I'm surprised no one caught the rather bad statistics mistake:
"Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men... To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. "
If you really had only half as many men reproducing as women, you'd get the twice-as-many-women-descendants after a single generation. For the ratio to be 2:1 over the whole of human history implies that it was a much milder, but still systemic, bias. It may or may not be anything evolutionary, though.
"Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men... To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. "
If you really had only half as many men reproducing as women, you'd get the twice-as-many-women-descendants after a single generation. For the ratio to be 2:1 over the whole of human history implies that it was a much milder, but still systemic, bias. It may or may not be anything evolutionary, though.