Why Fossils Are Mostly Male

&gt; [Male wooly mammoths] were more likely to do silly things, like die in tar pits<p>Apparently, across many mammalian species, males are more likely to take risks and explore than females. This seems to be good evidence that not all gendered behavior is socialized. That would seem to be a silly straw man argument to knock down, if it were not so widely held.

&gt; &quot;This has less to do with misogyny&quot;<p>How did they shoehorn in sexism into an article about animals? This has nothing to do with misogyny because animals are incapable of reason.

This article misses some steps...<p>Just because a male might be likely to go do something risky and die young, that wouldn&#x27;t explain more male fossils. After all, the female that didn&#x27;t do something risky will also die. All things die.<p>Are they trying to claim that females who die are less likley to turn into fossils, perhaps because of the locations the deaths occurred in?

Strange that they haven&#x27;t considered chemical reasons: Males have more iron &#x2F; more hemoglobin...perhaps male bones are just more likely to fossilize for some chemical reason(s)?

I would assume bone structure is generally bigger and stronger, lasting longer

I don&#x27;t understand the argument. All mammoths die.

Could females be eaten more so there is less remains?

The patriarchy strikes again.