This article needs attention from an expert in Anthropology. The specific problem is: It is not clear exactly how big of a deal this idea is in anthropology, whether it really is a counterpart to economy-of-effort theory and compatibility with childcare, and an expert would probably be able to identify some sources (or have an old undergraduate textbook on hand) to provide solid grounding. (November 2024) |
This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material that does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (October 2022) |
Part of a series on |
Anthropology |
---|
Male expendability, the relative expendability argument, or the expendable male hypothesis, is the idea that the lives of male humans are of less concern to a population than those of female humans because they are less necessary for population replacement. Since the 1970s, anthropologists have used the concept of male expendibility to study such things as polygyny, matrilinearity, and division of labor by gender role.
The concept comes from the idea that, from a reproductivity standpoint, one male may be able to impregnate or otherwise father offspring with many females. In humans, this would mean that a population with many reproducing women and few reproducing men would be able to grow more easily than a population with many reproducing men and few reproducing women.