2 ms·

Interesting. Is this a well-known theory? I'd be interested in reading more about it.

• Ericson2314 10y ago
  To my knowledge it has not been elsewhere summarized as such. This is my personal synthesis of what I've read.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks; very insightful. I understand the other three cases, but how are males not assets? Also, I believe females are often seen as being the liability side of the balance sheet (which is perhaps what you meant). You have to pay another family (pay a dowry) in order for them to take on the woman. (In case there is any doubt, I strongly believe that every woman is a person who should decide for herself who she wants to be.)
    • Ericson2314 10y ago
      So see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price which at least is practiced in some West African cultures that are otherwise very similar to dowry ones. This leads me to beleive that the transaction direction is somewhat arbitrary, and the main purpose is the ritual of negotiating with the other family and then establishing s financial bond to match the matrimonial one. ----- Social Psycologists would argue that men are more expendable because their low marginal contribution to the reproductive capacity of a society. Indeed there is genetic evidence that the distribution of children was less equal, with many kings with harems on one hand and childless low-status on the other. Colloquislly, we have memes of "<harmed> even women and children" and "women and children" getting on lifeboats. Male subcultures tend to emphasize competition and unequal outcomes rather than care and cooperation. Many of the most dangerous jobs skew male, but that could do more with them requiring brute strength.
      • hackuser 10y ago
        Very interesting. Thanks.