This has to do with larger family sizes due to the rather sudden shift to agriculture, and the fact that polygamy is the most common practice among primates.
FemiNazis 0.0
I think it is because that was when the first decent beer became available and the words “Hold my beer and watch this” were first used.
Which is one of those things that briefs well, until you actually have to put up with 17 woman.
<DuckingForCover>
World War I pretty much wiped out the men of native families in Great Britain. Entire towns lost all their men.
Stands to reason that as migratory bands gave way to cities, and wars became the norm, that the protection that a king could offer to women would be worth a lot. Attack the neigboring city, kill all the males, bring the women back, repeat.
How many “wives” did King Solomon have?
Monogamy is a far more stable structure, because the incentive to kill the king is so much lower if everyone has a chance to pair up, but clearly there were other phases.
The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years.
Dr. Strangelove, call on line one.
One man for every 17 women is every man’s dream... or every man’s nightmare if their menstrual cycles are aligned.
{{{ducking}}}
“Most of the male population across Asia, Europe and Africa seems to have died off, “
Maybe the Lord didn’t like that model?
Sorry.
5.56mm
Theres only one whitetail buck per how many does?
My ex-wife invented a time machine, and they all died trying to escape her.
Well, the Biblical account says only the male line of Noah survived the flood. The wives of Noah and his sons were probably all of different lineage. One male line, multiple female lines. Something to think about.
Isn’t it obvious? Whenever you have wealthy powerful men collecting multiple women because they can afford to do so, you have wealthy powerful men figuring out ways to get rid of the other men, particularly the younger ones.
Wars...................lots of wars...............
What’s the population of female lions to male lions in the wild? Approximately 3:1. What’s the population of female deer to male deer in the wild? Approximately 5:1.
Why wouldn’t the same hold true with nomadic humans?
“There must be another explanation”
So give me a bazillion $$$$$$$ grant and I will find the explanation. Even if I have to make one up.
General "Buck" Turgidson:
"Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?"
Dr. Strangelove:
" Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature."
Ambassador de Sadesky:
" I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor. "
Hah, I remember seeing this a few weeks ago. The scientist thought it was due to a large scale, long term war... but this time period men were not thought to have learned to ride horses yet. How could a non-riding, non-seafaring Asia/Africa/Middle East population wage any kind of effective war?
I would say its more likely that this was the result of the great flood. Here we have 1 father and 3 sons with a few women of different families as wives. That sure would cause a bottle neck and could explain such a vast die off of males.
I consider myself an avid reader of science and historical subjects. And in all my years I have never come across this story.
So in 3,000 BC to 5,000 BC there was a mass “killing off” of men?
Astonishing!