Submitted by MistWeaver80 t3_10qm7hd in science
Letting the male die is often a efficient strategy for the species. Female are left with more food.
males are less important for the survival of a species. 1 male can mate with 10 females. but not the other way round.
Males are less important. You can lose one male and it has no impact on the next generation, because it's easy for the other males pick up the slack.
If one female dies, that's a whole litter of pups that are missing from the next generation.
Are litters weighed more heavily towards majority females?
Some people think that because of this it is morally worse if women die than men. E.g. when Russia commits terrorist attacks in Ukraine, it is stressed more if women died in the attack.
one of the reasons women arent allowed to fight on the frontlines in a lot of armies is because men are affected more by women get hurt or killed. the stronger emotions is probably an evolutionary trait to protect women above men. its the same reason why women were prioritized over men when the titanic was sinking. theres a lot of scenarios were men have an advantage, when it comes to life and death it seems that womens safety is prioritized.
The irony being much of Russia's modern problems likely stem from the generations of kids raised without a father because up to 80 or 90% of men in a generation died in WW2.
The 10-20% that lived were often unfit to serve in one way or another, or con men. And Russian women had to compete for them. Then they had to raise their sons with few men around to help or be good role models.
The American Baby Boom saw the Nuclear Family flourish.
The Russian Baby Boom was considerably more depressing.
Both fell prey to Cold War propaganda.
I’ve also heard that the ‘women and children first’ thing is because men are usually physically stronger and bigger so women and children wouldn’t have a chance to get to the lifeboats when everyone is scrambling to save themselves
Yeah and without women and children first, some men would just push past smaller, more vulnerable people. Like women and children.
This is also the reasoning some people use to bemoan female promiscuity while defending male promiscuity.
Which, even it biologically makes sense, is hypocritical. Can't have one without the other.
You certainly can. Most apes are polygynous, not polygamous or monogamous. One male bullies the rest and has more access to partners than anyone else. Most human groups in history have shown this tendency.
[removed]
Well, not if they mate themselves to death. But man, what a way to go
Hence why women and children are saved first.
Is this why men typically go to war?
And the males are happier anyway.
[removed]
I think it's more of a way for males to maximise thier reproductive output
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments