What then, does that mean?
Men are stronger than women, as it is the case for many primates.
Males are more agressive also.
Modern studies show that during prehistory, women were hunters!!!
Now, i can believe that a woman who is in late pregnancy, or breast feeding a baby is less available for hunting.
Oops. I meant “aren’t”.
But you’re the one that gave that reason first.
Evolution wouldn’t select a hunter because he’s stronger, more like, the good hunters would survive. And, it would select those who shared their prey, if their mate couldn’t hunt. So, not just for strength.
“Female mammals are not weaker than men, for one they live longer.
But men are physically stronger because they were the hunters who brought in the food while the females cared for the young. Natural selection always selects for maximum efficiency. Women don’t need muscles, they need good health to feed their offspring.”
This is where this started, in the “, what makes a funny joke” thread
If you bear a 5 kilos baby in your arms for some time, you need some muscles …
And i would like some comment on my preceding post.
That agrees with my thoughts here. There are many reasons why women could have evolved to be more dominant. The current hierarchy seems more related to the agricultural revolution than anything, not the need for strength.
Gorillas and chimpanzees don’t raise crops. And among hunters gatherers, women hunt.
I would expect more equality in humans. That is, I think it is “natural”. In gorillas, males are much bigger, well, maybe not all species. In humans, competing for procreation seems our of date, maybe future tendency to select for intelligence will change our physical differences. I’m in New Zealand, and the Mauri women are big!