in most cases yes, take one small example the male spider being eaten after mating even the praying mantis will do this

Generally. In some species, the male is worthless after mating. A lot of times, he just dies. Sometimes, the female will eat the male to make at least one final use of him (black widow spider, for instance).

Nature is a jerk.

Typically, yes. Males can’t reproduce, and females can reproduce with just one male.

That’s why during hunting season you can hunt more bucks than does. You only need a handful of bucks to replenish the deer population.

Sure. The bee queen is a whore and the black widow spider is a homicidal bitch. XD They don’t need the mild mannered male.

hey it only takes one cockrel once to fertilize all the eggs !

That depends entirely on which species, and where in nature.

That is true for standard animals. Among animals, the males are mostly smaller and weaker and they are the ones that do the courting and have physical properties that are specifically intended and used for the courting and advertising of one’s own existence, like big horns, big colourful extrusions or feathers. In some spider species, the female kills and eats the male after mating.

However, to paraphrase my old Bio teacher, it seems to be reversed in Humans, especially in modern times. Among humans, it is the females that do the courting, with all their makeup, hairstyles and general obsession with fashion and shoes. In humans, the females are also physically less developed than the males, making them weaker, more susceptible to falling prey to wild predators and thus have a, for nature, atypical reliance and dependence on the males of the species, especially considering the females general limitation of 1 to 2 offspring per reproduction cycle, which is also abnormally long. The offspring itself also takes atypically long to develop to full size. This means the offspring needs very much time to be nurtured and cared for. Coupled with the females physical deficiency, this is the reason for the female dependency on the males of the species and the, for nature, atypical real importance of the male.

I think the human specie’s evolutionary history also explains why males of the species are generally more inventive than the females. Being a species without any physical and natural weaponry, like fangs, claws, poisonous stings and generally being physically inferior to most other species, and considering that the males are the physically stronger gender, meaning it was the males that go hunting and defending the group against predators and other hostile groups, survival greatly depended on the males ability to invent tools, weapons, hunting and battle tactics. Due to evolutionary pressure, the males thusly developed this inventive skill faster and to a greater extent than females.

It’s good be female. :) Yes, males are more expendable. If you have a population with ten females and one or two males, that population will grow much faster than a population of one or two females and ten males.

I’m pretty sure females set it up this way because we’re also naturally more intelligent. ;)

@MissAusten Excellent, so you can make babies. o. O I would have thought females had something more to be proud of than that.. in fact it sounds kind of sexist… O . o lol

I jest.. I jest.. Don’t hate me.

It depends. In some species of lizards and even birds females can reproduce where no males are available (by laying eggs that are clones of themselves apart from mutation). However, in other species, ours included, males take part in raising the offspring. Surely those Emperor Penguins fathers get some respect for standing in the Antarctic with an eggs on their feet for months on end.

@NaturalMineralWater I guess having to bear children is a fair trade for being more vital to the survival of the species. Besides, I didn’t say we don’t have other talents and skills!

Without males the genetic variability among populations would be small enough to allow for viruses to threaten extinction.

@MissAusten I know I know.. I was just joking. Don’t eat me! XD

Yes, usually about six inches or so.

Obviously, both males and females are necessary for the continuation of the species, but, in a sense, the male’s survival is less critical. With 100 females and a few males, the species can repopulate quickly, but with 100 males and a few males, there will be few new offspring and a lot of jealous, fighting males. ;) Males need only survive long enough to pass on their genes, but females need to survive long enough to lay eggs or carry their offspring to term.

@NaturalMineralWater I know. You’re safe.

@75movies Yes, there would have to be a certain ratio of males to females to avoid problems with inbreeding. This might be more of an issue in higher species, but I’m not sure about that. You sometimes read about certain populations having higher rates of genetic diseases. I can’t think of examples now, but after I throw my children in bed I’ll try to look it up.

@ragingloli Really good answer! However, although the human females do most of the “courting,” we are still, in the end, who decides who we’re going to go home with. The men can only hope it will be them!

@Sosueme I believe the question was expendable, not extendable.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities Took me a sec, but LOL!

In general, yes, that is true. Sorry guys!

I guess women shouldn’t be in the military then. Makes sense right? (tongue in cheek again) gah.. that kind of night.

Genetic bottlenecks may be a problem only if those used for breeding stock are flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. If everyone has stellar DNA, a bottleneck may even be a good thing.

@ ragingloli: welcome to 2010. No longer is physical supremacy the answer. We have evolved beyond that. Now, mental aptitude reigns. That point accepted, females need only a limited number of males to maintain the species, and, by being more selective, we might be able to move forward more expeditiously.

@editingdiva
Socially, yes. Technologically, doubtful. Technological and scientific developments have been mostly done by males, as have been most of the the risky undertakings, like flight, motorised transportation, and space exploration. Females seem to generally be less willing to take risks or try new things.

@ragingloli LOL! Have you been spying on that other question?! :)

@Val123
What other question?

@ragingloli http://www.fluther.com/disc/63275/why-are-there-so-few-women-in-things-like-computer-science/ (It’s what prompted me to ask this Q. And…I’ve noticed no one has addressed the secondary question I asked in the details!)

And for some statistical backup: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/58/37864173.pdf

Except for Japan, men outnumber women in fields as mathematics, computer science, engineering, manufacturing and construction (remember, this is in the age of equal access to education), so most of the developments will be done by males. If the males fall away, the development in these fields will slow dramatically.

It depends, If the animal is one that mates for life then neither one is, usually when it is a type that mates for life the male plays a very important role. Either keeps the mother alive because she cannot leave the nest, or keeps the eggs warm because feeding grounds are so far away, or is the host for the offspring…ect.

The animal type that leave shortly after mating are much more expendable than the female, because it is usually the mother that has to tend to the young while the father goes off and spreads his genes.

Sadly it seems like the animals that mate for life are the ones that are mostly on the endargered speices list. This tells me both are equally important. I can say the human animals that mate for life is slowly on the decline as well…=(

@ragingloli What’s different about Japan?

In Japan, there are slightly more women than men in mathematics and computer science at university.

@ragingloli Well, then, that tells me that if “If the males fall away, the development in these fields will slow dramatically” you could add the word temporarily to the end of that sentence, as obviously, women would come in and quickly fill the void. Like they did in the factories during WWII.

To answer the SECOND part. It depends on if you believe if men and women were suppose to mate for life or not.

I think we have changed from what we were. I believe when human first walked we were not meant to mate for life with just one partner. Over time we have changed. We became varied enough in DNA to pair off.

And with this came a very different way of thinking. Men had to become responsiable for another life as well as their own. Women were use to it. This caused two different ways of thinking. Men are all about survival and women are all about nesting. Our minds will never meet. Ever. One will always think the other is expendable or replaceable.

@Val123
That is debatable. Remember, while Japan has the highest woman percentage in Maths and CS, it also has the lowest percentage in engineering, construction and manufacturing, so that somewhat neutralises the impression that Japan is somehow an indicator country for future development.
And they had to work in factories because it was necessary and what is more important, it was mandated by the male leaders.

@ragingloli Are you from the UK??

@Val123
http://www.fluther.com/disc/64626/how-many-nations-are-represented-on-fluther/#quip968162

@ragingloli Ah, so Germany speaks the Kings English?

@Val123
Why, yes. Proper British English is what is taught in German schools.

@ragingloli Humphers! I just axed because you said, “neutralises ” which iz ze British spelling.

There is a lot you can learn on the internet, young lady.

Yep, pretty much..Without the female, life would cease to exist. Only takes one male in a group of females to keep a species going.

@SoulSearcher
It would not. Funghi are genderless they reproduce with spores, some worms are hermaphrodites, not to mention that bacteria are all asexual. Life would continue without either gender.

And besides. It also takes only one female in a group of men to keep the species going. Maybe quicker in the other scenario, but the female can put out an offspring every 9 months, not to mention the chance of several spawns at once. And some of those are bound to be female.

@ragingloli Now you’re being….OFF TOPIC!!! I’m tellin!! MODERATOR!!!!!

Come on. You know what I mean. First of all, I mentioned “Male of the species,” which automatically discards hermaphrodites and species capable of asexual reproduction.

Second, when a woman has a baby, in nature, she nurses it. Nursing suppresses ovulation, probably because the female body really can’t handle kid after kid, like an assembly line. Every couple of years would be more like it, not every 9 months. It would kill her by the 27th month. AND, in nature, women giving birth to more than one baby at a time would most likely kill her AND the babies.

@ragingloli , Ok, you have a point, not all species, but 1 female to a group of males in most cases would not ensure the continued existence of most species. You would have to factor in mortality, not all young survive so to have 1 female would still up the odds in most species extinction

@Val123
Well, if we assume this scenario to take place in a modern environment, we DO know ways to override these protective mechanisms with our elaborate pharmaceutical products. And we can implant multiple embryos at once, thus enforcing multiples. And how many babies did this one woman give birth to at once, and lived? Was it seven?

@SoulSearcher 1 female to a group of males and still only one male would survive in most cases as the males would kill eachother for their genes to be passed on, only the strongest one would survive..LOL or the female would get so sick of all the males screwing her she would kill all but one…she would get pretty tired pretty quick.LOLr

@buttkisses LOL Excellent point!

@ragingoli Octomom?? she had 8..

Human males are expendable after passing on their genes, from the standpoint of species survival. Fom the standpoint of advancement of the species, males are more needed as the inventiveness and risk-taking proclivity of that gender leads to progress and higher quality of life. The down side of this is the curse of warfare, a product of male tendencies towards violent competitiveness and territoriality.

@ stranger in a strange land…I disagree…I think a child needs both parents be able to be emotionally healthy. Emotional health is a direct link to physical health. The male human is very important when it comes to the wellness of our children. I say this because in society there is stigma placed on a child and feelings of abandament that can emotionally cripple a child and effect the health of a child. The male has become important to the offspring through eveloution IMO.

At all, I’m not talking of recent human civilizations and mores and medical inventions. I’m speaking in the overall scheme of things.

@SoulSearcher “And besides. It also takes only one female in a group of men to keep the species going.”

Alright kids, who’s going to have sex with mom tonight?

@75movies I spit my coke all over my screen lol EWWWWWWWWWW =X

Do you think that would matter if the survival of the species was at stake? And besides, the same is true for the other scenario: “Alright kids, who’s going to have sex with dad tonight?”

@ragingloli are you speaking of just two humans left?

@buttkisses
No. In that case nothing would matter anyway, because genetic degradation and deformity will kill off the species in 3 to 4 generations or less.

“This theory was first proposed by jurist Henry Maine, who did not have knowledge of modern genetics, but who did draw on his observations of animal husbandry[17] Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.[18] An increase in homozygotes has diverging effects. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. The overall consequences of these diverging effects depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, as long as children born with heritable birth defects die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier.”

i love wikipedia.

well there goes another myth (partially).

Urgers.

Typically, no. For females (from an evolutionary point of view) the males are a wonderful health insurance for her offspring, especially when dealing with new challenges. Asexual reproduction creates very little change and relies on mutations alone. The mathematical discipline of combinatorics teaches us about the almost endless possibilities of sexual reproduction.

Sex is a great example of a success story in the history of life.

@mattbrowne I’m not saying we don’t need them, but in the grand scheme of things, there is less impact on a small society when a male is killed vs one of the limited number of females….

@buttkisses I agree with you on the emotional side. I was talking about species survival/advancement only.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land even with just strictly survival with the idea that a child must have both parents to be emotionally and physically healthy (because there is a direct link between the two), the father is still important. Unless you remove all memory of such an idea, then yes the male is expendable.

I had only one parent, and I’m healthy. Just sayin’.

@laureth But the point is from a nature point of view, where you don’t necessarily have a monogamous situation. Yes, you were raised by one parent, but it took two to create you.

@Val123 – I should have addressed my comment to @buttkisses. It was said that “a child must have both parents to be emotionally and physically healthy” which implies something past my biofather’s ten-minute contribution to my “well being.”

@laureth Oh. Yeppers. My kids were in the same boat. Dad abandoned them when they were little. It’s awful, but we’ve made it through.

@buttkisses But it is essential to survival that the male human be willing to be expendable; to protect the women and children who are biologically essential to the future of the species.

@buttkisses Yes, what @stranger_in_a_strange_land said. I’m thinking along the lines of a purely evolutionary, survival of the species line, not a social structure line.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land very true…lol

@laureth There are studies that show emotional heath benifits greatly when there are both parents assisting in the raising of the child. As long as they are fit to do so. Strictly following studies that site emotional health connecting to physical well being and the studies that show children brought up with both parents in their lives.
is how I was implying this information.

I too was brought up in a single parent home for some time. Admitidly it was not easy and I know my emotional health suffered, as I do have long lasting effects from it. I was a single parent for some time and I know it was very hard on my children. They have done ok but I know the emotional damage was done. Not everyone is the same and perhaps some do fare much better than others.

I can see where two (or even more) parents would make the raising much easier.

@Val123 – Well, I think it’s a little more complicated and the spider example is actually misleading (the male spider being eaten after mating). How many eggs does a spider lay? The number of eggs varies according to the species of course. Some larger spiders lay over 2000 eggs.

In contrast, a woman rarely gives birth to twins, let alone triplets. Suppose she eats her man after sex, who will father her second child? Sure, she could have other men, provided they hadn’t been eaten after sexual intercourse themselves. Then let’s suppose women greatly outnumber men in a given population. This will reduce genetic diversity and thereby will also reduce survival changes especially when dealing with new challenges, such as viral and bacterial infections.

America doesn’t have health insurance for everyone yet. But women with a natural child instead of a clone are covered by their natural “male health insurance”. Best of all. It’s (almost) free. And good men don’t abandon their children. I certainly didn’t.

the crocodile will have a clutch of all females or all males depending on the temperature of the nest

@mattbrowne – They only have “male health insurance” if they choose a good man, apparently. Many don’t.

@mattbrowne Again, I’m speaking from a strictly natural POV, leaving all the niggling details out. I just got done reading “Galapagos” and Vonnegut suggested that one man and 10 women could repopulate the earth. I….well, you’d have to be awfully damn lucky to get away with that. But, I suppose that’s why he choose the Galapagos Islands for the setting to make it even somewhat plausible.

Two scenerios
1) You have a society of 100 women, and 100 men. 90 of the men get killed off, so now you have only 10 men and 100 women (am I talking like a fourth grade teacher right now??? There’s a reason for that! And do NOT ask me how the men got killed off because it’s irrelevant!!)

2) Same society, only now there are 100 men and only 10 women.

Which society has the better chance of making a comeback when you factor in things like accidental deaths, disease, and last but not least, death by giving birth to children? Also, in the last scenario you’d probably have those 100 men killing each other off to have their shot at the women!

@Val123 – About the Vonnegut scenario I would say, in theory. It’s an extremely small gene pool. Incest makes a species very weak. But the pool could be relatively small as some theories suggest. Have you heard about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

“The volcanic eruption resulted in the world’s human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. The theory was proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.”

Now, about the other two scenarios. Of course scenario 2 is more successful, because there’s far more offspring. One man can father ten women. But in terms of reduced genetic diversity there’s no difference.

On average there are about 51 baby boys and 49 baby girls for every 100 babies. There are some interesting hypotheses how this ratio can change over time due to environmental changes. One hypothesis links this to the stress experienced by the pregnant woman.

This is going in a different direction, but if interbreeding weakens the species (which I know it does) how is it that mother nature allows for it in other animals, like dogs and cats and stuff? Why isn’t there some instinct that stops it?

because nature knows it’s hawt

Hmm. Good question. I’m not sure. One factor could be the number of offspring per breeding event. Non-neutered dogs and cats and rabbits are very fertile multiplying like crazy. A few genetic detects in some of their offspring might not matter that much.

Some recent research suggests that human mating desires are driven by smells related to complementing immune systems. Check this out

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html

“Sweaty T-Shirts and Human Mate Choice – Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field. Scientists like Victor Johnston study the human brain and human behaviors—why we do the things we do—in the context of evolution. This clip outlines the “sweaty T-shirt” experiment, which showed that the sense of smell may have more to do with mate choice than previously thought. Females sniffing the T-shirts recently worn by males favored the scent of those whose immune response genes were different from their own.”

“Maybe it’s not similar interests, horoscope signs, looks, or proximity that make women and men fall in love. According to evolutionary scientists, when people throw up their hands and say “it was just chemistry,” they may be on to a fundamental factor in mate choice. Subtle chemical signals, or pheromones, have long been known to draw pairs together within the same species, and for a specific reason. In mice, for example, experiments showed that pheromones acted as attractants between males and females who were genetically similar except that they differed in a certain type of immune system gene. That difference is actually a survival benefit: The combination of two individuals’ different MHC (major histocompatibility locus) genes gives their offspring an advantage in beating back disease organisms.”

“So the mice could smell a genetic difference. But could modern humans, who aren’t known for a particularly good sense of smell, also make that distinction? In the first “sweaty T-shirt” experiment, a Swiss zoologist, Claus Wedekind, set up a test of women’s sensitivity to male odors. He assembled volunteers, 49 women and 44 men selected for their variety of MHC gene types. He gave the men clean T-shirts to wear for two nights and then return to the scientists. In the laboratory, the researchers put each T-shirt in a box equipped with a smelling hole and invited the women volunteers to come in, one at a time, and sniff the boxes. Their task was to sample the odor of seven boxes and describe each odor as to intensity, pleasantness, and sexiness.”

“The results were striking. Overall, the women preferred the scents of T-shirts worn by men whose MHC genes were different from their own. The experiment did not test men’s perceptions of female scents, but the results certainly suggest that evolution has provided humans, not just mice, with a transmitter and receiver for genetic information that could influence mate choice.”

Inneresting, @mattbrowne! I think we humans have the same instincts as other animals, and are subtly, subconsciously driven by them. We just tend to think about stuff too much, rather than just do!