Amusingly, believers assert that our evolved tendencies to attribute agency to inanimate objects and defer to authorities real or perceived -is- some sort of basis for morality, today.

In most early societies, women provided the food. Hunting was never that successful beyond tiny populations, and agricultural work fell on the shorter gender with more endurance and better wide field vision. Men "protected" women about like a lion "protects" his pride. We can determine this based on patterns of wear and damage in bones and teeth. Still a snapshot in time, ofc. If you dial the clock back we appear to have been decidely more egalitarian in workload..and if you dial it forward men did less hunting and showboating and more heavy labor. All of this ignores any cultural or regional difference, which often enough reverse gender roles compared to immediate neighbors or any arbitrarily constrained norm in time.

There's literally nothing "stereotypically male", or female, for that matter, that you can;t quickly find a complete 180 on somewhere. Much of our size difference (and conformity), in general, is inherited from ancestors well before humans.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species. Observing the mechanism in any species helps you understand it as a concept, which beta clearly doesn't. I do wish that people who want to talk about evolution would try to actually understand it and maybe realize that it doesn't have anything to do with their religion.

I honestly have no opinion on the issue currently being discussed - that women have evolved to be weaker due to natural selection of getting dominated/impregnated by men. I don't know if that's true or not, and don't really care either way since it shouldn't dictate morals. But I still don't see how spiders have anything to do with it lol.

Your religion accepts evolution anyway, so it's not really an issue for you.

You'd see it if you had an interest in evolutionary biology. As I said, the mechanism is the same for every species. The result is the only thing that's different. It's a fascinating subject. While Darwin was too early in the game to give a completely accurate picture, his work is a good place to start. His illustrations are reason enough, I think.

---

(January 30, 2018 at 5:44 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Amusingly, believers assert that our evolved tendencies to attribute agency to inanimate objects and defer to authorities real or perceived -is- some sort of basis for morality, today.

In most early societies, women provided the food.  Hunting was never that successful beyond tiny populations, and agricultural work fell on the shorter gender with more endurance and better wide field vision.  Men "protected" women about like a lion "protects" his pride.  We can determine this based on patterns of wear and damage in bones and teeth.

We evolved quite a lot pre-agriculture.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It's not . It's total derp

Probably not I suppose. From my understanding, women evolved weaker/smaller because they didn't needto be big and strong like the men. Because we made babies and stayed behind. It was the male's job to hunt for food and protect us and our babies.

EXACTLY, CL!  alpha seems to imply that god "created" women smaller and weaker and easier to dominate. I've heard this one before from men trying to assert their dominance. (And some trying to argue that women should stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and keep their mouths shut.)  Through most of human history, men were warriors, defending the tribe against invaders, or doing the invading.  They also were the hunters.  A pregnant female could not serve in either capacity. (They were often in charge of keeping the home and the garden.)  The large, strong, aggressive males lived to father children.  Even in the early 1900's in America, the male earned a living and the female kept the home, and rural areas it was the only way to survive. Gender roles weren't created, they were simple biology.  Thankfully most people now recognize that women are actually individual, intelligent, capable human beings.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It's not . It's total derp

Probably not I suppose. From my understanding, women evolved weaker/smaller because they didn't needto be big and strong like the men. Because we made babies and stayed behind. It was the male's job to hunt for food and protect us and our babies.

I will point out that females tended to forage which made up more of the human diet then meat hunted by males . And in societies like those found on the Pacific islands men and women worked the nets in unison. Both of these were tasks that required little strength and some cases small size was an advantage. 

i also point out that most early societies were nomadic thus both genders would need to have endurance . As has been found in skeletons of females from such societies .

---

I also point out that when we get to the age of tools strength far less important .

Looking at some other species, the size of the males are usually bigger not because of hunting and raping, but to fight other males. I mean it certainly helps for dominating and raping but that's just wrong, and if you try to somehow justify sexual abuse with natural evolution you're an alt right sympathizer. (And a rapist.....jk)

Indeed just because something would give x and advantage does not mean x was used in said way

(January 30, 2018 at 2:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You're welcome...and was this question an example of conservative self control?

The thought that the OP is arguing that rape -- a serious lack of self-control if there ever was one -- was beneficial to human evolution ... where do I start?

---

(January 30, 2018 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It's not . It's total derp

Probably not I suppose. From my understanding, women evolved weaker/smaller because they didn't needto be big and strong like the men. Because we made babies and stayed behind. It was the male's job to hunt for food and protect us and our babies.

Alternatively, she don't needs lots of muscles to make me a sammich.

(January 30, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

---

(January 30, 2018 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Probably not I suppose. From my understanding, women evolved weaker/smaller because they didn't needto be big and strong like the men. Because we made babies and stayed behind. It was the male's job to hunt for food and protect us and our babies.

Alternatively, she don't needs lots of muscles to make me a sammich.

...and to get us a beer to help wash down the sammich. And while they're at it, they can hand us the TV remote too.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: He said generally females . Not human females all females . And then put it in an evolutionary context . The spider blows the presumption away .

I tried to use male/female rather than man/woman because, in an evolutionary context, dimorphism may have arisen in human ancestors. I think most people probably understood that I wasn't referring to spiders. I understand that dimorphism isn't all in one direction. Dimorphism in species with larger females probably arose through different dynamics, don'tcha think?

You can find societies in which females are larger, and socially dominant, or smaller and socially dominant, or larger and socially submissive.  Snapshots in times and places.  Everything is changing..evolution isn't something that happened, it's currently ongoing.  More slowly for some of us...it would seem.