Historically and economically, speaking life was much harder in the past. Males are bigger and thus consume more resources. Nature solved this my producing fewer stronger males which could also be the “sperm carrier” vs the “fetus carrier” which obviously eventually weighs more and needs around 9 months. It would make no sense to have the bigger and stronger beings be in bed for several months preparing to give birth while having the smaller ones protect against unwanted predators. This arrangement is seen in many species where the male are both stronger and more colorful as well. Natures does tend to take interesting paths and you can see species where the opposite is true. Still we would have to look at all the factors before making comments on their complete social as well as sexual dynamics.
Why did nature take this path? Instead of having many larger males going out and potentially wasting value resources and energy or food especially when little could be found, many smaller creatures eating less food could act as scouts. These scouts going out and searching would reduce the total strain on limited communal resources this being a lack of enough food to satisfy a population of giants. Nature’s solution was to produce a population of both strength and numbers…these being many smaller females scouts while still having some (fewer) bigger males acting as beast of burdens who could later congregate where resources could be found. Then they would ALL assist afterward with however much each could gather, carry, and bring back to the tribal center. This is nature’s ideal economical solution. We get the foundations of the gather versus the hunter…then eventually we would also get that of “Beauty and the Beast” once religion comes into the picture.
Basically males act as “catalyst” to initiate reproduction and are then free to go hunt/ bring food to a semi-helpless pregnant female. Efficient natural design meant they are also free to now be nurturers, gathers, hunters, planners, etc and of course a “catalyst” to impregnate as many other females as possible. The would also support other scenarios as we can assume catastrophic events and even wars where overly-protective highly-aggressive males wiped each other out leading to depleted and unbalanced populations with nearly all females.
A problem arising here would be that if the males are too busy “courting” other females to impregnate, he would not be available to bring food or provide “comfort” to a helpless soon-to-be-mother. Worst if she already had one or several hungry young children from previous matings.
Now modern medicine has also saved millions of young and first time mothers who would have died/bled to death during birth. If this happened in the 2nd or 3rd pregnancy, the surviving young children would have still needed a mother. We find much of this in historical records though I would think there are efforts to erase these facts from history as soon as possible.
Once again nature solved this by making sure there would always be plenty of potential mothers to replace the ones that died or would never be able to produce children again. Here again is a need for more females in the population. Still if modern medicine is saving many women, the numbers of females to males would be even more staggering! We can seen department store hinting the simple fact where the women sections are 3 to 4 times larger than the men’s.
Then their rampant prostitution and the most ancient of couples favorite activities- quarreling due to a cheating spouse. Normally society produces overwhelming statistics which states that it is the man who cheats. However man would not cheat if it was not so easy. There are basically too many females compared to males thus most women don’t have a partner/ male companionship so they are willing to do just about anything to get some.
How does this seat with religion or with governments! Anybody for the one-man-one-woman have been quoting the story of Adam and Even without knowing their Bible well enough. When this fails then they start quoting Jesus incorrectly as well. Few know that Adam had two wives, Abraham had three wives, while Moses had two, Jacob and Israel had five! The Buddha had one wife but many playmates, and Mohamed had as many as 11 at one time though many stories state that He had many mores. Peace Be on Them all!
Governments push the one-man-one-woman social marriage contract, but what does it get from monogamy? If a man had more then one wife, if first wife over-reacted, the second wife (provided she was honest) would be a witness testifying that the first was being a drama queen playing the damsel in distress to get police authorities on her side because she wanted the kids, the house, and alimony etc. If this was the case, then the government would not be able to produce so many divorces, confiscate so many homes, collect so much money that usually does not go toward child support and ultimately it would not be able to produce a small army of foster children that would later feel loyal and become military pawns because they had learn to hate their father who was put on a civil retraining order and could never come around.
Chaos tends to lead to uncontrollable emotions while uncontrollable emotions then give rise to more Chaos! One wife is much easier to brain-wash then two… plus no witness to the contrary! If you control/brain-wash their woman, you can control the man!
Now what do women want? What do man bring into a relationship? According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, most women seek safety and security over everything else (A fat wallet), but according to Chaucer, women also seek control over man. In many modern societies men are the ones who go out to work while women try to get pregnant so they can stay at home with the excuse of raising babies. They basically seek a monopoly over reproduction rights as a way of denying economical accessibility to other women. Would this be an issue of selfishness, the deadly sin of avarice?