Women are more important for the survival of a population
Were a fair proportion of young men to get themselves killed, the surviving men would be able to assume their reproductive 'duties'in their place. i.e the population as a whole is more tolerant of a loss of men than it is of women.
This might be why men, and young men in particular, are likely to commit reckless acts, be it extreme sports, criminal acts, reckless driving or risky activities in a more 'noble cause' such as military service or exploration. There are far more men in prison than women. There are more men mentioned in The Darwin Awards.
Men are disproportionately represented at the other extreme, too (though factors beyond intelligence, such as work/life balance, play a large part in why there are more male than female Nobel Laureates, or chess grandmasters or whatever). Whilst men and women have an average the same I.Q (not a perfect assessment, it is true) the standard deviation from the mean is greater in men. The resilience of a population as a whole is more tolerant of very stupid men (who may well get themselves killed by trying to eat a bear, or by stealing copper from a high-voltage sub-station) than it is of very stupid women (who are rare).
Of course, this is just statistics about groups, and should never be used to presume anything about the abilities of any one individual. "Test, don't guess".
In fact, I can't think of a single skill or attribute I possess that I haven't seen done better by a female I have know personally, though my mechanical skills are better than most (but not all) females I know.