4 ms·

In my mind, things like fighting in war, working high-risk jobs, etc, all fall under protecting reproductive resources through history. Things like suffocation

In my mind, things like fighting in war, working high-risk jobs, etc, all fall under protecting reproductive resources through history. Things like suffocation, drowning, and fire are a bit harder to understand... but I believe they are derived from a high-risk mentality that men have gained as a result of this protector status. Ignoring the radical changes that we've seen in the last 50 years, if we sent women to war, we wouldn't have any children. Any nation that did that was wiped off the face of the earth rather quickly.

lostlogin 6y ago
> if we sent women to war, we wouldn't have any children. Any nation that did that was wiped off the face of the earth rather quickly. If gender rolls were reversed wouldn’t be many examples where the death toll was high enough for this to occur. In Britain in the 1921 census there were 1,209 single women aged 25 to 29 for every 1,000 men. In 1931 50% were still single, and 35% of them did not marry while still able to bear children. After the war there were about 40% fewer single French men for every unmarried woman, compared to before. Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the existence of a country. Post WW2 Germany and Russia would also be grim examples. It is of note that the 20th century was the first time that deaths from actual enemy action exceeded deaths from disease during war. https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-now-try-france-after-world-war-i/ https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-now-t... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem Perhaps we can increase my "50" years to "200" years. For the vast majority of history, having less men was considered eugenic and a good thing.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In Islamic societies, men having multiple wives was quite rare, with the vast majority of marriages being monogamous. It wasn't driven by having less men. It was driven by the upper class wanting more sex. It also turned out to be disastrous for society, and most of the Islamic world has outlawed or severly restricted the practice as it leads to huge social problems. The fact is that war has never been a large driver of casualties in these societies, outside of WW1 and WW2 which are the two exceptions and really don't prove your point. Wars were never fought to protect women, and most men died of disease and accidents, not war.
    - fork1 6y ago
      Polygyny was not restricted to Islamic societies though, and was a common occurence accross many societies. It was always restricted to a limited amount of men of course, as only the most successful/powerful/whatever could afford it. It does have heavy social consequences, but those might or might not be an issue for a given society, as some were quite successful (ie surviving for a long time, no moral judgement here).
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I certainly agree, the analysis applies to all other societies, but the link in the post was specifically about Islamic societies. My main point of contention was that it wasn't a widespread practice and wasn't motivated by a lack of men.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the existence of a country After WW1 the average height of a french soldier dropped by an inch or two (don't remember the exact value). This was attributed to the slaughter of the fit men. It also became fashionable to marry old men and foreigners. I know in Germany after both wars there was the same effect on marriages, but I don't know about the height.
sudosysgen 6y ago
People do not fight for the protection of reproductive resources. The peaceful way birth rates fell around the world these days is proof of that. People fought protecting material resources. Reproductive resources were only useful insofar as they help you produce more subordinates to generate more material resources. In feudalism this meant that reproductive resources were very important, but in slavery and capitalism it isn't really the case. Given the realities of military engagements in Feudal Europe - and the rather small army sizes - its not true that sending women to war would cause a fatal decrease in the birth rate, at all.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  I'm speaking of evolutionary biases, not conscious motives... in all species, the men go to war. Female lions do hunt, but they don't fight.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    What you are saying is simply wrong. Females participate in war in many species, including humans and lions. Female lions will often defend their pride to prevent the attacking lions from killing their cubs, and similarly in humans women often fight in defensive wars. Evolutionary biases are also essentially irrelevant in how societies are structured. The structures of societies are very intentional and based on material reality, not mere biases. Generally, men have mostly done the fighting, especially in wars of aggression. The reasons for these are material, as men are often better at fighting. It's not to protect women. When it's useful and makes sense for women to fight, then women fight.
    - ndiscussion 6y ago
      Interesting, do you have any examples of female warrior societies? The wikipedia article seems to start with WW1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military And even then, they were support, not infantry.
      - 6y ago

lostlogin 6y ago

> if we sent women to war, we wouldn't have any children. Any nation that did that was wiped off the face of the earth rather quickly. If gender rolls were reversed wouldn’t be many examples where the death toll was high enough for this to occur. In Britain in the 1921 census there were 1,209 single women aged 25 to 29 for every 1,000 men. In 1931 50% were still single, and 35% of them did not marry while still able to bear children. After the war there were about 40% fewer single French men for every unmarried woman, compared to before. Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the existence of a country. Post WW2 Germany and Russia would also be grim examples. It is of note that the 20th century was the first time that deaths from actual enemy action exceeded deaths from disease during war. https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-now-try-france-after-world-war-i/ https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-now-t... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women

ndiscussion 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem Perhaps we can increase my "50" years to "200" years. For the vast majority of history, having less men was considered eugenic and a good thing.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In Islamic societies, men having multiple wives was quite rare, with the vast majority of marriages being monogamous. It wasn't driven by having less men. It was driven by the upper class wanting more sex. It also turned out to be disastrous for society, and most of the Islamic world has outlawed or severly restricted the practice as it leads to huge social problems. The fact is that war has never been a large driver of casualties in these societies, outside of WW1 and WW2 which are the two exceptions and really don't prove your point. Wars were never fought to protect women, and most men died of disease and accidents, not war.
  - fork1 6y ago
    Polygyny was not restricted to Islamic societies though, and was a common occurence accross many societies. It was always restricted to a limited amount of men of course, as only the most successful/powerful/whatever could afford it. It does have heavy social consequences, but those might or might not be an issue for a given society, as some were quite successful (ie surviving for a long time, no moral judgement here).
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I certainly agree, the analysis applies to all other societies, but the link in the post was specifically about Islamic societies. My main point of contention was that it wasn't a widespread practice and wasn't motivated by a lack of men.
WalterBright 6y ago
> Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the existence of a country After WW1 the average height of a french soldier dropped by an inch or two (don't remember the exact value). This was attributed to the slaughter of the fit men. It also became fashionable to marry old men and foreigners. I know in Germany after both wars there was the same effect on marriages, but I don't know about the height.

sudosysgen 6y ago

People do not fight for the protection of reproductive resources. The peaceful way birth rates fell around the world these days is proof of that. People fought protecting material resources. Reproductive resources were only useful insofar as they help you produce more subordinates to generate more material resources. In feudalism this meant that reproductive resources were very important, but in slavery and capitalism it isn't really the case. Given the realities of military engagements in Feudal Europe - and the rather small army sizes - its not true that sending women to war would cause a fatal decrease in the birth rate, at all.

ndiscussion 6y ago
I'm speaking of evolutionary biases, not conscious motives... in all species, the men go to war. Female lions do hunt, but they don't fight.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  What you are saying is simply wrong. Females participate in war in many species, including humans and lions. Female lions will often defend their pride to prevent the attacking lions from killing their cubs, and similarly in humans women often fight in defensive wars. Evolutionary biases are also essentially irrelevant in how societies are structured. The structures of societies are very intentional and based on material reality, not mere biases. Generally, men have mostly done the fighting, especially in wars of aggression. The reasons for these are material, as men are often better at fighting. It's not to protect women. When it's useful and makes sense for women to fight, then women fight.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    Interesting, do you have any examples of female warrior societies? The wikipedia article seems to start with WW1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military And even then, they were support, not infantry.
    - 6y ago