AIBU to ask why you think women stop being able to reproduce...

[TokenGinger]

... And men do not?

There's been a discussion in the office today about why a woman's body stops being able to reproduce and a man's doesn't. There's been the typical comments of, men are meant to continue procreating with more than one woman, men should be with younger women, yada yada.

I'd be interested to hear people's views on this.

Because pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding takes a far greater toll on a woman's body than on a man's.
And if you factor in "traditional" childcare being a woman's role it's even greater.

Eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap. At least that's what my old evolutionary psychology lecturer used to say.

Because men don't have to go through pregnancy and birth .

There's no way that's going to work at 80. There comes a point where the odds against a woman surviving the physical process of pregnancy/birth becomes ridiculously low.

Biologically, it makes sense for them to take on a matriarchal/nurturing the herd role at that point.

On the other hand, when was the last time ejaculating killed a man, or made any great physical demands on his body?

Men still can, but their sperm starts to seriously lose its potency after 45-50. As well as their member. Which goes to show that they have an expiration date anyway. How many of your "manly and virile" older colleagues use gentlemen aid, secretly?

And in a more primal environment, they die earlier than women, or are driven out of the breeding pool by younger, stronger models...

Because there is a merciful God? (counting the days until menopause and contraception free sex)

Honestly I think because it is just so tiring on the body and takes so much energy to produce and grow a baby. Also children are dependent on their parents for such a long time and each subsequent pregnancy was a risk to the mother. If a mother eventually stopped being able to have babies she could devote her energies to her remaining children and they would be more likely to survive.

That's my guess anyway.

Ohh I think I know this, apparently it is because the older men needed to carry on reproducing until the next set of males reached maturity and could reproduce themselves. I think... been a while since I heard this from a uni lecturer... makes sense though!

My thoughts are that there becomes a point where it would not be healthy for a woman's body to continue carrying children once they reach a certain age. A woman's body should be the healthiest it possibly could be in order to nurture a child in the best way possible, in my opinion.

As a man does not carry the child, there's not a point where it becomes unhealthy or dangerous for them to contribute to procreation.

That's just my opinion rather than anything fact-based though. When I have a child, I intend for my body to be in its healthiest state before I deem it a safe environment to nurture and develop a child.

I think the conversation in the office was more so about, we understand why a woman's body stops, but why doesn't a man's? I think this makes my colleagues believe they're the more powerful sex due to this. I argue that my body can magically create bones and livers and hearts and stuff, so I'm more powerful (and slightly magical).

That's what the menopause is for, to stop us females keeling over from reproducing endless children, we do all of the work and our bodies need the rest.

There are some theories around the importance of the (non reproductively active) Grandmother in terms of our evolution and expansion as a species. Human babies and young children are so dependant compared to other animals that it is thought the menopause is a very important biological mechanism to free up more child carers allowing the younger women to have subsequent pregnancies.
Google grandmother hypothesis / evolutionary biology.

More powerful and slightly magical?!

Unless you are producing self fertilizing eggs (which would make you a biological marvel, not a magical one) you're not doing it all by yourself you know.

I think your theory is right, it makes sense and it's the pattern most animals follow too.

Remember as well that children aren't really likely to survive totally alone until about 8 or 10 years of age, that's probably why we stop being fertile at about 40-50 rather than say 50-60 when the body is still in fairly good shape.

I think the idea of the "more powerful sex" is ludicrous in this day and age. If a woman wanted to she could train her body to be stronger than most men, and we have so many labour saving devices anyway that physical strength isn't really advantageous or relevant any more. Men do hold the power in our society but it's nothing to do with physical strength or virility.

I think it's because evolution required mums AND grannies to aid survival of the species. If mums could have babies much later than 40, there'd be no grannies.

The theory that Droflove suggests is also the explanation I have read for the timing of the menopause (e.g. around the time the generation above is dying).

Evolutionarily, I'm not sure that this makes sense, as people have only started living longer relatively (in terms of tens of millennia) recently.

Ohh I think I know this, apparently it is because the older men needed to carry on reproducing until the next set of males reached maturity and could reproduce themselves. I think... been a while since I heard this from a uni lecturer... makes sense though!

No it doesn't. There are always men a few weeks, months or years younger who are perfectly able to reproduce. There's no waiting involved.

I'm pretty sure I heard this described once on the NewsQuiz as 'Once a woman can no longer bear her own children... she sends them to granny's until she can't stand them either.'

I think this makes my colleagues believe they're the more powerful sex due to this

Your colleagues sound like a bunch of twats....

To add to the speculation pool, maybe it's because females are generally the sought after sex, whilst males are the ones picked by the females. It's not particularly relevant in this day and age (as with pretty much everything to do with comparing modern society to the rest of the animal kingdom), but across most sexually reproducing animals it's the males looking for females - either testing each other to see who gets the "prize", or being tested by the female herself (birds, scorpions, etc).

I mean, watch any animal documentary! Fish building weird arse nests to attract a female, birds of paradise doing all sorts of weird shit, lions fighting each other, monkeys fighting each other, elephants fighting each other...it's pretty much always the females minding their own business until the males start getting a hard on.

So a female animal is practically guaranteed a mate, whilst the males have to compete for the right to reproduce. And to ensure it's their offspring, some males will take measures to ensure she doesn't mate with another male (polar bears for instance).

In summary, the female doesn't need to have fertility that lasts a lifetime. Males needs to stay fertile to give them as many years as possible to "win" a female. Females don't need to be able to fight to win a mate, but do need to be in top physical condition to give birth.

It may be unfair but who are you going to sue and how are you going to serve the papers?

Of course bumblebreed might say that it's we Y-chromosomers who ought to be complaining

There's an interesting article in Scientific American on this -

www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origin-of-menopause/

You might also like the evolutionary theory relating to inter generational conflict between woman and her MIL...

goodnessgracious What a fabulous explanation! I think that's a very interesting way to look at it x

I thinking its because shagging is much easier on the body than pregnancy and childbirth.

Biologically it's because men continuously make sperm from puberty but eggs form in development and that's it, we lose one a month and also they remaining become less viable more likely to be not able to form fetus due to genetics as we age

What Minerves said. Women are born with all the eggs they'll ever have already in their ovaries, where as men are continually making new sperm.

I'm no expert, but I imagine this is partly because sperm are far more fragile than eggs, and more prone to mutation. Also because so many sperm are released in each ejaculation to maximize the potential for fertilization; if men had a finite amount of sperm most would have used them up before even getting near a woman!

Now I'm thinking about it, I realise how incredibly inefficient the male reproductive system is! 20 million or so sperm in every single orgasm, and for the average chap only 2 or 3 will ever be of any use...

Actually Mrsfrumble the whole human reproductive system is inefficient. You get an approximate date, sometimes you get two or more when you ordered one - but you can't order two - you don't even know whether you will get the blue or the pink model - and as for the actual delivery of the goods, don't get me started. The UPS box is greyed out. Hand the whole shooting match over to Amazon, they'll do it better.

Placing the order is fun, though, isn't it?