From an evolutionary point of view, the violence is an answer of genetically determined survival of an individual or organism to an environment full of natural dangers elk the need for survival such like the famine, the thirst, the predators etc. to survive to these temporary employees dangers it has been historically necessary to act in a violent way; for example, hunting, attacking the predator, etc. Evolutivamente, those fastened that better have faced the dangers, across his aggressiveness, has been selected naturally. From here we deduce that the men might be genetically predetermined for the violence. But then we wonder: Porqué are not all the men violent? And: Why is the ill-treatment directed only to the one who is physically low?

To answer to this question we have to send ourselves at another level: the psychological one. Although numerous psychological theories exist on the violence, they all have a series of points together: the violent man has a psychological or psychiatric problem that he makes him feel more vulnerable, insecure and with low self-esteem, for which he feels the need to compensate it by means of the violence, facing his couple. From here, there are therapists who look for the causes of the violence in the infancy of the subject and in the problems through that he lived on having grown, assuming that if it saw domestic violence, he will be violent himself, and suppose that, on having solved the psychological problem, the man will stop being violent with his couple, since the causes will be settled.

Also there has been explained the violent conduct as an expression of his anger or annoyance; in fact, there has been created a form of treatment that allows to the men to "extract" his anger striking pillows and similar objects and shouting to express freely this emotion. This type of treatment of conoce like "control of the anger", and a question can make us raise us: does the fact of cheering up a violent person to whom it strikes a controlled object, such as a pillow, reduce his aggressiveness as he says this theory (of base psychodynamics) or increases it on having reinforced his aggressive declarations and having generalized his answer to the real life? Separate questions, this theory supposes that the man must learn to express the anger appropriately.

Another psychological explanation is the one that is realized from the system theory. This explanation supposes that it is the couple the one that is damaged, and not only the man. It tries to dawn of what way both parts of the couple take part like persons in charge of the violence that exists. This interpretation sees the couple like a system that has certain balance, and when this one breaks for influence of one or both parts, the potential arises for the violence.

Another parallel explanation is the psychiatric one, which he suggests that the man has a serious mental illness and that's why it is violent with his couple. His reasoning norms are out of the social norms, and therefore one would believe that he is a psychopath or sociópata. This explanation is used especially when the man goes at extremes violence levels. Nevertheless, this theory can cause a question to us: if the violence is a fruit of a mental illness: why is it selective? The men who are violent in his hearth with his couples do not have why it to be necessary in his work, with his friends of soccer or with other members of his family. In conclusion, we can say that yes there are cases in which the man has a psychiatric problem and that's why it is violent with his couple, but they are truly rare compared to the number of cases in which a psychiatric illness does not exist.

To give an explanation to porqué the violence in these subjects is selective, or what is the same, is not reproduced in all the contexts of his life, we have to send ourselves at another level: the social - cultural one: According to an important social theory a division exists dicotómica that is established in many ambiences: woman - man; chief - worker; etc., so that he analyzes the division artificially created between men and women, that has supposed the belief (and assumption) from almost the beginning of the humanity of the superiority of the man on the woman, and to support this superiority and domain is prevailing to make use of the violence. This way and according to this explanation, the men have turned into minders and promoters of this supposed superiority on the women, and to support this social dynamics need a form of social control; being this one the domestic violence. This constitutes the base of the patriarchy, which is a system of social relations that uses the individuals to impose the control on themselves and on others to use his resources and to reinforce the mastery of the Superior: the patriarch. Most of the cultures accept that the woman has to be lower than the man, and it is the last one the one that creates cultural forms that define and reinforce this supposed inferiority of the woman: the myths and the traditions. The violent man obviously supports these beliefs because he is who obtains benefits.

We cannot omit any of these approaches at the time of understanding the causes of the conduct of the maltratador: each of them will have his capacity, in minor or major measurement, in the construction of each of these individuals.