A reader is skeptical about this result:
This looks suspect to me. It’s counter logical in multiple dimensions, for one. Schacht’s conclusion seems to be a wild guess which could or may not be supported by the data. That is, the data don’t suggest that as the reason — it’s just one crazy possibility. Your remarks about (I think, if I understood correctly) about men knowing the relative numbers of competing men in order to modify their behavior is telling. I have no idea which counties have more or fewer women than men in Minnesota, for example, and I consider myself better informed than most. 20 years ago, one would have to visit a library to find that kind of thing out, too. I’d like to see more evidence.
Yes, there are some doubts. I don’t recall reading in the study as to whether there was any attempt to compensate for varying cultural traditions, for example. The results remain provocative, though.
Another reader reacts to the first:
A surplus-male population means women have a broader selection of mates for the purposes of personal protection. The greater rate of violence against women in female-surplus populations reflects the default rate of aggression that will occur in the absence of protection.
Doesn’t reflect well on male behavior.
Not in the least. It’s a view of men, stripped of the trappings of civilization, as carriers of genes that are driven to replicate. Coldly calculating as to whether rape or marry is not the kind of man I run into, frankly, in my limited experience, although sometimes this one or that one seems misogynistic.
That said, does it really reflect a default rate? I’m not sure what that might mean. In the absence of civilization? Is mankind really mankind without civilization?
