Talk:Female sabotage

Untitled

This is some pretty hard core group selection, is it not?

Yep, sounds like it. It's saying that the female sabatoges her mate in the hopes that that will leave more resources for her, but really it leaves more resources for everyone and thus only works if you assume there can be a genetic benefit to working for good of the group. So there should be lots of literature tearing this theory a new one. MrVoluntarist (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't see the argument

I am not a scientist, per se, but a scientifically-minded person, and the following statement does not make sense to me:

"By choosing to mate exclusively with males who are unlikely to survive because of their burdens, the females ensure that as the males die, more food and other resources will remain for females and their young. Because females are the limiting resource in most species, as their numbers increase, population fitness will also increase."

I fail to see the link between choosing a "burdened" male as a mate, and that individual dying, apparently, because of this choice. Or, did I misread something? If a male is "burdened", say, because of his unduly large antlers, then the chances that he will get tangled up in the branches, and hence be prey to some predator will not change - whether he has been chosen as a mate, or not. And the "unburdened" males will go on living happily, regardless.

If the argument is that, by choosing a "burdened" male as a mate, the females want to increase the chances that the offspring will also be "burdened", I believe this will apply to the female offspring, as well as the male ones. This does not make any sense, as far as nature is concerned, since propagation of the species will be hindered due to the decrease in the number of maturing offspring. If, on the other hand, the burdening trait is passed predominantly on to the male offspring, then this will cause a serious lopsidedness in the male-female ratio of the population, thereby again hindering propagation, in addition to creating a far-from-optimal gene pool. Murat Kayi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.233.72 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"If, on the other hand, the burdening trait is passed predominantly on to the male offspring, then this will cause a serious lopsidedness in the male-female ratio of the population" only if you assume animals mate 1:1 if however its a species where one male wins breeding right over a herd of females then you would want a lopsided male:female ratio as the maximum number of females will mate with the best male — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.203.55 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disposable males

the theory to me seems to suggest that females look for male who once they reproduce with then die or have a higher chance of dying so that after they have 'served their purpose' they will no longer compete with the females and young for resources ect. examples could be the praying mantis where in several species the female will eat the male after sex, this is also quite common in spiders, also the marsupial Antechinus

"After a four-month adolescence spent suckling at their mother’s teat, the males of the species grow up quickly. At around 11 months old, they stop producing new sperm, and embark on a feverish, weeks-long mating campaign to dole out their stockpile.

The marsupials romp from one sexual encounter to the next in sessions that can last up to 14 hours. It takes it toll.

“By the end of the mating season, physically disintegrating males may run around frantically searching for last mating opportunities,” biologist Diana Fisher from the University of Queensland told National Geographic last year.

The same rush of hormones that propels the males’ furious mating can also cause their muscles to degenerate and immune system to shut down. The frenzy finally ends when the male antechinus keels over and dies of stress, infection or internal bleeding."

References

Vehemently Disagree Legitimate

So, ive never refuted a concept on wikipedia before, and only do so because its not proven as an effective description of the nature of humanity simply because the study required would be staggaring. But also because it isnt just unhelpful, it actually sets the wrong frame of mind for people to think about mates. "BURDONED" is a state that in most cases is seen to be fluid and can fluxuate up and down, its not even likely you could then say some males are better equipped to be resilient. The massive problem there, when you are meeting people, you cannot weigh the likely hood of their being deficient and associate or not on that. Because you are not worth their attention. For now. You instead are going to find that when you look for failure, you find it. So it follows, if you are looking for successes in a person, you too will find those. This concept is perpetuated by bored female partners that are justifying breaking thier commitment and interest in another isnt viable. Further its then heard by society that sees a female that has become undecided on mate suddenly, and in most cases, that leads to inflated and misguided support from all social sectors. I dont disagree that there are guys and girls that are challenged in rare ways, or that both deserve to know how to find and grow alongside a partner and help them see the good they are, so they realize it.

This concept as framed, and its evidence and findings are 110% gaslighting. Ill argue that no problem. The needs to say those statements are staggaring. And it even sounds like something we would have pulled out of thin air in the new yoker or something and its making people think and act based on a elitist and ultimately, devolving thought process. say this decade, it would be aeons of data to base. Prove its not gas lighting and ill consider retraction. But its gaslighting and teaching skills that will fail them and others. 23.251.65.133 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)