Why are men expendable

[Chatha]

Well its no news, you read and hear it everywhere. Anybody here know specifically why it should be so?

[Dak]

OI!

 

what do you mean, 'expendable'?

[Chatha]

Men are pressumably more expendable than women, even when both are equal to any occassion. Genetically, men also die earlier than women

[mmalluck]

This can be seen in nature many times over.

 

Bees, for instance, take this to the extreme.

 

All works are females. The only males are Drones and they die after they mate with the queen. The male only has one use and dies after he's no longer needed

 

The Angler fish (the scarey fish in Finding Nemo with the light-lure on it's head) is also another interesting example. The female fish is what is commonly seen. The male is tiny in comparison. Once finding a mate, the male fish latches onto the female and lives off her in a parasitic manner. Over time the male fish becomes totally enveloped by the female leaving behind little more than a pair of testicles.

 

I pulled these examples out of my head, but I also found a webpage that discusses these further.

 

Females are nessary for a species to reproduce, males are only needed to the point of conception, after which they become expendable unless they preform some other useful task, like providing protection, gathering food, hunting, or caring for the young.

[Phi for All]

Men are pressumably more expendable than women, even when both are equal to any occassion.

Perhaps as the hereditary hunters/protectors of the human species, it is our role to delay danger while females lead the children to safety.

 

Chatha, can you suggest a direction that would give this thread a reason to stay in Philosophy & Religion instead of Ecology/Populations/Habitats/Environment?

[AzurePhoenix]

It's because if most of the men die, we girls can go lesbian, and we'd still be cute. Not so cute the other way around.

 

Plus all that hunter-gatherer/reproductive science mumbo-jumbo

[Dak]

possibly, one male and ten females can result in ten pregnancies, whereas ten males and one female can only result in one pregnancy so, in terms of continuing the species, its better to lose males than females.

 

iv also heard this as an argument for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality of the 'completely acts like a member of the opposite sex' variety: if all the male monkeys go off to fight and are all slaughtered, then the one effeminate male monkey which stayed behind with the female monkeys can empregnate the females and spawn a new generation; if all of the monkeys which stay behind and dont fight get killed, the one butch lesbian monkey which went off and fought with the males can get pregnant and spawn a new generation.

[RedAlert]

possibly' date=' one male and ten females can result in ten pregnancies, whereas ten males and one female can only result in one pregnancy so, in terms of continuing the species, its better to lose males than females.

 

iv also heard this as an argument for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality of the 'completely acts like a member of the opposite sex' variety: if all the male monkeys go off to fight and are all slaughtered, then the one effeminate male monkey which stayed behind with the female monkeys can empregnate the females and spawn a new generation; if all of the monkeys which stay behind and dont fight get killed, the one butch lesbian monkey which went off and fought with the males can get pregnant and spawn a new generation.[/quote']

 

Your last sentence was confusing. Can you please explain again?

[Dak]

ok. naturally, with things involving mortal combat etc, like defending territories, many animals send the blokes off to fight and the women, elderly and young stay at home: thus, the local population is split into two groups, one consisting of males and one consisting of females. now, if either of these groups is wiped out (possible, as the split usually happens in times of conflict), then the entire population will be lost as there will only be members of one sex left.

 

by having a few women who will go off and fight with the men, and a few men who will stay at home with the females, it is ensured that even if one group is wiped out, the remaining group will contain both men and women so that the population can reproduce.

 

dont know how good/bad this theory is (actually, it seems a little lame), i was just relaying what iv heard conjectured before.

[husmusen]

O.k. Immediate possible problem that just popped up in my mind.

 

If 3/4 of the males get wiped out, the genetic diversity loss

would be pretty catastrophic anyways. Especially in small social

units like thirty to a hundred people.

 

Additional to that the loss of manpower and food gathering ability

would also be catstrophic. not to mention the loss of ability to

defend themselves.

 

Thus the popular theory of male expendability seems flawed to me.

 

Cheers.

[mmalluck]

In humans, maybe, but what about something like bees?

 

The only thing the drone does is mate after which he dies.

 

Even if all the drones are killed, the queen can simply make more drones. Incestious? Yes. Limiting the gene pool? Not really. It's part of the bee's survival strategy.

 

In humans, if 3/4 of the male populations was lost, we would see some genetic limitation in the next generation, but this wouldn't last long. The female population still cares a vast array of genetic differences and in a few generations all would be well.

 

Additional to that the loss of manpower and food gathering ability

would also be catstrophic. not to mention the loss of ability to

defend themselves.

 

1) I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of women, but I agree that a loss of man power would see that population would further decrease. Things would tend to become more even.

 

2) Defend from who? Other packs of waring females?

[jcarlson]

In humans' date=' maybe, but what about something like bees?

 

The only thing the drone does is mate after which he dies.

 

Even if all the drones are killed, the queen can simply make more drones. Incestious? Yes. Limiting the gene pool? Not really. It's part of the bee's survival strategy.

 

In humans, if 3/4 of the male populations was lost, we would see some genetic limitation in the next generation, but this wouldn't last long. The female population still cares a vast array of genetic differences and in a few generations all would be well.

 

 

 

1) I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of women, but I agree that a loss of man power would see that population would further decrease. Things would tend to become more even.[/quote']

 

I Agree. Also Remember that the population of earth has not always been 6 billion people. if 3/4 of the male popluation were to die, leaving 750,000,000 males (more than 2.5 times than the population of males and females in the US combined). I dont think there would be any noticable loss of genetic diversity at all, at worst it would regress to around the 1700s or so... hardly catastrophic.

 

2) Defend from who? Other packs of waring females?

 

Crazy Amazons.

[Kleptin]

wait...men aren't expendable...cops spend years trying to cacth a guy that "disposed" of one.

[Obnoxious]

Men are expendable because with the exception of one manly governor of California, men cannot give birth.

[Skye]

Men aren't always considered more expendable than women.

[j_p]

... many animals send the blokes off to fight and the women, elderly and young stay at home ...

 

Defend that statement.

 

I would recommend researching the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, lions, and the military forces of your country before you attempt to do so.

 

Or just approach a nearby Canadian Goose.

[husmusen]

I Agree. Also Remember that the population of earth has not always been 6 billion people. if 3/4 of the male popluation were to die, leaving 750,000,000 males (more than 2.5 times than the population of males and females in the US combined). I dont think there would be any noticable loss of genetic diversity at all, at worst it would regress to around the 1700s or so... hardly catastrophic.

 

 

Read my post:

"Especially in small social units like thirty to a hundred people."

 

Obviously if it's some kind of global catastrophy that affects everyone

equally, thre wont be a relative disadvatage.

 

But if one tribe has a bad outcome in a war, and lost 75% of there

menfolk. Then they are suddenly open game for every other tribe with

a food shortage. They can't defend their food sources, and they die.

 

Captain of the troops Sven.

"Vigge, our crops have failed, our tribe will die, what shall we do?

Everyone else is short as well and will not trade,

Shall we raid the tribe to the east, who have 75 men with bow and arrow,

the mighty tribe to the north, who have 250 men with bow and arrow.

Or the tribe to the west who tussled earlier with the tribe to the north,

and now have only 25 men with bow and arrow and 10 of them are lame."

 

Cheif Vigge:

Sven, I think you should attack the tribe to the west, who have only

25 men with bow and arrow and see what the have, if they have no food,

we shall threaten the tribe to east with great war if they do not trade.

 

Every other tribe has similar discussions and so the seven times decimated

tribe gets raided again and again, unless they have friends, but friends

in those kind of climates usually come with a hefty margin attached.

 

Despite what feminist theory would have you believe.

 

Cheers.

[husmusen]

Oh to compare a colony of bees with the reproduction patterns of humans,

is apples and oranges.

 

And to refer to the bees and ants as female is misleading.

 

It would be better to say that humans have two sexes

(inspite of what the intersex lobby thinks) male and female.

 

Ants and Bees have three,

Queen, Worker and Drone.

 

Only the Queen could have a vague similarity to a human female,

and the drone a vague similarity to the human male.

So there is only one true female, in a colony, and millions of males.

And billions of worker ants who have no equivalent human type.

 

Cheers.

[jcarlson]

Read my post:

"Especially in small social units like thirty to a hundred people."

 

Obviously if it's some kind of global catastrophy that affects everyone

equally' date=' thre wont be a relative disadvatage.

 

But if one tribe has a bad outcome in a war, and lost 75% of there

menfolk. Then they are suddenly open game for every other tribe with

a food shortage. They can't defend their food sources, and they die.

 

Captain of the troops Sven.

"Vigge, our crops have failed, our tribe will die, what shall we do?

Everyone else is short as well and will not trade,

Shall we raid the tribe to the east, who have 75 men with bow and arrow,

the mighty tribe to the north, who have 250 men with bow and arrow.

Or the tribe to the west who tussled earlier with the tribe to the north,

and now have only 25 men with bow and arrow and 10 of them are lame."

 

Cheif Vigge:

Sven, I think you should attack the tribe to the west, who have only

25 men with bow and arrow and see what the have, if they have no food,

we shall threaten the tribe to east with great war if they do not trade.

 

Every other tribe has similar discussions and so the seven times decimated

tribe gets raided again and again, unless they have friends, but friends

in those kind of climates usually come with a hefty margin attached.

 

Despite what feminist theory would have you believe.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

I did read your post. But you can hardly argue that an event that wiped out 75% of the male population of a tribe of 100 people would have any kind of impact on the genetic diversity of the world. The survival chances of the species as a whole would be virtually unaffected. What would probably happen in your scenario is that the male members of the conquering tribe would mate with the female members of the conquered tribe, and in a generation or two the population would be back to 50/50.

[Chatha]

One thing I agree on is that its difficult keeping men's population up. I even heard that all babies start out as females in the womb regardless of what sex they change into later. Archaic and some present societies even murdered new born babies if they weren't males, catapaulting an increased search for males. Many Mid Eastern countries have more males than females because of policies like these.

[pariah]

ive seen how large groups of bored,restless women can get after while. you need men as a distraction so you dont rip each others faces off. besides,if we all died out,who would you blame all the worlds problems on? you would have to finally admit you are as flawed as we are.

 

 

 

 

as a side note,men do alot more than just donate sperm. WE build nations because we are strong enough to do what women cant or wont. without us,your feminist society would fall apart in a years time. also, if there were less men,we would have to sleep with more women to keep the race alive,and we know how much you jealous women hate sharing your toys dont we? get over yourselves...

[Chatha]

I'm with you on this one, and I think most men will. Women may have it all on a silver plate but due to some men they have to go through quite a lot. We must remember that everybody has a role, this is where the discrepancy usually stems from. Any man paying attention to a woman had better pray its agood woman, you can still get lucky even if you pay attention to a philosophicaly inpaired man. Nonetheless, A good woman is worth two good men.

[Flareon]

I don't think men are viewed as expendable in all cultures, just mainly in western. And I think that may have more to do with the philosophy of honor and chivalry more than anything bionomical. In many other cultures, expendibility rests on the females, not males.

 

Take China for instance: culturally they value male over female children. So when parents are pressured to have minimal offspring, many females are adopted out of the country or aborted. In Saudi Arabia, men can marry multiple wives and commit adultery as he pleases, but if the wife is ever even suspected of consorting with another man, she is most likely killed, and justly so in their minds. Little, if anything, happens to the male adulterer. The old custom of dowries even seems to indicate that females are to be bargained and traded for, and while perhaps are not viewed as expendable, are certainly viewed as spendable.

 

I do agree with the idea put forth that women are more economically procreative, but we already know that nearly all human conditions are caused by both biological and environmental (cultural) factors, human expendibility being no different.

[Guest maxmystic]

I totally agree with Flareon. In China, males have a supposedly higher value than females, but this view has been slowly eroding due to the western influence. I would rather say that everyone, and everything, given a life on Earth has a purpoe or meaning, and they are not expandible.

[[Tycho?]]

Look at peacocks, and all kinds of other birds. Females have superb camoflage. Males have bright colors, huge plumage, which amounts to a big sign that says "eat me".

 

Males in most species are only required for a very brief conception. Females must actually carry the young for months during pregnancy, and then often raise them afterwords. Its also already been noted that if a population were to suffer a decline in males, that decline can be brought back up in pretty much a single generation. If there was a similar decline in females, it would take much longer for the population to rise again.