Men, Violence and Evolution

As you may know, one of my pastimes is reading about sex, gender and evolution.

I also like a good action movie.

Like all lovers of film, I’ve noted that movies in which violence is a significant part of the storytelling, have more appeal to men than to women.

More guys I know appreciate the artistic nuances of Robocop and Dawn of the Dead, than girls.

Men simply can better enjoy the vicarious action drama, those beautiful moments when the outcomes of the story rely on that fascinating  combination of character, risk and violence.
Incidently, whilst reading about qualities of manhood, I came across this idea from a psychologist therapist:

“Men enjoy fantasising about defending themselves with the employment of force”.

It occours to me that there could be good evolutionary reason for the fact that men are more likely than women to fantasise about using violence.

Sperm is cheap. It costs less than an egg to produce. And, there is, in any given mixed population of human, a great deal more sperm than eggs.

Furthermore, you only need so much sperm to fertilise very many women.

For these, and other reasons, from the point of view of the species as a whole, men can be seen as more disposable than women in any given population.

It might be good evolutionary strategy to make the the disposable sperm-carriers more able and inclined to reflexively and swiftly be able for combat, whilst the precious egg-carriers are more inclined to, in the presence of threat and disposable sperm-carrying combat drones, emit distress signals and duck for cover.

Take a not entirelty improbable prehistoric scenario.

A hungry big oversized male predator – say a sabre-toothed tiger, attacks a cave occupied by humans. Upon noticing the threat, the women shriek and run. Combat worthy males, probably equally terrified, grab whatever weapons they can, and face the threat.

Whatever the outcome of combat, as long as there is at least one male of breeding age left, and other factors being equal, the population can continue to generate.

Should there be only one breeding female left, the population can still generate, but at a much slower rate, and with less certainty.

Also, every birth brings with it a chance of the mothers death. So, the lower the egg-producing component of a population below a certain threshold, the more fragile it is.

So, it seems to be good evolutionary strategy, within a population of egg and sperm reliant generators, to make the sperm producers more inclined towards violent action then the egg-producers.

And, perhaps the same brain-circuitry that prompts us to take on stone-age oversized predators, and wrestle in the school playground also prompts us to really dig that final knife-fight between Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro at the end of The Hunted.
Thats right. You heard it here first:

The reason why all you guys ( aka sperm-carrying combat drones) like Highlander better than your flygirls, is that sperm is cheap.

I’d be interested to know if any real scientists/psychologists have already come up with this idea. If any of you know, enlighten me.

Especially you, Suraya.