The Expendable Male Hypothesis: Why Are Men Sacrificed?

While we women may think of many funny things when we hear the name of this hypothesis, men wonder, “What’s going on?” may react by saying, but leaving both aside, it is not ours. Let’s see what the researchers say.

We look forward to your comments after examining this hypothesis, which we think both genders will read with curiosity. So let’s get into the details and Can men really be spent? see.

What does the expendable male hypothesis argue?

Essentially, the expendable male hypothesis suggests that males’ roles in survival and reproduction tend to put them at greater risk. From the perspective of evolutionary biology and social structures, the reasons why men engage in more risky behavior are: sexual selection, social status gain and distribution of roles within society.

The concept was first introduced in 1975. Professor of Anthropology Carol Mukhopadhyay It is defined by. Although he does not give a specific name for this, in a book he wrote, he emphasizes that hunting, gathering and war duties should be given to men, and that women should be employed little or not at all. In fact, when men are away from home for long periods of time and women are busy with children, fewer men are needed It is suggested.

What does evolutionary biology say?

Evolutionary biology explains the reasons behind men’s tendency toward riskier behavior. For example, in humans, as in many animal species, male reproductive successdepending on their ability to maximize mating opportunities.

In addition, the man’s role in sexual intercourse ends when he only produces sperm. The woman has both pregnancy and birth. So in this case, men actually spend less time and energy. For the population to grow, a large number of women who can bear children and only a few men are sufficient. In the hypothesis, the opposite is not even possible.

This situation actually exposes men to competitive and dangerous situations. Roles such as warrior, hunter or protector, It requires men to take on dangerous missions and become “expendable” along the way.

Social roles are also involved in this.

Gender roles are an important factor that encourages men to engage in risky behavior. men throughout history protect family, go to war and was expected to undertake tasks such as heavy labor. Male losses in war generally did not have a direct impact on reproductive capacity, because even a small number of males in a society could be sufficient to sustain the population.

These roles require men to put themselves in danger, both physically and psychologically. Nowadays, this can also manifest itself in risky behaviors such as dangerous professions. Professions such as mining, construction, firefighting When you look at it, you can see mostly men because the high risk in these professions affects how men contribute to society. “disposable” It becomes another example of what they are.

There are also some events explained with examples.

Norwegian Sociologist Øystein Gullvåg Holter proposed the expendable male hypothesis. Kursk submarine disaster exemplifies with. He argues that if the 118 missing people were women, the Russian government would send help faster. And also In some wars such as Kosovo and Bosnia It is added that healthy men are more targeted.

Do you think it is still valid today?

Considering the changes in gender roles expendable male hypothesis A new perspective also needs to be brought. The fact that women are more likely to be soldiers and take part in professions such as firefighters, while men are more active in domestic or parental roles, calls this hypothesis into question.

The future of this hypothesis seems to be shaped by the constant evolution of relationships between men and women. What is your opinion on this matter? Are men really the more expendable gender?

You may also be interested in our other content where we discuss the differences between men and women: