It's extremely easy to come up with plausible stories about why some human behaviour might have evolved. It's much harder to find evidence that those behaviours (a) actually are genetic traits, (b) actually are widespread, and (c) evolved for the reason you think they did. This is why fields like sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have been so troubled and controversial.
Having said that, I don't think your story is plausible at all. If it were really so advantageous to have more surviving female offspring than male ones, you'd think we would just have evolved a different sex ratio at birth, instead of a complex social mechanism for getting more men than women killed through hunting.
Also I don't know if it's even the case that hunting is universally a more dangerous activity than "gathering". You're probably more likely to die climbing up a tree to find fruit than you are by hunting rabbits.
It's extremely easy to come up with plausible stories about why some human behaviour might have evolved. It's much harder to find evidence that those behaviours (a) actually are genetic traits, (b) actually are widespread, and (c) evolved for the reason you think they did. This is why fields like sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have been so troubled and controversial.
Having said that, I don't think your story is plausible at all. If it were really so advantageous to have more surviving female offspring than male ones, you'd think we would just have evolved a different sex ratio at birth, instead of a complex social mechanism for getting more men than women killed through hunting.
Also I don't know if it's even the case that hunting is universally a more dangerous activity than "gathering". You're probably more likely to die climbing up a tree to find fruit than you are by hunting rabbits.