The target article interprets women's lower competitiveness than men's as evidence of adaptation to help women avoid physical conflicts and stay alive. This commentary advances the additional hypothesis that strategically suppressing competitiveness, thus signaling egalitarian intentions, could be an adaptation to catalyze cooperative behavior from males and females, turning natural competitors into allies and men into supportive partners.

Benenson et al. provide a compelling case for treating greater investment into self-protection among females as an adaptive strategy. Here, we wish to expand their proposed adaptive explanation by placing it squarely in modern state-based and behavioural life-history theory, drawing on Veit'spathological complexityframework. This allows us to make sense of alternative “lifestyle” strategies, rather than pathologizing them.

The pregnancy compensation hypothesis provides a mechanistic explanation for the evolution of sex differences in immune system functioning, the excess of women experiencing autoimmune disease, and why this is observed only in industrialized nations; none of which can be explained by the staying alive theory, as proposed by the authors of the target article.

The target article presented a plausible argument that females' susceptibility to threats might be self-protection for staying alive, but some evidence requires scrutiny. We need to consider the biases of narrative reviews, subjective life quality, and the shadow side of extreme reactions to threats before concluding that females' threat-based response is a self-protection mechanism that promotes survival.

We argue that Benenson et al. need to consider not only sex differences in the effects of care on offspring survival but also in age-specific fertility when predicting how longevity affects fitness. We review evidence that staying alive has important effects on both women's and men's fitness, and encourage consideration of alternative explanations for observed sex differences in threat responses.