Turning Tragedy into Economic Theory

The situation described above is of course utterly tragic, but as chance would have it, if an economist like me think long enough about something, a theory/idea will in the end pop out.

I female Colombian friend pointed out to me that since there are so few men, a shortage of 10% across all age groups for Cali in total, this shifts the equilibrium (she did not use that term) in the marriage market. It is not obvious that a small disruption of supply (as in this case, 10 percent) should markedly change a market, but since most women who are looking for someone to marry are unlikely to accept any substitutes (whatever that may be) such a reduction does have a high impact. Economic theory then postulates that men will feel free to do things that they otherwise would expect to get punished for (cheating, being general idiots, etc) since many women would apparently prefer a moron husband than no husband at all.

This is not a new theory. I’ve heard it before in the context of societies after wars (USSR after WW2 or Britain after WW1) in which the ratio’s were even more skewed. I instead connected it to an idea pushed by Steven Pinker, that human society used to be much more violent. If that is the case and if I am allowed the assumption that men historically did most of the fighting and subsequent dying, then there would have been a constant lack of men. Could that fact explain while so many cultures have evolved macho tendencies? The exception that would prove this rule would of course be a country without war and the associated lack of men, which would then be markedly less macho. Does anybody see where I am going with this…?