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.
Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization
American Buddhist Net 