the_dark_lewd on 23 November 2015
| ArnoldRimmer said: 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. |
What you're alluding to is called Parental Investment theory in evolutionary biology.
Namely, women invest more in offspring (biologically) than men do. That's what creates the imbalance. It's also why it's much rarer to find a mother abandoning a child than a father.
