Der weibliche Vorteil bei der Schadenswahrnehmung verschleiert die männliche Viktimisierung – Schaden gegenüber Frauen wird als schwerwiegender wahrgenommen als ähnlicher Schaden gegenüber Männern, eine Ungleichheit, die auf evolutionären, kognitiven und kulturellen Faktoren beruht.
Feminine advantage in harm perception obscures male victimization
8 Comments
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381
Abstract
Despite well-documented disparities disadvantaging women (e.g. discrepancies between men and women in salaries and leadership roles), we argue that there are contexts in which disparities disadvantage men. We review the literature suggesting harm to women is perceived as more severe and unacceptable than identical harm to men, a bias potentially rooted in evolutionary, base rate, stereotype-based and cultural shift explanations. We explore how these biases manifest in protective responses toward women and harsher judgements toward men, particularly in contexts of victimization and perpetration. Our review aims to complement the existing literature on gender biases by presenting a balanced view that acknowledges men and women face unique challenges. By understanding these biases, we hope to foster a more equitable discourse on gender and harm, encouraging empathy and validation of suffering irrespective of gender. This holistic approach aims to de-escalate gender-based conflicts and promote effective interventions for both men and women.
From the linked article:
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.
Somewhere there’s a depository with stock photos of despairing men and i want access to it
I wonder if this possible gap influences the way that people perceive the amount of victimisation that actually occurs. It’s not outside the realms of possibility that greater perceived harm influences how much certain harms are advertised (for want of a better word) and therefore how much people see it around them.
I love science and all but this is common sense to any man
I feel like this has been a quietly understood “truth” for some time, but people seem to feel reluctant to discuss it for fear of coming off as politically on the wrong side or dismissive of legitimate women’s issues. It’s good to see that there is research out there that does seek to quantify and characterize this phenomenon, as it is a pretty thorough review paper.
I think this is inevitable really all the way from ‘women and children first’ to sticking men out to war like they are a disposable asset. We need to modernise the way so much works and so many peoples subconscious thinking to fix this.
I personally have experienced this. I’ve been both sexually assaulted (large women tried to take advantage of me when I was way too drunk) and sexually harassed (former manager got drunk a work party and felt me up in front of others), and when I tell people, especially women, about these experiences, I’m almost always met with neutral responses.
I’m considering if this could be a result of the oppressor/oppressed narrative, and the idea that harm against ‘the oppressor’ is justified, deserved, or matters less.