Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization

A review published in Biology Letters highlights that harm toward women is perceived as more severe than similar harm toward men, a disparity rooted in evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural factors.

Maja Graso and Tania Reynolds explore this “feminine advantage” in harm perception, examining how societal responses prioritize harm against women while often minimizing harm against men.

The authors trace this bias to evolutionary pressures. Women’s reproductive roles historically made their survival critical for group continuity, fostering norms that prioritized their protection. These norms persist today, shaping moral judgments. For instance, experiments reveal that people are less willing to sacrifice women than men in hypothetical moral dilemmas, particularly when the women are of reproductive age. This tendency diminishes for older women, reinforcing its evolutionary roots.

Cognitive biases, such as moral typecasting, further reinforce the asymmetry. Typecasting associates women with victimhood and men with agency, making women more likely to be seen as vulnerable and men as perpetrators. This cognitive shortcut leads to systemic blind spots: male victimization is often ignored or trivialized, while female perpetration of harm remains under-recognized. For example, women’s use of indirect aggression, such as social exclusion, is perceived as less harmful, while male victims of intimate partner violence are frequently dismissed or ridiculed.

Cultural shifts, including feminist movements and the push for gender equality, have heightened societal sensitivity to harm against women. While addressing critical issues like workplace harassment, these changes have also perpetuated an imbalance in harm perception. For example, men face harsher judgments for workplace misconduct, even when the behavior is identical to that of women. Similarly, judicial data reveal that men are more likely to be convicted and receive harsher sentences for comparable offenses, reflecting stereotypes of men as aggressors and women as victims.

At a broader level, societal concern is more readily directed toward women’s challenges. For instance, underrepresentation of women in male-dominated fields like engineering is often attributed to discrimination and addressed through intervention, while men’s underrepresentation in female-dominated fields like nursing receives less attention. This disparity reflects assumptions that women need protection and support, while men are expected to endure harm with resilience.

Graso and Reynolds emphasize that these biases are context-dependent, shaped by historical, cultural, and psychological forces. However, failing to address them perpetuates harm against men in areas such as legal systems, workplace dynamics, and social support structures.

The authors call for a balanced discourse that acknowledges the unique challenges faced by both men and women. By addressing existing asymmetries and generating discussions, the authors aim to reduce gender-based conflicts and promote a more holistic understanding of harm perception.

The paper, “A Feminine Advantage in the Domain of Harm: A Review and Path Forward,” was authored by Maja Graso and Tania Reynolds.