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

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

457169
7912457169Homicide 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


Johnson 333

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 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 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 part-
ners 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 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 and
provides a justification for the oppression of women” (Tang-Martinez, 1997, p. 116).


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 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 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 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 evo-
lutionary 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 evolu-
tionary 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 environ-
mental information and respond to it through specific behaviors or physiological


Johnson 335

activity. These mechanisms have evolved to respond to specific problems that affected
reproductive success throughout human history. Since males and females face differ-
ent 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, gen-
eral 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 exclusiv-
ity 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 domi-
nate 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 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 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 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 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 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 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” kill-
ings 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 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 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.


Johnson 337

Empirical Tests of Evolutionary Psychology
Explanations offered by evolutionary psychology for male partners’ lethal and nonle-
thal 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 gov-
ernments 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 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 to
show 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 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):

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 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 suc-
cess, 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 part-
ners 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 under-
stand 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):

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


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 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 emo-
tionally 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.
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):

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 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



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 2.052 0.162 7.784* 5.667 10.693
abusive
Respondent victim of physical abuse by 0.546 0.131 1.726* 1.336 2.231
parents
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
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
abusive
Respondent victim of physical abuse by 0.322 0.280 1.380 0.798 2.388
parents
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*
Model X2 = 122.2 (df = 10)
(continued)


Johnson 341

Table 1. (continued)
95% CI
Czech Republic
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
abusive
parents
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*
Model X2 = 261.8 (df = 10)
Philippines
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
abusive
Respondent victim of physical abuse by −1.075 0.463 0.341* 0.138 0.846
parents
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*
Model X2 = 125.5 (df = 10)
(continued)



Table 1. (continued)
95% CI
Poland
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
abusive
parents
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*
Model X2 = 222.1 (df = 10)
Switzerland
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
abusive
Respondent victim of physical abuse by −0.354 0.490 0.702 0.269 1.832
parents
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*
Model X2 = 55.1 (df = 10)
*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.


Johnson 343

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 behav-
ior, 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 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 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 individu-
als 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 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 are
needed 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 with
consistency 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 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, regard-
less of which social problem is of concern, social scientists from different perspectives
approach 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



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 Margo
Wilson and Martin Daly, and indeed we are better off for it.

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.

References
Block, 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.


Johnson 345

Hyde, 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.

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.


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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (7)

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

Similar a When Feminism Meets Evolutionary Psychology: The Enduring Legacy of Margo Wilson (20)

Más de Carlos Bella

Más de Carlos Bella (20)

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