(By Eli Harman)
—” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant.
That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.
Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe.
So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties.
The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks.
But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—