In a previous post, I address the question of why so many battered women stay in their abusive relationships. (Answer: So that they could produce violent sons with the abusive husbands, who will grow up to kill many men.)
This answer clearly conflates an outcome of remaining in an abusive relationship: violent sons with the premise that this is the true underlying reason women stay. In that previous post, staying is positioned as in opposition to the "importance of life, survival, and individual welfare" but this is based on ignorance. Leaving an abuser can result in the loss of all 3 of these. This can happen even when the victim is using the best resources available.
The number of boys and girls fathered by abusers vs. non-abusers can clearly be impacted by more than biology. An abuser who wants sons and not daughters can adapt the abuse to increase or decrease the chance of a miscarriage. Yet this reality is ignored just as the very real risks of leaving an abuser were ignored.
In the investigation of why men abuse their partners, the competing premises Kanazawa presents neatly reduce domestic violence to being caused by the valuing of the abused person's reproductive value or not valuing this. Then DV statistics are positioned as by necessity proving one of these premises true and the other false. This misuses data since it presents any data set as proving evolutionary psychology to be a valid explanation for abuse.
Too often when I see someone supporting evolutionary psychology to explain domestic or sexual violence, that person's understanding of the behaviors they are trying to explain seems based on popular narratives about violence rather than on solid research or scientific thought.