Worth noting that this is also true of many species of herd animals - e.g. musk oxen and zebras, to name a couple off the top of my head - in which the males put themselves at increased risk to protect the females and young.
Apparently it works, on a species level.
Abandoning the women and children of the group in the face of a threat is not always a winning evolutionary strategy. And hunting and war are risky.
Men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, overall. Therefore, in situations where the danger cannot be fled, it makes sense to expect the men to deal with it.
Regards,
Shodan
We expect men to die younger and get injured more frequently than women. A woman’s last words are rarely “Hold my beer” or “Watch this”.
I remember one day my coworkers and I began discussing which categories of people are “worth” more than others (according to Americans en mass)
At the top of the list are white girls (US citizens) between the ages of 4 and 18. When one of them dies or is missing, the whole country stops and grieves.
…many categories in between…
At the bottom of the list are African men (in Africa) older than 70. When one of them dies or is missing, pretty much no one the US gives a crap.
In almost all cases women are above men. That is just the way society sees it. Men are somewhat expendable and are able to “take a hit for the team.”
I am really not trying to start a derail here, but it doesn’t begin with death. It is understood that most of the really shitty jobs go to men (smelly or long outside manual labor). There are more men at the top (which everyone is very concerned with), but there are more men at the bottom as well (which no one sees as a problem).
Women are more precious than men, but in a way that is almost completely irrelevant in modern society. A population that loses a large proportion of its men is more healthy as a whole, and can recover more quickly, than a population that loses the same proportion of its women. But nowadays, that hardly matters, because it’s quite rare for a population to lose a large proportion of either sex.
You’re mixing up cause and effect. Men don’t do the dangerous jobs because we’re stronger; we’re stronger because we do the dangerous jobs. Strength has its trade-offs: Men need to eat more than women, and we generally die earlier. For the sex that does most of the high-risk jobs, that tradeoff is worthwhile, but for the sex that’s sheltered and protected, it’s not. So we’ve evolved for men to be stronger than women.
I don’t see much of a difference except that a man’s death is more likely to have been a known risk than a woman’s death. This is a product of culture - more men are soldiers, police, firefighters, drunken brawlers, etc. - but it’s still true. I feel bad about a volunteer soldier dying, but I feel worse about a random death of someone going about their daily life. That’s true regardless of gender but, again, men are much more likely to choose risky occupations.
This strikes me as a just-so story. There’s no reason for evolution to favor men to do most of the high-risk jobs (cf. lions, bees). Indeed, the only high-risk job that really matters evolutionarily is childbirth.
You think male lions don’t have a high risk job?
We see sexual dimorphism throughout the animal kingdom which usually has a larger stronger male. And it’s almost associated with the males acting as protectors of their offspring and/or mates. Since males usually have only a brief participation in reproduction and are not greatly needed for rearing their offspring otherwise protection is reasonably seen as the driving force for larger stronger males. Like anything else in evolution it could just be an accident. If you want to step back further you could consider males to exist only to promote genetic diversity and otherwise useless to a species.
I don’t think this is correct.
I believe the larger stronger male is associated with the need to compete for mating opportunities against other males, and is absent (or reversed) in species in which this is not the case.
The males don’t need to be larger than the females to compete with each other. However it does favor males that are better fighters.
That’s true.
The males are not larger than the females because there’s selection pressure in favor of males who are larger than females. The males are larger than females because there’s more selection pressure in favor of large males than there is in favor of large females.
IOW being big and strong has a much bigger impact on a male’s ability to pass on his genes than it does on a female’s ability to pass on her genes. (For species in which males fight each other for access to females, that is.) The net result of this is that males are bigger than females.
I agree.
Looking at the whole animal kingdom this is not true - “larger male” is not the default, arguably not even the majority. The only place it is the majority is in mammals, the rest of the animal kingdom, from insects to fish to reptiles to birds, it’s pretty common that the females are larger, perhaps event the majority of the time.
Competition between males favors larger males more often than being a protector of mates and offspring, probably because in the animal kingdom as a whole males generally don’t bother with either. Again, that’s most typically a feature of either mammals or birds… and in birds it’s usually the female that’s larger, possibly because it enables her to lay larger and more nutritious eggs and the smaller males usually do just fine in their roles of protector and/or nurturer. Again, you usually see larger male birds where the males compete against each other for sexual access to females.
Cite?
Really, I’ve been hearing this for longer than you have been alive, but I have never been presented with contemporaneous objective evidence.
But women have traditionally been involved in warfare, both as camp followers and targets. What we usually haven’t been allowed to do is bear arms for more than a few minutes, and then only whatever we grabbed that was at hand: no training.
But I think you understood what I meant, right? Namely, that including women as an additional part of the actual fighting force in warfare would give that force a numerical advantage over an opposing force with similar numbers of male troops that didn’t allow women to fight.
Just as many conflicts in modern warfare include child soldiers even though they’re smaller and weaker than adults, traditional warfare could have included women soldiers even though they’re smaller and weaker than men. The reason that it generally didn’t, AFAICT, is that women were considered far less expendable than men when it came to reproduction.
Overwriting our instincts is practically the definition of being civilized.
No, resisting our impulses is part of the definition of being civilized. You don’t just get to jettison or rewrite them.
And I am resisting my impulses. I said whether I feel the same degree of sympathy for an adult man, adult woman or child doesn’t affect my conscious decision of what is the right thing to do.
Our brains have no idea we’re living in a modern society. Our instincts still revolve around trying to survive out in the open. It’s why our heart rate increases and we feel fear when summoned to the managers office. There is no genuine threat of danger - but our brain sees any potential conflict, physical or otherwise, as life threatening.
I think that’s because we are hardwired to only feel a connection to a very small number of people. We feel empathy for people we personally know, but as the chain gets further away, we feel less empathy. So the death of a friend of a friend you met that one time, will resonate with you, even if only a small way - but the random obituary from a name you don’t recognise, will not register at all.
Celebrities are mourned for two main reasons. Firstly, we ‘know’ them. They aren’t true strangers as we know more about them than we do most of the people we come into contact with on a daily basis. Secondly, millions of people know who they are - so their death is going to resonate with a larger number of people.
Some good points, but a couple of things I disagree with.
A small weak man will still be stronger than a big strong woman. Males have around 10x the amount of testosterone and significantly stronger musculature/insertions than females. In a similar way to that of a human when compared against a chimpanzee.
Also, your scenario of an equal number of men vs men (plus extra women on one side) wouldn’t work in reality. If a general/military chooses to send out 100 troops into a particular job, that’s 100 troops he’s sending out - the number is for a strategic reason. Adding another 20 women to the group will change the entire dynamic and strategy of everyone involved in the operation.
Of course, a bigger selection pool would mean potential for the best of the best women being selected in place of the worst of the worst mean - thus improving the overall average skill level of the military. We know women serve on the frontline, and generally will have to work a little harder for a variety of reasons to ‘earn’ their place.