No 50/50 Gender Split (Rar!)

[Col. Crackpot]

Northern Australian women? That depends - how much do you like women that look like a female clone of Steve Irwin and Crocodile Dundee? Though, with more facial hair than either and far worse dental work.

Crikey! Lets observe these beauuuutiful beasts in their native 'abitat!

[Cykeisme]

Exitmundi has a page on this
http://www.exitmundi.nl/giggle.htm

I don't even want to think on the science behind it or whatnot.

Wait, so something like this is actually happening? Has this caused the extinction of any other mammal populations?

[ArmorPierce]

I don't think so, and that's the thing, we've gone hundreds of million years and males are still around.

[Stormin]

Has this caused the extinction of any other mammal populations?

In the Exitmundi article it has a short paragraph near the bottom:

On the other hand, there's the case of a small rodent from Turkey called the mole vole (Ellobius lutescens). Millions of years ago, the X-chromosomes in this animal succeeded in eliminating the Y-chromosome. But the rodent did something remarkable. It evacuated all male genes to other genes. This quirk of nature still astounds biologists. But it also indicates that men in theory should be able to overcome the attack of the girls.

Now whether I actually believe this, I would need other source to verify before I put a large ammount of stock into it. Even if it is true, it will kick in far too distantly in the future to affect me.

[Broomstick]

The modern legal definition of marriage incorporates too many features that are impractical with polygamy, such as spousal benefits from employers, custody and inheritance provisions, etc. Unless you assigned one spouse as the "primary" and created a hierarchy of spouses under her that have almost no rights relative to her, but that's pretty harsh.

Or did as under Islam and allow multiple wives but still limit the overall number. Under Islam - assuming the rules are followed which, of course, in the real world is not always the case - a man may have four wives but cannot hold one above the other and must provide for all equally, and their children likewise have equal legitimacy and inheritance. As a result, most men can only afford one wife.

The complications of having multiple but limited wives would probably be no more involved benefits-wise than with couples with large numbers of children. Ditto for inheritance. Custody might be less of an issue, with multiple adults in a family it would be harder to wipe out all the parents at once although visitation rights when it comes to divorce might get more complicated.

Would that result in more rights for women? Not necessarially - it certainly didn't under Islam. In fact, in most polygamous societies women have fewer rights than in monogamous cultures, which might be one reason the more strident feminists are so dead-set against polygamy.

[Broomstick]

Aren't women known to be more fluid with their sexuality then men? This is something I recall, although I may not recall it correctly

Girls can't just choose to become lesbians, although I could see them resorting to lesbian activity if there's no choice much as men resort to gay sex in prison.

Two points here: first, I think heterosexual men isolated from women for long periods of time will move to homosexual relief much quicker and more frequently than women isolated from men. For one thing, male sex drives are, on average, higher than women's, and tend to manifest in much more agressive ways. In either case, it's a less favored means of tension relief and quite a large number of the population would prefer to fuck their own hand or do without than fuck the "wrong" gender. These people have not changed sexual orientation, they have merely discovered that their genitalia is unable to distinguish the gender of the hand that rubs them. Put them back in a situation where they can get what they want and those "homosexual activities", as Wong put it, disappear.

Second, don't base your thinking about women on porn. There is a porn meme that all women are latent bisexuals and will do each other either at the request of a man or because they're so horny they can't wait for the man to arrive. Don't take this meme to the real world. Most women are as heterosexual as the men and have no urge to "switch". In fact, quite a few would find it disgusting and repellant. These are not feelings that can be changed simply due to a lack of men, or by an act of will.

[Broomstick]

There would have been a larger trend towards Matriarchal societies, perhaps going as far as to make men the 'weaker, protected' gender that women became in the Medieval Ages and today in the MiddleEast and Oriental Cultures.

I don't see where that follows. Historically, polygamous cultures have not valued women - perhaps because every man has an ample supply?

In a polygamous society a man who loses one of several wives is still married and still has females to care for his children. Her loss may cause him grief, but from an evolutionary perspective the loss is not as great as if she were his only wife. In a monogamous culture, a man who loses his wife needs to find another as soon as possible both for sexual relief and to provide for child care. Children of single parents, on average, have never fared as well as children with two parents. In a monogamous society the loss of a wife is much more of a blow. Therefore, women become more valuable.

Not that that always leads to women's rights - women are always at risk of becoming property and commodities rather than full human beings.

[Broomstick]

To maintain this population, and keep it from oscillating, males and females couldn't be the same as they are today. Males would have to be more fertile, in order to impregnate his entire harem

Nonsense. The real-world human male is quiet capable of keeping a large harem of women pregnant and birthing already. Man fertility is already up to the job.

Conversely, females may need to be extremely adapted towards childbirth, as each individual is less likely to have many children.

No more so than today.

One advantage to women (and children) in a polygamous society is that, with the men able to seek sexual relief elsewhere, a woman is able to spend years nursing her child which is a definite advantage over the long haul. A number of African societies forbid a man to even touch a nursing woman, even his own wife. This allows a spacing of 2-3 years between births and results in much healthier women and children. The children get the benefit of extended nursing, and the women don't go as much physical stress as do women with a tighter birth-and-nursing cycle.

It's not about the sheer number of infants a woman squirts out of her crotch - it's about how many survive long enough to reproduce. A woman who gives birth 12 times but has only 1 survivor is not as fit in evolutionary terms as one who gives birth a mere 2 times but has both children survive.

This has never been normal. It is thought that a "normal" birth distribution for humans would be 52/48 male/female; other species show deviations. Both humans and other mammals show drifts in sex ratios.

Irrelevant - a 52/48 split is close enough to "50/50" for a biological system. Especially since that ratio skews by early adulthood to get a 51:49 female/male split. By middle age the current human race favors women even more than that, because men do die younger and more often.

One change that might occur is that the human race would become or would have evolve even greater sexual dimorphism. "Harem" systems tend to have males significantly larger and physically distinct from females - think sea lions, as just one example. Monogamous species tend to have the two genders resemble each other fairly closely in size, strength, etc. Humans are only mildly sexually dimorphic - which would lead one to conclude that we have the capibility for polygamy but it's not a universal mating strategy. As is, indeed, the case. Going back to hunter-gatherer societies - a more "natural state" than agricultural or industrialized societies - most men had but one mate at a time, and you had to be a pretty big-shot and successful hunter/provider to keep more than one mate at a time. Hunter/gatherer "big men" might have two, perhaps even three wives... but not always.

[Lord Woodlouse]

IIRC the split is actually 51-49 in favour of women.

[Broomstick]

Only in early adulthood. Tharkun is correct that it's slightly in favor of men at birth, about 102:100 in the industrialized world, except where infanticide skews the numbers. But because the death rate for men exceeds that of women, on average, at every age that ratio changes over time.

Overall, considering all ages, it is about 51:49 in favor of women.

[wolveraptor]

Conversely, females may not need to be so adapted towards childbirth, as each individual is less likely to have many children.

Correction on the sentence. It's premise is still wrong, though.

[Lusankya]

Only in early adulthood. Tharkun is correct that it's slightly in favor of men at birth, about 102:100 in the industrialized world, except where infanticide skews the numbers. But because the death rate for men exceeds that of women, on average, at every age that ratio changes over time.

Overall, considering all ages, it is about 51:49 in favor of women.

And like most species, we also tend to produce more females in times of hardship., because that's what's needed to replenish the population. There are also environmental factors that can affect this. In my city, for example, females actually outnumber males at birth, because of something in the water. It's all rather interesting.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[tharkûn]

Irrelevant - a 52/48 split is close enough to "50/50" for a biological system. Especially since that ratio skews by early adulthood to get a 51:49 female/male split. By middle age the current human race favors women even more than that, because men do die younger and more often.

That depends entirely upon the problem you are working with. If, for instance, you want to derive the number of "surplus" males in a given culture you need to make that distinction starting at birth; otherwise you answer once you factor in infanticide, death in childbirth, life expectancy, etc. will be hopelessly off. The amount of precision required can be quite high, or quite low; but there is no blanket amount applicable for everything. If you care about how aggregates quantities 52 vs 50 can be the difference between 100,000 and 0.

Only in early adulthood. Tharkun is correct that it's slightly in favor of men at birth, about 102:100 in the industrialized world, except where infanticide skews the numbers.

In addition it can be skewed by prezygotic selection. Wether it is hormonal, immunogenic, or something else; sperm do respond to external stimuli and gender ratios can be skewed by that as well. There was a rather noticable shift in relative birth rates for the countries involved in WWI; while much smaller or no shift occurred in neutral countries.

And like most species, we also tend to produce more females in times of hardship., because that's what's needed to replenish the population.

No we don't. Following both world wars we saw an increase in the proportion of males born. As humans we like a 51:49 ratio (the exact value of the natural equilibrium point is debateable) and deviations in either direction result in changing gender proportions at birth. Said changes tend to be small, but noticeable.