Evolutionary psychology as an academic movement is, what, a few decades old? At least. So how are they still getting away with just making stuff up?

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities.

Where is the evidence that "women play it safe" while "men take risks," where is the evidence that this is genetically rather than culturally determined, and where is the evidence that this accounts for the supposed differences either in reproductive outcomes or general behavior? For that matter, how does he make the leap from "most men who ever lived do not have descendants who are alive today" to "the odds are you won't have children"? These aren't necessarily the same thing.

This is assuming that the DNA evidence even really says what he claims it says.

In short, surprise surprise, he's just spitballin' here.

Via MeFi (coded and run by a man! who reproduced!).