loss of economic resources,attention, and emotional commitment, while male sexual jealousy is more oftenfocused on the sexual act and the fear that female partners will produce another man’schild (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). Sexual jealousy and attempts to control thesexuality of women through the threat or use of violence is cross-culturally universaland 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 exclusiv-ity over female partners is no exception—it is contingent on the costs and benefitsentailed in its use and on other social cues. So, while there is a biological basis formale violence, the use of violence depends not only on arousal of sexually proprietaryfeelings but also on whether the use of violence might incur costs or produce benefitsto status and respect, which, in the evolutionary history of males, has had a selectiveadvantage. The capacity for controlled violence has contributed to male statusthroughout human history, but men tend not to use violence in contexts where it is notstatus-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 contextalso matters a great deal. Even though suspected infidelity by female partners isviewed as a provocation likely to elicit male violence in all societies—includingthose where such violence is not tolerated and those where violence is expected to beused to preserve male honor—it is far less likely to be used where tolerance is lowand the social costs are high (Wilson & Daly, 1996). In societies where violentrevenge against female partners is not widely endorsed as a route to male status andrespect, other status-seeking strategies will be routinely used, such as demonstrationsof wealth, knowledge, and physical strength and daring, as well as attempts to domi-nate and control women in ways that are socially acceptable or at least not subject tostrong social condemnation. Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 336 Homicide Studies 16(4) In short, evolutionary psychologists assert that human behavior has evolved to beextremely adaptable, so that fitness can be maximized in a wide variety of environments.Thus, while evolved psychological processes explain sources of conflict and motiva-tions for using violence, social influences are possibly even more important for under-standing when those conflicts and motivations will be acted upon (Sork, 1997, p. 107).This is the persuasive point for sociostructural theorists—that biological does notequate with genetic. Whereas genetics are fixed and inherited, biological conditionssuch as serotonin levels (among other things) can be altered by environmental factorsthat, 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 beenfound to have lower levels than those who are higher up. However, once social statusrises as a result of social cues and opportunities, serotonin levels also rise while risktaking and aggression declines (Edwards & Kravitz, 1997). The object of study forevolutionary psychologists, therefore, is not genetics but species-specific psychologi-cal adaptations and the power of biology in interaction with the environment to pro-duce great variation in behavior (Wilson & Daly, 1998). On the basis of an interaction between evolved psychological mechanisms andsocial 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 othernonviolent resources in a seemingly unending quest for status and respect, why adul-tery in women is universally considered a provocation for male violence (even some-times in cases of rape), why violent struggles among men typically take place in frontof 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” kill-ings can be understood as the defense of male honor in social contexts where a man’sreputation 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 againstfemale partners, in adolescence and young adulthood when competition to achievestatus 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 immediatesocial environment for acquiring or maintaining status and respect. Wilson and Daly’s concept of sexual proprietariness was groundbreaking in bothits complexity and its simplicity. While the gendered nature of sexual jealousy andpossessiveness has been well known among feminist activists, researchers, and agen-cies responding to abused women since the early days of the battered women’s move-ment, an evolutionary underpinning identifies what it is about the actions of femalepartners that men try to control, why women may be motivated to pursue these actionsdespite the potential for violence, and the personal characteristics of the victim andperpetrator (as well as social and environmental factors) affecting the risk that menwill respond violently toward their partners (Wilson & Daly, 1998). It also helpsexplain men’s continued use of violence to the point of killing female partners theysupposedly wish to control and keep. Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 337Empirical Tests of Evolutionary PsychologyExplanations offered by evolutionary psychology for male partners’ lethal and nonle-thal violence are empirically testable. Two available avenues are population surveysand police or coroner records of partner homicide, which, in some countries, includeconsiderable detail. As researchers in the 1980s and 1990s increased pressure on gov-ernments to improve prevalence estimates of male violence against women, StatisticsCanada, the country’s national statistical agency, responded by fielding a populationsurvey in 1993 dedicated to the topic of violence against women (Johnson, 1996). Inaddition to prevalence estimates, the survey was designed to test certain theories con-cerning 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 behav-ioral change programs following conviction for partner violence were beginning toshow that, in addition to physical and sexual violence, men frequently used psycho-logical abuse and tactics to control and restrict the behavior of women, such as takingkeys and vehicles to isolate them and prohibiting access to money and contact withoutsiders (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 2000).How to accurately measure controlling tactics on a quantitative survey became amajor preoccupation for survey designers. Statistics Canada researchers ultimatelycreated the following short list of autonomy-limiting behaviors based on discussionswith grassroots feminist activists who were advocating at the time for “dating audits”where young women were educated to recognize emotional abuse and controllingbehaviors not as signs of love but as precursors to physical and sexual violence. Thisshort list serves as an operationalization of sexual proprietariness (Johnson, 1996,p. 161): 1. He insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times 2. He calls you names to put you down or make you feel bad 3. He is jealous and doesn’t want you to talk to other men 4. He tries to limit your contact with family and friends 5. 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 malepartner violence in every setting in which they are studied, but the prevalence of thesebehaviors increases with the severity and frequency of physical violence, suggestingthat violence is not distinct from but constitutes an additional set of controlling tactics(Block, 2000; Wilson & Daly, 1996; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995). Assaults againstfemale partners also vary according to indicators of risk of infidelity and the intensityof competition from rivals, as predicted by evolutionary theory (Wilson & Daly, 1998).For example, separation elevates the risk of violence: half of Canadian womenassaulted by previous partners were assaulted after separation and in one third of thesecases the violence began or became more severe during separation (Hotton, 2001). Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 338 Homicide Studies 16(4)Risks are also higher when men are young and when they have lower economic suc-cess, particularly when their masculine status associated with paid work is usurped byfemale partners (Macmillan & Gartner, 1995). Autonomy-limiting tactics remain themost important predictors of serious intimate violence, even when controlling forother common risk factors, such as income, male unemployment, age, and alcoholabuse (Johnson, 2001). Canadian homicide data show that men are three times as likely as women to killintimate partners and that the gender difference for killing spouses who have left themis even higher (Johnson & Hotton, 2003). Almost one third of women killed by part-ners were estranged compared to 11% of men (Johnson & Hotton, 2003, p. 70). Thesefigures underestimate the risk posed by separation, since they do not count those whowere in the process of or who had plans of leaving. Simply put, men more often huntdown and kill women who have left them. In fact, a small number of men each yearkill women from whom they are divorced, which suggests some very determined menwho act on conflicts and grievances that accumulated over a period of time and arecompletely undeterred by social or legal strictures (Johnson & Hotton, 2003). What ismore, 97% of spousal homicide perpetrators who committed suicide are male (StatisticsCanada, 2005, p. 61). A common theme in many homicide-suicides is the dissolutionof the relationship or a pending break-up and, although case file information wasavailable for a only a minority, one third of cases with relevant information showedthat homicide-suicides occurred within the first 2 weeks of separation and one third ofthe 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 under-stand motivations behind men’s use of violence toward partners has become standardpractice on prevalence surveys of male violence against women. Major internationalcomparative surveys now routinely include variations on these questions. For example,the International Violence Against Women Survey, which was hosted and supported bythe European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the UnitedNations (HEUNI) and interviewed women in nine countries, measured controlling andproprietary behavior by way of the following items (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 109 and 114): 1. Gets angry if you speak with other men 2. Is supportive of your work, studies or other activities (reverse coded) 3. Tries to limit your contact with family and friends 4. Follows you or keeps track of your whereabouts in a way you find control- ling or frightening 5. Calls you names, insults you or behaves in a way to put you down or make you feel bad 6. Damages or destroys your possessions or property 7. Is constantly suspicious that you have been unfaithful 8. Insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times 9. Harms or threatens to harm your children Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 339 10. Harms or threatens to harm someone else close to you 11. Threatens to kill you 12. Threatens to kill himself 13. 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 thatincluded 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 “allthe time” produced the highest adjusted odds ratio while controlling for the effects ofother common risk factors. In Switzerland, the predictive power of controlling and emo-tionally abusive behaviors came a close second to male partners’ use of violence againstothers outside the home (in all likelihood other men), a behavior that is also indicative ofan evolutionary male mindset to use violence in male status competitions. The World Health Organization’s Multi-Country Study of Women’s Health andDomestic Violence Against Women, which surveyed women in ten mainly developingcountries, found a strong association between partner violence and a similar set ofquestions (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005, p. 148): 1. Tries to keep you from seeing your friends 2. Tries to restrict contact with your family of birth 3. Insists on knowing where you are at all times 4. Ignores you and treats you indifferently 5. Gets angry if you speak with another man 6. Is often suspicious that you are unfaithful 7. Expects you to ask his permission before seeking health care for yourself 8. Insulted you or makes you feel bad about yourself 9. Belittled or humiliated you in front of other people 10. Did things to scare or intimidate you on purpose (e.g., by the way he looked at you, by yelling and smashing things) 11. 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 reliableprevalence estimates in all countries by 2015, recommends including this same moduleof 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 forphysical violence and a form of violence in themselves (United Nations, In Press).ConclusionFeminism and evolutionary psychology have not been easy bedfellows. That there maybe an evolved masculine mindset sounds utterly deterministic, and on the surface, it Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 340 Homicide Studies 16(4)Table 1. Logistic Regression Predicting Lifetime Current Partner Violence 95% CI B SE AOR Lower UpperAustralia  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 2.430Heavy drinking 0.882 0.171 2.415* 1.727 3.378Partner violent outside the home 1.132 0.155 3.103* 2.290 4.204Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 2.052 0.162 7.784* 5.667 10.693 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by 0.546 0.131 1.726* 1.336 2.231 parentsHousehold 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 1.635Constant −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 2.497Heavy drinking 1.134 0.534 3.110* 1.092 8.856Partner violent outside the home 1.607 0.281 4.987* 2.874 8.655Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 1.671 0.292 5.317* 2.999 9.426 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by 0.322 0.280 1.380 0.798 2.388 parentsHousehold 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 2.547Constant −3.063 0.422 0.047*  −2 Log likelihood 365.9  Model X2 = 122.2 (df = 10)  Nagelkerke R2 = 0.35   (continued) Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 341Table 1. (continued) 95% CI B SE AOR Lower UpperCzech 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 2.269Heavy drinking −0.271 0.326 0.763 0.402 1.446Partner violent outside the home 1.524 0.230 4.592* 2.928 7.203Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 2.108 0.207 8.231* 5.490 12.340 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by 0.306 0.211 1.357 0.898 2.052 parentsHousehold 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 1.285Constant −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 1.765Heavy drinking 0.853 0.223 2.347* 1.517 3.631Partner violent outside the home 0.840 0.321 2.317* 1.234 4.349Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 1.730 0.203 5.641* 3.786 8.406 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by −1.075 0.463 0.341* 0.138 0.846 parentsHousehold 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 1.137Constant −3.703 0.231 0.025*  −2 Log likelihood 769.8  Model X2 = 125.5 (df = 10)  Nagelkerke R2 = 0.17   (continued) Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 342 Homicide Studies 16(4)Table 1. (continued) 95% CI B SE AOR Lower UpperPoland  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 10.462Heavy drinking 2.236 0.560 9.356* 3.121 28.045Partner violent outside the home 1.388 0.349 4.009* 2.021 7.950Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 2.588 0.270 13.297* 7.830 22.581 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by 0.161 0.317 1.174 0.631 2.187 parentsHousehold 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 2.521Constant −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 13.478Heavy drinking 0.989 0.759 2.690 0.607 11.909Partner violent outside the home 1.909 0.484 6.747* 2.614 17.418Partner frequently controlling/emotionally 1.794 0.415 6.013* 2.668 13.552 abusiveRespondent victim of physical abuse by −0.354 0.490 0.702 0.269 1.832 parentsHousehold 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 3.554Constant −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. Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 343would appear impossible that feminists could find value in it. Indeed, this is wheremany stop reading. However, the assertion that there is great variation in male behav-ior, and that this is due to social and environmental factors, is where the two can findcommon ground. Evolutionary psychologists point out that biological factors are butone aspect of variation in gender differences, and that political, social, economic andenvironmental factors may be equally, if not more, important determinants of behav-ior (Sork, 1997). The rejection by many feminists of a theory suggestive of a biological underpin-ning to male violence is based in part on a realistic fear. Biologically based argumentshave historically provided justification for maintaining the oppression of women at thelevels of normative beliefs and practices that ascribed to women characteristics andaptitudes unsuited to public life. Such arguments have also supported social, legal, andeconomic policies that kept women dependent on men and unable to assume positionsof power to challenge these policies. However, it is possible to accept the evolutionarybasis for much of human behavior while rejecting biological determinism and genderinequality. Once it becomes clear that biological processes are not immutable (and donot equate with genetics) and that great variation exists due to the diversity of socialand environmental factors to which humans are subjected, feminism and evolutionarypsychology arrive at the same place: the problem lies not with the biology of individu-als but with the environments in which they find themselves and to which they mustadapt. The answer to changing behavior lies in changing environments. Thus, the sameconclusion is arrived at through a different lens. Most importantly, conclusions drawn by evolutionary psychology have practicalapplication that is not in opposition to feminist aims. Contrary to current policy direc-tions and public discourse that degender partner violence with an oversimplified“women do it too” approach, both the feminist and evolutionary psychology world-views know that gender matters a great deal and, therefore, specific responses areneeded for men who use violence. If sexual jealousy and possessiveness are qualita-tively different for men and women, and if violence is a ubiquitous male activity withconsistency in context and motives, then gender-differentiated strategies for prevent-ing and responding to violence are essential. Both feminist and evolutionary psychol-ogy points of view would agree that male partner violence requires strong socialcondemnation, and that the creation of social norms that support achievement of malestatus and respect through means other than violence and control of female partnersand subordination of women more generally is required to reduce this violence. Gowaty (1997), a self-identified Darwinian feminist, aptly reminds us that, regard-less of which social problem is of concern, social scientists from different perspectivesapproach the problem from different viewpoints and emphasize different causal fac-tors 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 Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • 344 Homicide Studies 16(4) 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 consid-erably advanced by the creative insights and discipline-crossing inquiries of MargoWilson and Martin Daly, and indeed we are better off for it.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of thisarticle.ReferencesBlock, C. R. (2000). Chicago women’s health risk study: Risk of serious injury or death in inti- mate violence: A collaborative research project. NCJ 183128. Washington, DC: US Depart- ment 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 J. Radford & D. E. H. Russell (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, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology & Sociobiol- ogy, 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, K., & Lewis, R. (2000) Changing violent men. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Eagly, A., & Wood, W. (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 Opin- ion in Neurobiology, 7, 812-819.Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.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.Hird, M. (2002). Engendering violence: Heterosexual interpersonal violence from childhood to adulthood. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Hotton, T. (2001). Spousal violence after marital separation. Juristat, 21, 7. Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013
  • Johnson 345Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-892.Johnson, H. (1996). Dangerous domains: Violence against women in Canada. Toronto, ON: Nelson.Johnson, H. (2001). Contrasting views of the role of alcohol in cases of wife assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(1), 54-72.Johnson, H., & Hotton, T. (2003). Losing control: Homicide risk in estranged and intact intimate relationships. Homicide Studies, 7, 58-84.Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008). Violence against women: An international perspec- tive. New York, NY: Springer.Kimmel, M. (2004). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford.Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Moller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807-827.Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1995). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participa- tion and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 947-958.Sanday, P. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 5-27.Sanday, P. (2008). Rape-prone versus rape free campus cultures. In M. Kimmel & A. Aronson (Eds.) The gendered society reader (pp. 594-606). New York, NY: Oxford.Sork, V. L. (1997). Quantitative genetics, feminism, and evolutionary theories of gender differ- ences. In P. A. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology (pp. 86-115). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford.Statistics Canada. (2005). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.Tang-Martinez, Z. (1997). The curious courtship of sociobiology and feminism: A case of irrec- oncilable differences. In P. A. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology. (pp. 116-150). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.United Nations. (In Press). Guidelines for producing statistics on violence against women: Sta- tistical survey. New York, NY: United Nations Statistical Division.Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk-taking and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6, 59-73.Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 2-7.Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1998). Lethal and non-lethal violence against wives and the evolu- tionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 199-230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Wilson, M., Johnson, H., & Daly, M. (1995). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 331-361.BioHolly Johnson has been engaged in research on violence against women for 30 years, first atStatistics Canada where she was principal investigator on the first national survey on violenceagainst women, and more recently as Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at FUND COOR DE APRFO PESSL NIVE on March 12, 2013