3 ms·
>The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of ch
by Thorrez 3y ago
>The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive.
How does that math work out? Every child has a mom and a dad. Are you referring to widowhood and remarriage? Divorce and remarriage? Polygamy? Were those so significant in the 1920 that it caused a "much better chance"?
- llm_trw 3y agoThere has always been a surplus of men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/
- Thorrez 3y agoThat's an interesting point I hadn't though of, thanks. However, I don't think it really backs up the previous comment. The link say's it's been even until recently: >In humans, this balance has been remarkably even, but the past few decades have seen a substantial shift towards men, notably in some Asian countries Yes there's an imbalance at birth: >around 103–107 male babies for every 100 female ones. However, 2 things about that imbalance: * I don't think 100:103 or 100:107 is big enough for "a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive". I would think "slightly better chance" would be more accurate. * The imbalance only exists as babys/kids. By reproductive age (the previous comment said "a woman had a much better chance than a man" not "a baby girl has a much better chance than a baby boy"), it evens out: >the initial surplus of boys decreases to roughly equal number of males and females during the all-important reproductive years in most populations.