Male-dominance?

I am a traceuse - a women who does parkour (not sure what parkour is? check out these links). I read a post on American Parkour that asked why so many more men than women did parkour. Some suggested it was because social constraints on women made them feel they had to be more reserved and lady-like, while men were "allowed" to play and rough-house more. Others suggested that women were less strong in general, with less upper-body strength than men, making some of the common moves in parkour more difficult.

But I can't help feeling the pattern seen in parkour is part of something more - men are far more likely than women to engage in "risky-behavior". In everything from parkour to fast driving to heavy drinking, men outnumber women by large margins. Biological anthropologists have noticed this pattern in humans, as well as in other mammals, and have come up for a biological explanation for this sex difference. One text book summarized the argument as follows:

"For a female mammal, the costs associated with risk-taking behavior are unlikely to outweigh the benefits. She is likely to be able to find mates and fulfill her reproductive potential throughout her lifetime, so she has no particular need to engage in risk-taking behavior to acquire mates. On the other hand, male mammals vary much more in reproductive success. A male mammal may engage in high-risk, potentially very costly (even life-threatening) activities because such behavior could have a potentially high reproductive benefit." - Stanford, Allen and Anton, 2006. Biological Anthropology. New Jersey: Pearson, pp 523-524.

I find this biological argument interesting, because it explains patterns seen across species, not just in humans, and while I expect that social, personal and other explanations probably have an effect on people's decisions to engage in risky-behavior, I can't help wondering how much of human behavior in general is influenced by deeply hard-wired features of our long evolutionary history.