>>12809254>that makes no senseHow so? Males are less crucial to a tribe's survival than females. If a tribe loses say 20 men out of 30, the tribe would suffer, but it will not perish. If on the other hand a tribe lose 20 women out of 30, the tribe would be heavily disadvantage since women could only carry a limited number of children and childbirth (including maternal childbirth) was common in hunter-gatherer societies. Therefore men are more "expendable" and so higher genetic variation is allowed that does not lead to too many men dying out due to too much genetic variation (i.e. negative mutations like genetic illnesses). Women don't have this privilege and are more vulnerable (e.g. during pregnancy) and so natural selection favors less variation in order to save more females than males. This is confirmed with IQ (you can literally look up the std values online) and other statistics such as height: the tallest and the shortest people are men. Also, men have a "trashier" gene pool and are more susceptible to genetic disease. For instance the Down syndrome is biased against males, so is life expectancy.
