I have a question regarding reproduction post large conflicts. I see the argument that a loss of females in war would destroy the population. Men are naturally implied as expendable. It’s implied that men and women would sleep around and women would spit out large numbers of kids. Not like they’re already doing that...

Anyway, this same argument asserts that a loss of women would, as I said earlier, kill the population. It’s almost as if it assumes women don’t produce other women, and that they magically stop having kids or sleeping around if their gender’s population gets low. Viewing today’s world this doesn’t make a lot of sense. High teen pregnancy rates, loads of single mothers with kids from more than one man...the list continues. Can someone explain how this idea isn’t some gynocentric bullshit to maintain the status quo? Seems like a large loss of women wouldn’t slow population growth any more than large losses of men.