I believe the reason why men have always been considered more expandable than woman is somewhat biological:
For the plain survival of the human race, one needs more women than men, because women are the bottleneck of human reproduction.
Imagine that there was an apocalyptic event and only 100 humans are remaining.
If there were 99 women and one man, the (very lucky) man could easily fertilize all woman, and after one year, we'd have about 99 children.
But imagine that there were 99 men and only one woman remaining - even if the men managed not to kill themselves over the question who will fertilize her (which seems quite unlikely), after one year there would still only be one child.
On the other hand: right now, the survival of the human race is hardly in such a critical situation; we're instead dealing with the opposite problem: overpopulation. So I believe that at this point in history, one could just as well argue in favor of adopting a temporary "woman and children last"-policy.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
