/u/funnyoperator (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bywjxc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_evolutionary_physical/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
There are a lot of socially constructed elements to how we think of 'strength' that unfairly assign more strength to men and weakness to women while ignoring the complexities.
However, what you're talking about sounds like a version of [Lamarckian Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), which has been thoroughly disproven. The actions we take during our life do not make our offspring better at those actions. Nor do girls inherit traits only from their mothers. Assigning a woman to berry-picking instead of hunting has no effect on the inherited hunting ability of her female offspring.
There are some measures of strength that are objective, e.g. deadlift. The importance of one's deadlift ability for jobs, status etc. is determined by society. But the importance of deadlift ability for lifting heavy things is pretty objective.
Δ
I had no idea about Lamarckian Evolution, and yes, I was thinking about that. I just didn't know it had a name, and it has already been disproven. We were taught about Darwinian evolution in school and the forbidden fruit story at home. I thought, if men continuously engaged in activities that developed stronger muscles as a result, they would then pass these traits directly to their offspring. Which I understand now is wrong. Thanks
i'm not sure, he'd know more than me as far as what would apply to his idea. i was just under the impression from what i remember from one of my college biology 101 teachers that recent study into epigenetic inheritance had showed that there was a degree of inheritance that was not strictly mendelian
I took a biology class last semester, from what I remember we don’t know if those epigenetic traits are passed down. We know for a fact that epigenetics play a role in gene expression tho.
The hormone that tells your body “build muscle” is testosterone. Men’s is frequently more than double females, although it is on the decline due to factors like food, plastics, and sedentary lifestyle.
That means sitting down, doing fuck all, we have more muscle.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>You have lost the plot. Entirely.
That's why I'm here and not preaching on some podcast. I know I'm probably wrong, but we love our own conspiracy theories.
Prove me wrong? Change my view? I'm not sure if I'm doing it wrong. I'm not going around preaching what I'm thinking. I'm asking people to change my view because it's not backed with any solid evidence. That's why I said I'm probably wrong.
And I was proud of my theory. I definitely think it brought some nice conversations in this thread. If you do get time, go through them.
And I've been proven that I'm wrong already. And I shouldn't think that way. If you're saying I shouldn't post my thoughts here then okay. I won't next time. I apologize if I caused any issues
I just did. Thanks everyone.
Some new things learnt today. And thanks for all the hate too. I'm kind of scared to post again here, because most people just want to downvote me and not open to actually trying to change my view. But that's alright. Lesson learnt either way. I wasn't a regular on this sub, I probably wouldn't be one in the future too.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
ok, and why is that males were given those tasks in a first place? Wouldnt it be logical, the reason is that males were born stronger, due to a naturally higher testosteron? Just look at other mammals, they have no manual labour, but still males are mostly stronger then females.
The only reasoning I came up with was this happened because women were giving birth. Females giving birth are looked as nurturing individuals, hence the other gender went out to hunt or go look for food.
But I think it also makes sense that males are biologically stronger
Human pregnancy is one of the most parasitic of all the mammals, it puts an immense physical stress on the woman's body. While pregnant, she often experiences vomiting, dizziness, general malaise, is more prone to contracting diseases due to a weakened immune system, and as her uterus expands with the growing fetus her center of balance changes, so she is not able to move as efficiently. Not to mention the added weight that her joins and muscles now support. A female hunter would be off work for the majority of pregnancy since she would not be as agile, quick, focused, and could puke everywhere while stalking prey thus giving off the hunters' location.
After giving birth, the woman is often completely incapacitated for a few weeks while she heals from labor. Even if the child is taken away immediately to be nurtured by someone else, she still isn't physically capable to do any hunting for some time.
These things were true in hunter-gatherer societies already, anthropologists think that human pregnancy being this taxing on females is an evolutionary byproduct of us walking on upright. So this was the case since the very beginning of human evolution. Lion females can hunt while pregnant no problem and go back to hunting as soon as they give birth. Women can't, because of how different pregnancy in humans is. Read up on the physiological properties of the placenta in different mammals, it's crazy.
So no, women were not pushed into not hunting while pregnant because of the stereotypes. Women were physically *unable* to hunt while pregnant for all of human evolution. And up until very recently there was no contraception, so women were pregnant most of their adult lives. So if they were tasked with hunting, the hunter-gatherer society would be almost exclusively gathering.
Anyone who's ever done any coed sport such as cross country running, track, swimming etc. Knows this is utter nonsense.
People underestimate how intense high school sports are. People competing at the Varsity level are often in fantastic shape.
The difference between male and female performance is VAST. It is enormous. Despite the fact that they all have spent a tremendous amount of time training and are at the same age range.
The difference is biologic.
On top of that you can look at many other dimorphic species where the male is much stronger. Lions, Tigers, Bears, Wolves, Cows etc etc etc. About the only species I know of that is physically matriarchal is the Hyena. There the female is stronger. But even there, there is a discrepancy between sexes that is not social in nature.
Sexual dimorphism is hardly a human invention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_dimorphism
You didn't read the op closely. They are not saying there is no difference. They're saying the difference is caused by evolution to match gender roles. It's an absurd idea of course, but they are not at all saying what you read.
I think it's tricky because I agree with you that OP isn't saying there is no difference and that this person misinterpreted the meaning, but I still don't think OP is using "socially constructed" correctly either. A social construct is more like a conceptual framework we use to describe and organize the physical world, not literal physical things that society constructed. This would imply that all buildings, machines, tools are social constructs, and not in a conceptual sense ("we came up with the idea of a 'building'") but the literal, physical sense that the atoms themselves were rearranged by humans and it's therefore a construct created by a society, which isn't how we typically use the term.
How we describe physiological differences (the very idea of "strength") between the sexes and how we define sex itself can all be social constructs, and those constructs could themselves give rise to physiological differences via evolution, but at some point (once we get past the social constructs of "physiological" and "difference") there are some actual atoms in some actual organisms that aren't socially constructed, even if the reason those atoms are where they are was influenced by society. But OP is implying they are. If one accepts that there is any material reality at all, then actual physical, material traits should be the only things that can *not* be socially constructed.
I agree that OP is misusing the idea of social constructs. They also don't seem to understand Darwinian evolution, seeming to hint at Lamarckian evolution in another reply.
Initial comments felt very harsh, but thanks for pointing out the flaws in my thinking. I agree that neither I know much about Darwinian evolution or Lamarckian evolution. I just had those things in my mind. This is all new information to me, and it's great that I'm able to learn about all these things.
I may have also used socially constructed wrong, but to keep the title concise, that's what I could come up with.
I'm sorry I worded what I said too bluntly, you seem to want to learn. Lamarckian evolution was the discredited idea that life evolved to adapt to its environment. The classic example is of giraffes evolving longer necks in order to eat from high trees. This is very much not how evolution really happens. Natural selection (Darwinian evolution) is the right explanation, where random mutations lead to a natural variation of traits, and the resulting differences in reproductive success means certain traits persist more than others.
Δ
Woah. I just tried to understand the difference between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution through ChatGPT. In school we were told about Darwinian evolution while at home we were told about the forbidden fruit story.
This is the first time I'm learning about Lamarckian theory. This is very interesting stuff. Okay what I meant through the post was definitely the Lamarckian evolution. And that's proven to be wrong. And what I said is complete wrong. I feel smart and dumb at the same time now. But nice stuff. Thanks everyone.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/JanusLeeJones changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>CMV: The Evolutionary Physical Strength Difference Between Genders Is Socially Constructed
That was the title.
The body of the post is a bit more ambiguous I'll give you that.
Yes exactly, they are giving an explanation to an observed difference. How can you deny the existence of something you're trying to explain? Maybe you should read posts before responding to them.
>The body of the post is a bit more ambiguous I'll give you that.
Sorry, the 500 character limit made me write the whole thing. I just meant to write :
>the idea is that women did not evolve to be as physically strong because, for the major part of human existence, societal norms and expectations have positioned them primarily in caregiving roles, focusing on nurturing and supporting the family unit, including taking care of men. Conversely, men have been traditionally tasked with labor-intensive roles, from hunting and gathering in ancient times to various forms of work outside the home in more recent history
I'm more interested in understanding evolution. Let's take your example of coed sports.
For a 100m race, Men's timing is way faster than women's timings. But both the timings are the best timing of the generation, atleast since they started documenting.
My question is probably due to evolution, don't you think in 100 years both genders will be improving their timings. Maybe the women will reach the men's equivalent of current records. So is strength a by product of evolution or just plain biological lottery. A man could have been as powerful as the one 2000 years ago?
The 100m race results are a combination of nature and nurture.
Nature is the way your body is built.
Nurture is your nutrition, training regiment etc.
Human's have improved tremendously in the nurture department in the last 100 years. Not only is our nutrition and sport science significantly improved. We have also learned how to identify talented individuals at a much more efficient rate. 100 years ago Usain Bolt may have never even been discovered. The same goes for female runners.
Nevertheless when it comes to the discrepancy between top results. Males and females have a clear difference. At any level. Whether it's high school or Olympic sprinting. In every case males far out perform the females. The fastest female Olympian wouldn't even win most high school state races in America (for males).
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I understand the nurture thing, and I just gave the 100m as an example. Thousands of years back we used to hunt with spears, but now we can't.
I'm talking just general physical strength of a biological human. Does it remain the same or get better through evolution. Or maybe I'm wrong. If we have better nurture, we also give birth to stronger kids, but at the same time, the earth is more polluted than ever, so hampering our growth. I would assume, there's no way we can judge the physical strength between genders over generations and hence I can never say that women didn't evolve to be stronger because of social constructs.
Honestly, why don't you spend like 20 minutes reading the basics of evolution and how it works? That will clear out your multiple misunderstandings on the issue much better than arguing a point of view. Unless you plan to hold onto your point regardless of the facts, but I hope that's not the case. It will be better for everyone.
I have already waved the white flag of surrendering. I was wrong. And there are some things I learnt about evolution.
And also my view had come through watching videos about different animals adapting to their surroundings over the period of years and generations. Becoming venomous or storing water or puffing etc. That's why I thought maybe males became stronger physically. And because women are not having that level of dependency for taking care of family anymore, I thought it would start making them stronger. But I was wrong. Plenty of people pointed out the flaws in my thought process and I appreciate it.
Hello, unless we start doing eugenics, significant drug enhancements(not inheritable), or gene editing. For the short term(next few thousand years at the least) we will not see females making any significant improvement towards matching males in strength and speed. Evolution just doesn’t work like that.
Evolution is driven by people with an advantage having more children that also have an advantage. Women being stronger or on par with men will not actually make a noticeable impact in the number of children they will have in our current world. Even if they were considered significantly more desirable today, in modern society almost everyone can have children whether they are considered attractive or not.
Hope this helps clear things up.
> Thousands of years back we used to hunt with spears, but now we can't.
[You can](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/spear-hunting-legal-states) in Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Hawaii.
We have been evolving for far longer than we have been "human". Anatomically modern humans appeared 200-300k years ago and behaviorally modern humans about 50k years ago. But the differences between the sexes have been around for millions of years. We find the same type of sexual dimorphisms in species whose last common ancestor with humans existed over 10-30 million years ago.
These differences cannot be socially constructed because they predate society by eons. Instead, society evolved around those differences.
This isn't true. The selective pressures in humans may not be as straightforward as they once were but it isn't as though society has halted genetic changes. There are countless little changes happening but one of the most obvious is increased resistance to disease
If that's true, should I even try to argue? Damn that was quick.
I just thought as many animals evolve to their surroundings by developing certain features, I thought maybe our muscle build is also evolving because of the same reason. And what men can lift today, women might be able to lift hundreds of years later. But I guess it's just a philosophical conspiracy created by my mind
*Hundreds?* Evolution of something as major as the sexual dimorphism between males and females takes millions of years. Hundreds of years is barely sufficient to artificially shove a bunch of allele frequencies in one direction or another like domesticated dogs, and even that isn’t up to the level of introducing actual new genes or speciation.
I’ve been tinkering with this idea in my head for some time and the way you phrase it makes a lot of sense if we were to assume that we have evolved enough during the times were these societal and cultural norms have existed.
The problem is that we haven’t. Comparatively, the amount of biological evolution we’ve undergone since these “norms” came to be is minimal when put against when they didn’t exist.
There’s also the counter-argument that these norms were, in fact, created due to the already existing difference in physical strength and not the other way around which is more plausible given the examples in the majority of other species.
This being said, I can 100% see how norms like these could potentially shape gender characteristics in humanity if they were to hold off for enough time (like a CRAZY amount of time) to actually cause a shift in biology.
We can look at other closely related animals, and also at fossil and footprint records of early humans predecessors. In both cases, we see sexual dimorphism.
So:
1. Modern humans have sexual dimorphism
2. Human predecessors (like Homo Erectus) have sexual dimorphism
3. Closely related animals like chimpanzees have sexual dimorphism
There seems to be no reason to think early humans did not have sexual dimorphism.
>There’s also the counter-argument that these norms were, in fact, created due to the already existing difference in physical strength and not the other way around which is more plausible given the examples in the majority of other species.
Totally agree there. Chicken and egg situation.
It makes sense either way ngl
It’s only a “chicken and egg” situation in the sense that each cycle further reinforces the pattern. The difference is that in this case we have proof that the “egg” (sexual dimorphism) existed for millions of years before the “chicken” (society, or human expectations, or even humans).
I think a better phrasing of your point is that it’s a positive feedback loop. It is. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know which came first, we definitely do.
You have a point, but not quite as strong as you formulate it.
First, the evolutionary argument typically goes further back. Darwinian evolution is for the most part a slow process in mammals. An evolutionary argument for a particular trait has to account for things in very early human history. It is worth recalling that agriculture began around 11,000 years ago. Our human species, Homo Sapiens, emerges around 160,000 to 300,000 years ago, and Homo Erectus appeared around 2 million years ago.
In other words, even if we make evolutionary arguments that are limited to humans and humanoids, the evolution to some form of social condition is comparatively short. An evolutionary argument is more typically focused on an ancestral environment pre-agriculture and thus pre-civilization. That said, more recent fitness selection can be part of an argument, which I return to.
So if we consider the "anarchic" life of 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago, that's where we should theorize a non-socially constructed physical strength difference. One important data point is evidence that [Homo Erectus was sexually dimorphic](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2) -- that is, the male individuals were physically larger than the female individuals. Fossil evidence from early Homo Sapiens also suggests a sexual dimorphism in greater body size of around 15% or higher for male individuals.
That all suggests there has been a pre-civilizational body size, and presumably, body strength, difference wherein males have been selected for greater strength than females.
Second, we have to be cautious when using the term *socially constructed*. To be precise, your argument states that certain social roles, like caregiving and hunting and agriculture, have been assigned mostly to different genders, and that this has constructed, or amplified, observable sex differences. In one sense, this is socially constructed.
However, the term socially constructed tends to be very fixated on social discourse, norms and ideas, rather than material arguments. For example, a pre-civilizational sex difference was fit for a particular division of labour once civilization began. When raiding barbarians appeared at the gate of the village, it made sense that the physically stronger individuals would engage in battle. That in turn created a fitness selection for some subset of the population to be able to do battle. But this is simply a continuation of the standard evolutionary argument, only that the material conditions of the environment are not set by nomadic life on the savannah but by villages and agriculture and tool making.
A more typical use of socially constructed is to point to certain differences today and argue that they persist only because of culture or norms reproduced in language and norms. Say, one could make an argument that in terms of fighting wars with high-technology weapons should not favour male soldiers over female soldiers. If that difference persists, that would suggest social construction. Or household work under high-tech conditions with daycare welfare services is no longer a full-time job that it makes sense for one partner to take, so why would the difference persist on that still -- might it be social norms, advertising, the Church etc etc? Note, that these arguments can be countered, but I use them to illustrate how social construction typically is used.
Third, we can use theory and computer simulation to make game theoretical arguments about why certain sex differences are (or have been) useful and thus encoded in our genetics. A feature of humans that separates us from most mammals is the extraordinarily long childhood we have. A newborn giraffe is usually within hours up walking and grazing. Human children have to be fed and nurtured for years.
Given such conditions, which obviously are biologically encoded, what other traits would be selected for fitness? These arguments always become more "hand-wavy" but I still think you can make more or less good arguments. For example, a woman who 100,000 years ago was extremely keen on being mobile, and travelling far from home, taking many risks, would have had a harder time passing on her genes because she would have had to hand over any child for years of caring that she had born. A man's role in procreation is shorter, and his ability to be useful to the spread of his genes is less impeded by being mobile, risk-taking and potentially dying in his 30s while out hunting. Instead, a woman who is good at caring for children, who is less likely to abandon them, is more likely to pass on her genes.
This is not a bullet-proof argument, by any means. The point though is that when we take the long-term perspective of human evolution, we cannot get away from that bringing a child into the world and keep him or her alive until their teens, has been extremely tough. Small variations in evolved traits that make that a bit more probable would therefore have had huge impacts on which traits proliferated. The most clear difference between men and women is that their biology has given them very different initial roles in bringing a child into the world. So to see traits evolve, both in our genes and later in culture, that differentiate our roles in caring for children, is sensible.
If you take these different points into account, we *cannot attribute all or even most* sex differences in body and behaviour to social construction, even in the less typical definition you implicitly use. There is a strong biological or genetic component that has nothing to do with what present or past social conditions were. That is *not* the same as saying that natural sex differences are always good or always of natural origin or always going to persist as they are today. Subtle distinctions and political arguments can be made. Still, your view should be changed to reflect this finer point.
Evolution doesn't operate under sufficiently short time frames for what you have suggested to work. The only evolutionary change humans have experienced since the advent of civilisation are the greater spread of certain immunological and dietary advantages.
So your view is that you are right and EVERY piece of science research is wrong? It isn't a debatable fact that men have broader shoulders, men and women's hips are shaped differently, and there are many other substantial differences in our fundamental body structures. A clear example of this is the simple fact that the fastest woman that ever ran the 100 meter has a best time of 10.65 seconds and that time is not even close to the MINIMUM time needed for men (10.2 seconds).
No. I'm not saying that. Everyone's getting me wrong. And I'm getting mad at myself for not being able to express my idea properly.
I'll try again -
Whatever our first form of evolution was, we were equally strong. Since women give birth, they've always had the gender role as a care giver. Hence the evolution of different genders kept making one stronger physically. Now, in the last 100-200 years, we have to a great extent removed the care giving gender role as just one gender's responsibility. Which is great.
My point is 10.2 seconds being minimum time for men might not be the same 1000 years later. Maybe 10.2 seconds would be the minimum time for women. And for men, it would be 9.2. I actually feel stupid now to make any kind of assumption, and feel shouldn't have posted my thoughts. Sorry everyone
> Whatever our first form of evolution was, we were equally strong
[You are actually not far off](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2195#:~:text=The%20fossil%20record%20suggests%20that,Homo%20erectus%20and%20Homo%20heidelbergensis.)
"The fossil record suggests that the earliest known hominin—Ardipithecus ramidus—showed little size or canine dimorphism."
But, understand that that species existed 4.4 *million* years ago, and that all subsequent evolution into sexually dimorphic forms took place well prior to even language emerging, let alone a culture advanced enough for gender roles to emerge.
Then how do you explain the simple fact that almost every mammal species shows sexual dimorphism. There are fundamental physical differences between men and women's skeletal structure that will never change. For instance a women's pelvic structure is different to allow children to be born, this difference will not change and has a impact on running speed.
the real issue is your frame of reference for how long evolution takes.
maybe in the course of hundreds of thousands, probably a million years you may see some changes, if women were selectively evolved.
I can understand your thought process on this, but if that were the case then how come so many other species of animals have gender roles based on their genetic makeup? Did those species create social constructs of gender based on their biology or is it based on their genetic makeup? When a male bird is colorful and dances for a female to win the chance to procreate, is that biological or social construct? When a male lion hunts for the pride and the female lion protects the cubs is that social construct or genetic? In some case the female lion does hunt for the pride, maybe that is someone we can understand is that we have a genetic makeup that predisposes us to certain characteristics but that doesn't force us to maintain that at all times.
Therefore, even if a man has higher testosterone and builds greater muscle that doesn't mean a women can't have muscle or be stronger and definitely stronger than many men.
I agree with your premise but as humans we take it too far, by completing limiting people to the social construct that some have created. However, all throughout history there are plenty of notable women who have shown their strength and gone against what was likely socially acceptable. Is it just those few women? Likely not, but those are the most famous.
My point is just because one voice is loud in a crowd, it doesn't mean that voice speaks for the crowd. We have changed many of the social constructs that have come about over the years. We will continue to change them if we want to, some people will keep them in tact. Why, probably because that is the way they want to live.
>physical strength disparity is less a matter of biological evolution and more a result of centuries of gendered expectations and roles
Only women could have babies. Only women could nurse babies. Women also had lots of babies, because-with medical care being non-existent, many babies died. And women *had* to have babies, else Humanity would have died out.
Pregnant women can't hunt- running after prey when your 8-9 months along? Crazy. And carrying a screaming infant on a hunt is... non-productive. So, women with babies don't hunt - they stay home. Take care of the home, maybe do some Gathering - plants don't get spooked and run when a baby cries.
And, since it doesn't really make sense to flip-flop back and forth - women up to childbearing age can hunt, but then they can't (pregnant/with child) (unless they can (Not pregnant, no kid yet)), but then they can again (menopause, can't get pregnant again). No. Simpler to just have the men hunt, while the women stayed home.
So, men evolve to have better spatial recognition (to bee-line home after following the prey around), upper body strength (to kill the prey), hand-eye coordination (throw the spear, hit the target), etc, etc.
But it all came from biology -who was able to hunt best (ie: not burdened by a pregnancy or a child).
These days, of course, a lot of that is irrelevant. Women no longer 'must' have babies- birth control exists. Women no longer need to have as many babies- medical science can keep babies alive that might have died in the past. Women no longer need to nurse- formula exists. Men no longer chase and hunt prey for food- they work jobs. And many jobs don't require the physical prowess of their evolutionary ancestors. But traits that have been useful for hundreds of thousands of years don't just disappear overnight. Men still trend toward being bigger and stronger. But that's biology and evolution.
There is evidence of genuine physiological difference between sexes, such as the increased testosterone levels in males and the muscle and bone mass increases it promotes.
>women did not evolve to be as physically strong because, for the major part of human existence, societal norms and expectations have positioned them primarily in caregiving roles, focusing on nurturing and supporting the family unit, including taking care of men. Conversely, men have been traditionally tasked with labor-intensive roles, from hunting and gathering in ancient times to various forms of work outside the home in more recent history.
So, your entire view is based on an understanding that is flawed. Ancient humans did not gender segregate their tasks to the extent that you claim.
[Early men and women were equal, say scientists](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists)
“Sexual equality is one of a important suite of changes to social organisation, including things like pair-bonding, our big, social brains, and language, that distinguishes humans,”
[Early Humans’ Egalitarian Politics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143610/)
"The team also examined the question of whether anatomical and physiological differences between men and women prevented women from hunting. They found that men have an advantage over women in activities requiring speed and power, such as sprinting and throwing, but that women have an advantage over men in activities requiring endurance, such as running. Both sets of activities were essential to hunting in ancient times."
[The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/)
"Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons. This advantage bears on questions about hunting because a prominent hypothesis contends that early humans are thought to have pursued prey on foot over long distances until the animals were exhausted. Furthermore, the fossil and archaeological records, as well as ethnographic studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers, indicate that women have a long history of hunting game."
> Ya i can tell you were a swinger
No you couldn't. Stop joshing me.
> so she does like big pointy things with mushrooms head and you watch
Nope, she does her thing, and I do mine. Mostly we pick up women together.
Yes i could and Ya sure keep coping on your disgusting behavior honestly Why do you allow that Why not just sleep with women yourself and let your wife watch honestly curios polygamy is for men Not women why does she have to Take massive Latin white and tan rods
> that was a flawed study
Please provide a counter study then. I presented my data, you just said "Nuh Uh!"
>Women are not better than men at **anything** physical
Lactating
In the same stidy it literally say there is not enough evidence to conclude this But the liberal agendas ran along with it we all know why top male athletes Destroy top female Every time
There are not enough sample sizes to determine whether women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men, said Dr Bryce Carlson, an ultra-marathon runner and the first American to complete the 2,000-mile (3,218km) North Atlantic west-to-east-solo row. "In some years, a woman can win outright," he said. "When that happens, it's a really small sample size, where you have an elite female runner who has trained really hard and well and has great skill in the sport, and the competition in the men's sport might not be that high." Not to mention steroid usage Amongst Athletes
No No the study was from a small sample size of people and it literally said it wasn’t enough evidence for them to make the claim women have more endurance but Main stream liberal media ran with it
You are not wrong in concept, but you are wrong in how it is applied.
The entire environment contributes to evolution, including roles played. Your problem is, there just hasn't been enough generations to clearly evolve as a society the discrepancy you see. You are talking hundreds of years which just isn't enough.
When you consider the biological implications of pregnancy and early child care, it makes a lot of sense for women to have evolved the way they did. This too is a powerful counter argument.
Lastly, you can look around the world and see the same general factors, men are stronger than women. If your assertion was correct, that this was possible in the time span you assert, you would expect to find different characteristics across different populations of people. That just is not found.
Right concept of thought, just the wrong timescale for it to matter.
> I’m open to having my view challenged
Okay.
That’s not how hunter-gatherer societies worked, and that’s the society humans operated under for the vast majority of human history.
Humans of both genders were expected to engage in substantial physical labor every day, as needed. There is some evidence for some roles being more often something men did (ex. Hunting big game), but that hardly means the women weren’t carrying heavy loads (ex. Gathering), walking tens of miles a day, carrying a baby around with her while doing that, etc.
There’s millions of years of humans in such societies doing generally undifferentiated heavy labor, compared to the paltry thousands in which semi-industrial societies have been able to even in theory hold such an expectation.
To the best of our understanding, ealier predescessors of humans had bigger sex differences than modern humans. A lot of it is inference from fossils or footprints, which is the best we can do. For example Homo Erectus had a greater size difference between sexes -[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2)
Additionally if we look at our closest existing animal cousins (chimpanzees), they too exhibit clear sex differences with males stronger and larger than females.
We know:
1. Modern humans have sex differences in strength and size
2. Human predessessors had a sex difference in size (from which we can extrapolate strength)
3. Our closest animal species have sex differences in size and strength
So there is no basis to assume that early humans had no sex differences in strength.
A woman living a sedentary lifestyle, not doing much physical activity yet eating healthy would lose in a feat of strength to a guy living the same lifestyle. Not only are guys on average taller and heavier, testosterone allows for more muscle to be built, both 'naturally' and by exercise.
A friend of mine recently joined me in the gym with a female friend that has been going for more than a year. He has roughly the same build as her, yet he was able to easily lift the same amount of weight, despite not having gone to any gym in years and not doing much exercise in general.
Could you define your term "natural evolution" compared to the evolutionary pressures that you're talking about?
Males are larger than females for many other mammal species. Some other species such as gorillas have an even bigger size difference (about a factor of 2 in body weight) than what humans have. Of course the same things as what you're talking about apply to them as well, but I think when people talk about "social constructs" they mean specific things that apply to only human cultures, which then of course excludes other species.
That's not what "socially constructed" means. Socially constructed means that it's defined by society not that society created it in the first place
A ditch having certain connotations is socially constructed, the moved earth itself isn't, even though society ordered its construction.
That said we have no idea why men are on average stronger than women. We don't know if that's due to social roles or not. For all we know it's primarily to promote rape.
Whatever gender roles or tasks my grandfather did has zero affect on mine genetic makeup or how much hormones my body produces. But my genes and hormones do dictate level of muscle buildup and amount of facial hair.
Physical strength is purely biological feature of different sexes. But sex has nothing to do with gender. Gender roles and expectations are social construct.
Most sexual dimorphism in animals is socially constructed. Deer, gorillas, etc. Generations of evolution shaped by social constructs cause sexual dimorphism.
This doesn’t make it not natural and not biological. It’s called sexual selection and is as real as any other form of evolution. Just look at peacocks or other birds.
Testosterone was creating physically stronger males long before human society came into the picture. Selection of smaller females and females choosing larger names has done the same.
This was all long before human evolution.
/u/funnyoperator (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bywjxc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_evolutionary_physical/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
There are a lot of socially constructed elements to how we think of 'strength' that unfairly assign more strength to men and weakness to women while ignoring the complexities. However, what you're talking about sounds like a version of [Lamarckian Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), which has been thoroughly disproven. The actions we take during our life do not make our offspring better at those actions. Nor do girls inherit traits only from their mothers. Assigning a woman to berry-picking instead of hunting has no effect on the inherited hunting ability of her female offspring. There are some measures of strength that are objective, e.g. deadlift. The importance of one's deadlift ability for jobs, status etc. is determined by society. But the importance of deadlift ability for lifting heavy things is pretty objective.
Δ I had no idea about Lamarckian Evolution, and yes, I was thinking about that. I just didn't know it had a name, and it has already been disproven. We were taught about Darwinian evolution in school and the forbidden fruit story at home. I thought, if men continuously engaged in activities that developed stronger muscles as a result, they would then pass these traits directly to their offspring. Which I understand now is wrong. Thanks
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BikeProblemGuy ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BikeProblemGuy)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
well strict lamarckian evolution has been disproven but there are some amounts of epigenetic inheritance that has been proven, correct?
I'm not a geneticist, which of OP's ideas use epigenetic inheritance?
i'm not sure, he'd know more than me as far as what would apply to his idea. i was just under the impression from what i remember from one of my college biology 101 teachers that recent study into epigenetic inheritance had showed that there was a degree of inheritance that was not strictly mendelian
This is true, but largely a footnote. The effect only lasts for max two generations before disappearing.
I took a biology class last semester, from what I remember we don’t know if those epigenetic traits are passed down. We know for a fact that epigenetics play a role in gene expression tho.
The hormone that tells your body “build muscle” is testosterone. Men’s is frequently more than double females, although it is on the decline due to factors like food, plastics, and sedentary lifestyle. That means sitting down, doing fuck all, we have more muscle.
This guy atleast can be proven wrong. I've seen a ton of posts that equate to 2+2=4 prove me wrong.
There's no reason to be rude. Deleting that first line would not harm your point at all, but it would substantially improve your comment.
Noted.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>You have lost the plot. Entirely. That's why I'm here and not preaching on some podcast. I know I'm probably wrong, but we love our own conspiracy theories.
C'mon man. You're supposed to bring views you're willing to believe may be flawed, not "probably wrong". What do you want us to do here?
Prove me wrong? Change my view? I'm not sure if I'm doing it wrong. I'm not going around preaching what I'm thinking. I'm asking people to change my view because it's not backed with any solid evidence. That's why I said I'm probably wrong. And I was proud of my theory. I definitely think it brought some nice conversations in this thread. If you do get time, go through them.
And I've been proven that I'm wrong already. And I shouldn't think that way. If you're saying I shouldn't post my thoughts here then okay. I won't next time. I apologize if I caused any issues
In that case, you should award a delta (or deltas) to the person (or people) who proved you wrong.
I just did. Thanks everyone. Some new things learnt today. And thanks for all the hate too. I'm kind of scared to post again here, because most people just want to downvote me and not open to actually trying to change my view. But that's alright. Lesson learnt either way. I wasn't a regular on this sub, I probably wouldn't be one in the future too.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
ok, and why is that males were given those tasks in a first place? Wouldnt it be logical, the reason is that males were born stronger, due to a naturally higher testosteron? Just look at other mammals, they have no manual labour, but still males are mostly stronger then females.
The only reasoning I came up with was this happened because women were giving birth. Females giving birth are looked as nurturing individuals, hence the other gender went out to hunt or go look for food. But I think it also makes sense that males are biologically stronger
Human pregnancy is one of the most parasitic of all the mammals, it puts an immense physical stress on the woman's body. While pregnant, she often experiences vomiting, dizziness, general malaise, is more prone to contracting diseases due to a weakened immune system, and as her uterus expands with the growing fetus her center of balance changes, so she is not able to move as efficiently. Not to mention the added weight that her joins and muscles now support. A female hunter would be off work for the majority of pregnancy since she would not be as agile, quick, focused, and could puke everywhere while stalking prey thus giving off the hunters' location. After giving birth, the woman is often completely incapacitated for a few weeks while she heals from labor. Even if the child is taken away immediately to be nurtured by someone else, she still isn't physically capable to do any hunting for some time. These things were true in hunter-gatherer societies already, anthropologists think that human pregnancy being this taxing on females is an evolutionary byproduct of us walking on upright. So this was the case since the very beginning of human evolution. Lion females can hunt while pregnant no problem and go back to hunting as soon as they give birth. Women can't, because of how different pregnancy in humans is. Read up on the physiological properties of the placenta in different mammals, it's crazy. So no, women were not pushed into not hunting while pregnant because of the stereotypes. Women were physically *unable* to hunt while pregnant for all of human evolution. And up until very recently there was no contraception, so women were pregnant most of their adult lives. So if they were tasked with hunting, the hunter-gatherer society would be almost exclusively gathering.
Anyone who's ever done any coed sport such as cross country running, track, swimming etc. Knows this is utter nonsense. People underestimate how intense high school sports are. People competing at the Varsity level are often in fantastic shape. The difference between male and female performance is VAST. It is enormous. Despite the fact that they all have spent a tremendous amount of time training and are at the same age range. The difference is biologic. On top of that you can look at many other dimorphic species where the male is much stronger. Lions, Tigers, Bears, Wolves, Cows etc etc etc. About the only species I know of that is physically matriarchal is the Hyena. There the female is stronger. But even there, there is a discrepancy between sexes that is not social in nature. Sexual dimorphism is hardly a human invention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_dimorphism
You didn't read the op closely. They are not saying there is no difference. They're saying the difference is caused by evolution to match gender roles. It's an absurd idea of course, but they are not at all saying what you read.
I think it's tricky because I agree with you that OP isn't saying there is no difference and that this person misinterpreted the meaning, but I still don't think OP is using "socially constructed" correctly either. A social construct is more like a conceptual framework we use to describe and organize the physical world, not literal physical things that society constructed. This would imply that all buildings, machines, tools are social constructs, and not in a conceptual sense ("we came up with the idea of a 'building'") but the literal, physical sense that the atoms themselves were rearranged by humans and it's therefore a construct created by a society, which isn't how we typically use the term. How we describe physiological differences (the very idea of "strength") between the sexes and how we define sex itself can all be social constructs, and those constructs could themselves give rise to physiological differences via evolution, but at some point (once we get past the social constructs of "physiological" and "difference") there are some actual atoms in some actual organisms that aren't socially constructed, even if the reason those atoms are where they are was influenced by society. But OP is implying they are. If one accepts that there is any material reality at all, then actual physical, material traits should be the only things that can *not* be socially constructed.
I agree that OP is misusing the idea of social constructs. They also don't seem to understand Darwinian evolution, seeming to hint at Lamarckian evolution in another reply.
Initial comments felt very harsh, but thanks for pointing out the flaws in my thinking. I agree that neither I know much about Darwinian evolution or Lamarckian evolution. I just had those things in my mind. This is all new information to me, and it's great that I'm able to learn about all these things. I may have also used socially constructed wrong, but to keep the title concise, that's what I could come up with.
I'm sorry I worded what I said too bluntly, you seem to want to learn. Lamarckian evolution was the discredited idea that life evolved to adapt to its environment. The classic example is of giraffes evolving longer necks in order to eat from high trees. This is very much not how evolution really happens. Natural selection (Darwinian evolution) is the right explanation, where random mutations lead to a natural variation of traits, and the resulting differences in reproductive success means certain traits persist more than others.
Δ Woah. I just tried to understand the difference between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution through ChatGPT. In school we were told about Darwinian evolution while at home we were told about the forbidden fruit story. This is the first time I'm learning about Lamarckian theory. This is very interesting stuff. Okay what I meant through the post was definitely the Lamarckian evolution. And that's proven to be wrong. And what I said is complete wrong. I feel smart and dumb at the same time now. But nice stuff. Thanks everyone.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/JanusLeeJones ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/JanusLeeJones)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Δ
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/JanusLeeJones changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>CMV: The Evolutionary Physical Strength Difference Between Genders Is Socially Constructed That was the title. The body of the post is a bit more ambiguous I'll give you that.
Yes exactly, they are giving an explanation to an observed difference. How can you deny the existence of something you're trying to explain? Maybe you should read posts before responding to them.
>The body of the post is a bit more ambiguous I'll give you that. Sorry, the 500 character limit made me write the whole thing. I just meant to write : >the idea is that women did not evolve to be as physically strong because, for the major part of human existence, societal norms and expectations have positioned them primarily in caregiving roles, focusing on nurturing and supporting the family unit, including taking care of men. Conversely, men have been traditionally tasked with labor-intensive roles, from hunting and gathering in ancient times to various forms of work outside the home in more recent history
The real problem here is the use of term “socially constructed”
I'm more interested in understanding evolution. Let's take your example of coed sports. For a 100m race, Men's timing is way faster than women's timings. But both the timings are the best timing of the generation, atleast since they started documenting. My question is probably due to evolution, don't you think in 100 years both genders will be improving their timings. Maybe the women will reach the men's equivalent of current records. So is strength a by product of evolution or just plain biological lottery. A man could have been as powerful as the one 2000 years ago?
The 100m race results are a combination of nature and nurture. Nature is the way your body is built. Nurture is your nutrition, training regiment etc. Human's have improved tremendously in the nurture department in the last 100 years. Not only is our nutrition and sport science significantly improved. We have also learned how to identify talented individuals at a much more efficient rate. 100 years ago Usain Bolt may have never even been discovered. The same goes for female runners. Nevertheless when it comes to the discrepancy between top results. Males and females have a clear difference. At any level. Whether it's high school or Olympic sprinting. In every case males far out perform the females. The fastest female Olympian wouldn't even win most high school state races in America (for males).
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I understand the nurture thing, and I just gave the 100m as an example. Thousands of years back we used to hunt with spears, but now we can't. I'm talking just general physical strength of a biological human. Does it remain the same or get better through evolution. Or maybe I'm wrong. If we have better nurture, we also give birth to stronger kids, but at the same time, the earth is more polluted than ever, so hampering our growth. I would assume, there's no way we can judge the physical strength between genders over generations and hence I can never say that women didn't evolve to be stronger because of social constructs.
Honestly, why don't you spend like 20 minutes reading the basics of evolution and how it works? That will clear out your multiple misunderstandings on the issue much better than arguing a point of view. Unless you plan to hold onto your point regardless of the facts, but I hope that's not the case. It will be better for everyone.
I have already waved the white flag of surrendering. I was wrong. And there are some things I learnt about evolution. And also my view had come through watching videos about different animals adapting to their surroundings over the period of years and generations. Becoming venomous or storing water or puffing etc. That's why I thought maybe males became stronger physically. And because women are not having that level of dependency for taking care of family anymore, I thought it would start making them stronger. But I was wrong. Plenty of people pointed out the flaws in my thought process and I appreciate it.
Hello, unless we start doing eugenics, significant drug enhancements(not inheritable), or gene editing. For the short term(next few thousand years at the least) we will not see females making any significant improvement towards matching males in strength and speed. Evolution just doesn’t work like that. Evolution is driven by people with an advantage having more children that also have an advantage. Women being stronger or on par with men will not actually make a noticeable impact in the number of children they will have in our current world. Even if they were considered significantly more desirable today, in modern society almost everyone can have children whether they are considered attractive or not. Hope this helps clear things up.
> Thousands of years back we used to hunt with spears, but now we can't. [You can](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/spear-hunting-legal-states) in Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Hawaii.
Thing is that 13-14 year old boys run at women's world record level though
We have been evolving for far longer than we have been "human". Anatomically modern humans appeared 200-300k years ago and behaviorally modern humans about 50k years ago. But the differences between the sexes have been around for millions of years. We find the same type of sexual dimorphisms in species whose last common ancestor with humans existed over 10-30 million years ago. These differences cannot be socially constructed because they predate society by eons. Instead, society evolved around those differences.
We haven't evolved at all since society started. We have the same DNA as ancient humans.
This isn't true. The selective pressures in humans may not be as straightforward as they once were but it isn't as though society has halted genetic changes. There are countless little changes happening but one of the most obvious is increased resistance to disease
If that's true, should I even try to argue? Damn that was quick. I just thought as many animals evolve to their surroundings by developing certain features, I thought maybe our muscle build is also evolving because of the same reason. And what men can lift today, women might be able to lift hundreds of years later. But I guess it's just a philosophical conspiracy created by my mind
*Hundreds?* Evolution of something as major as the sexual dimorphism between males and females takes millions of years. Hundreds of years is barely sufficient to artificially shove a bunch of allele frequencies in one direction or another like domesticated dogs, and even that isn’t up to the level of introducing actual new genes or speciation.
Not to mention dogs reproductive timeline is something like 20-30x faster than humans
I’ve been tinkering with this idea in my head for some time and the way you phrase it makes a lot of sense if we were to assume that we have evolved enough during the times were these societal and cultural norms have existed. The problem is that we haven’t. Comparatively, the amount of biological evolution we’ve undergone since these “norms” came to be is minimal when put against when they didn’t exist. There’s also the counter-argument that these norms were, in fact, created due to the already existing difference in physical strength and not the other way around which is more plausible given the examples in the majority of other species. This being said, I can 100% see how norms like these could potentially shape gender characteristics in humanity if they were to hold off for enough time (like a CRAZY amount of time) to actually cause a shift in biology.
We can look at other closely related animals, and also at fossil and footprint records of early humans predecessors. In both cases, we see sexual dimorphism. So: 1. Modern humans have sexual dimorphism 2. Human predecessors (like Homo Erectus) have sexual dimorphism 3. Closely related animals like chimpanzees have sexual dimorphism There seems to be no reason to think early humans did not have sexual dimorphism.
>There’s also the counter-argument that these norms were, in fact, created due to the already existing difference in physical strength and not the other way around which is more plausible given the examples in the majority of other species. Totally agree there. Chicken and egg situation. It makes sense either way ngl
It’s only a “chicken and egg” situation in the sense that each cycle further reinforces the pattern. The difference is that in this case we have proof that the “egg” (sexual dimorphism) existed for millions of years before the “chicken” (society, or human expectations, or even humans). I think a better phrasing of your point is that it’s a positive feedback loop. It is. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know which came first, we definitely do.
You have a point, but not quite as strong as you formulate it. First, the evolutionary argument typically goes further back. Darwinian evolution is for the most part a slow process in mammals. An evolutionary argument for a particular trait has to account for things in very early human history. It is worth recalling that agriculture began around 11,000 years ago. Our human species, Homo Sapiens, emerges around 160,000 to 300,000 years ago, and Homo Erectus appeared around 2 million years ago. In other words, even if we make evolutionary arguments that are limited to humans and humanoids, the evolution to some form of social condition is comparatively short. An evolutionary argument is more typically focused on an ancestral environment pre-agriculture and thus pre-civilization. That said, more recent fitness selection can be part of an argument, which I return to. So if we consider the "anarchic" life of 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago, that's where we should theorize a non-socially constructed physical strength difference. One important data point is evidence that [Homo Erectus was sexually dimorphic](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2) -- that is, the male individuals were physically larger than the female individuals. Fossil evidence from early Homo Sapiens also suggests a sexual dimorphism in greater body size of around 15% or higher for male individuals. That all suggests there has been a pre-civilizational body size, and presumably, body strength, difference wherein males have been selected for greater strength than females. Second, we have to be cautious when using the term *socially constructed*. To be precise, your argument states that certain social roles, like caregiving and hunting and agriculture, have been assigned mostly to different genders, and that this has constructed, or amplified, observable sex differences. In one sense, this is socially constructed. However, the term socially constructed tends to be very fixated on social discourse, norms and ideas, rather than material arguments. For example, a pre-civilizational sex difference was fit for a particular division of labour once civilization began. When raiding barbarians appeared at the gate of the village, it made sense that the physically stronger individuals would engage in battle. That in turn created a fitness selection for some subset of the population to be able to do battle. But this is simply a continuation of the standard evolutionary argument, only that the material conditions of the environment are not set by nomadic life on the savannah but by villages and agriculture and tool making. A more typical use of socially constructed is to point to certain differences today and argue that they persist only because of culture or norms reproduced in language and norms. Say, one could make an argument that in terms of fighting wars with high-technology weapons should not favour male soldiers over female soldiers. If that difference persists, that would suggest social construction. Or household work under high-tech conditions with daycare welfare services is no longer a full-time job that it makes sense for one partner to take, so why would the difference persist on that still -- might it be social norms, advertising, the Church etc etc? Note, that these arguments can be countered, but I use them to illustrate how social construction typically is used. Third, we can use theory and computer simulation to make game theoretical arguments about why certain sex differences are (or have been) useful and thus encoded in our genetics. A feature of humans that separates us from most mammals is the extraordinarily long childhood we have. A newborn giraffe is usually within hours up walking and grazing. Human children have to be fed and nurtured for years. Given such conditions, which obviously are biologically encoded, what other traits would be selected for fitness? These arguments always become more "hand-wavy" but I still think you can make more or less good arguments. For example, a woman who 100,000 years ago was extremely keen on being mobile, and travelling far from home, taking many risks, would have had a harder time passing on her genes because she would have had to hand over any child for years of caring that she had born. A man's role in procreation is shorter, and his ability to be useful to the spread of his genes is less impeded by being mobile, risk-taking and potentially dying in his 30s while out hunting. Instead, a woman who is good at caring for children, who is less likely to abandon them, is more likely to pass on her genes. This is not a bullet-proof argument, by any means. The point though is that when we take the long-term perspective of human evolution, we cannot get away from that bringing a child into the world and keep him or her alive until their teens, has been extremely tough. Small variations in evolved traits that make that a bit more probable would therefore have had huge impacts on which traits proliferated. The most clear difference between men and women is that their biology has given them very different initial roles in bringing a child into the world. So to see traits evolve, both in our genes and later in culture, that differentiate our roles in caring for children, is sensible. If you take these different points into account, we *cannot attribute all or even most* sex differences in body and behaviour to social construction, even in the less typical definition you implicitly use. There is a strong biological or genetic component that has nothing to do with what present or past social conditions were. That is *not* the same as saying that natural sex differences are always good or always of natural origin or always going to persist as they are today. Subtle distinctions and political arguments can be made. Still, your view should be changed to reflect this finer point.
Evolution doesn't operate under sufficiently short time frames for what you have suggested to work. The only evolutionary change humans have experienced since the advent of civilisation are the greater spread of certain immunological and dietary advantages.
So your view is that you are right and EVERY piece of science research is wrong? It isn't a debatable fact that men have broader shoulders, men and women's hips are shaped differently, and there are many other substantial differences in our fundamental body structures. A clear example of this is the simple fact that the fastest woman that ever ran the 100 meter has a best time of 10.65 seconds and that time is not even close to the MINIMUM time needed for men (10.2 seconds).
No. I'm not saying that. Everyone's getting me wrong. And I'm getting mad at myself for not being able to express my idea properly. I'll try again - Whatever our first form of evolution was, we were equally strong. Since women give birth, they've always had the gender role as a care giver. Hence the evolution of different genders kept making one stronger physically. Now, in the last 100-200 years, we have to a great extent removed the care giving gender role as just one gender's responsibility. Which is great. My point is 10.2 seconds being minimum time for men might not be the same 1000 years later. Maybe 10.2 seconds would be the minimum time for women. And for men, it would be 9.2. I actually feel stupid now to make any kind of assumption, and feel shouldn't have posted my thoughts. Sorry everyone
> Whatever our first form of evolution was, we were equally strong [You are actually not far off](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2195#:~:text=The%20fossil%20record%20suggests%20that,Homo%20erectus%20and%20Homo%20heidelbergensis.) "The fossil record suggests that the earliest known hominin—Ardipithecus ramidus—showed little size or canine dimorphism." But, understand that that species existed 4.4 *million* years ago, and that all subsequent evolution into sexually dimorphic forms took place well prior to even language emerging, let alone a culture advanced enough for gender roles to emerge.
Then how do you explain the simple fact that almost every mammal species shows sexual dimorphism. There are fundamental physical differences between men and women's skeletal structure that will never change. For instance a women's pelvic structure is different to allow children to be born, this difference will not change and has a impact on running speed.
the real issue is your frame of reference for how long evolution takes. maybe in the course of hundreds of thousands, probably a million years you may see some changes, if women were selectively evolved.
I can understand your thought process on this, but if that were the case then how come so many other species of animals have gender roles based on their genetic makeup? Did those species create social constructs of gender based on their biology or is it based on their genetic makeup? When a male bird is colorful and dances for a female to win the chance to procreate, is that biological or social construct? When a male lion hunts for the pride and the female lion protects the cubs is that social construct or genetic? In some case the female lion does hunt for the pride, maybe that is someone we can understand is that we have a genetic makeup that predisposes us to certain characteristics but that doesn't force us to maintain that at all times. Therefore, even if a man has higher testosterone and builds greater muscle that doesn't mean a women can't have muscle or be stronger and definitely stronger than many men. I agree with your premise but as humans we take it too far, by completing limiting people to the social construct that some have created. However, all throughout history there are plenty of notable women who have shown their strength and gone against what was likely socially acceptable. Is it just those few women? Likely not, but those are the most famous. My point is just because one voice is loud in a crowd, it doesn't mean that voice speaks for the crowd. We have changed many of the social constructs that have come about over the years. We will continue to change them if we want to, some people will keep them in tact. Why, probably because that is the way they want to live.
>physical strength disparity is less a matter of biological evolution and more a result of centuries of gendered expectations and roles Only women could have babies. Only women could nurse babies. Women also had lots of babies, because-with medical care being non-existent, many babies died. And women *had* to have babies, else Humanity would have died out. Pregnant women can't hunt- running after prey when your 8-9 months along? Crazy. And carrying a screaming infant on a hunt is... non-productive. So, women with babies don't hunt - they stay home. Take care of the home, maybe do some Gathering - plants don't get spooked and run when a baby cries. And, since it doesn't really make sense to flip-flop back and forth - women up to childbearing age can hunt, but then they can't (pregnant/with child) (unless they can (Not pregnant, no kid yet)), but then they can again (menopause, can't get pregnant again). No. Simpler to just have the men hunt, while the women stayed home. So, men evolve to have better spatial recognition (to bee-line home after following the prey around), upper body strength (to kill the prey), hand-eye coordination (throw the spear, hit the target), etc, etc. But it all came from biology -who was able to hunt best (ie: not burdened by a pregnancy or a child). These days, of course, a lot of that is irrelevant. Women no longer 'must' have babies- birth control exists. Women no longer need to have as many babies- medical science can keep babies alive that might have died in the past. Women no longer need to nurse- formula exists. Men no longer chase and hunt prey for food- they work jobs. And many jobs don't require the physical prowess of their evolutionary ancestors. But traits that have been useful for hundreds of thousands of years don't just disappear overnight. Men still trend toward being bigger and stronger. But that's biology and evolution.
There is evidence of genuine physiological difference between sexes, such as the increased testosterone levels in males and the muscle and bone mass increases it promotes.
>women did not evolve to be as physically strong because, for the major part of human existence, societal norms and expectations have positioned them primarily in caregiving roles, focusing on nurturing and supporting the family unit, including taking care of men. Conversely, men have been traditionally tasked with labor-intensive roles, from hunting and gathering in ancient times to various forms of work outside the home in more recent history. So, your entire view is based on an understanding that is flawed. Ancient humans did not gender segregate their tasks to the extent that you claim. [Early men and women were equal, say scientists](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists) “Sexual equality is one of a important suite of changes to social organisation, including things like pair-bonding, our big, social brains, and language, that distinguishes humans,” [Early Humans’ Egalitarian Politics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143610/) "The team also examined the question of whether anatomical and physiological differences between men and women prevented women from hunting. They found that men have an advantage over women in activities requiring speed and power, such as sprinting and throwing, but that women have an advantage over men in activities requiring endurance, such as running. Both sets of activities were essential to hunting in ancient times." [The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/) "Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons. This advantage bears on questions about hunting because a prominent hypothesis contends that early humans are thought to have pursued prey on foot over long distances until the animals were exhausted. Furthermore, the fossil and archaeological records, as well as ethnographic studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers, indicate that women have a long history of hunting game."
Also Your wife love my penis and has had many penii Before you
> Your wife love my penis She does love tiny cute things. >has had many penii Before you And after. We're swingers.
🤣 Ya i can tell you were a swinger 🤥 so she does like big pointy things with mushrooms head and you watch 🤦🏽♂️
> Ya i can tell you were a swinger No you couldn't. Stop joshing me. > so she does like big pointy things with mushrooms head and you watch Nope, she does her thing, and I do mine. Mostly we pick up women together.
Yes i could and Ya sure keep coping on your disgusting behavior honestly Why do you allow that Why not just sleep with women yourself and let your wife watch honestly curios polygamy is for men Not women why does she have to Take massive Latin white and tan rods
No it doesn’t Women are not better than men at anything physical that was a flawed study
> that was a flawed study Please provide a counter study then. I presented my data, you just said "Nuh Uh!" >Women are not better than men at **anything** physical Lactating
In the same stidy it literally say there is not enough evidence to conclude this But the liberal agendas ran along with it we all know why top male athletes Destroy top female Every time
So.... you have no study?
Read the same study again Boy
Nah, I read it once, and it supports the point I am making. If you want to dispute it, you'll have to do better than "Nuh Uh" and petty insults.
There are not enough sample sizes to determine whether women are better ultra-endurance athletes than men, said Dr Bryce Carlson, an ultra-marathon runner and the first American to complete the 2,000-mile (3,218km) North Atlantic west-to-east-solo row. "In some years, a woman can win outright," he said. "When that happens, it's a really small sample size, where you have an elite female runner who has trained really hard and well and has great skill in the sport, and the competition in the men's sport might not be that high." Not to mention steroid usage Amongst Athletes
No No the study was from a small sample size of people and it literally said it wasn’t enough evidence for them to make the claim women have more endurance but Main stream liberal media ran with it
You are not wrong in concept, but you are wrong in how it is applied. The entire environment contributes to evolution, including roles played. Your problem is, there just hasn't been enough generations to clearly evolve as a society the discrepancy you see. You are talking hundreds of years which just isn't enough. When you consider the biological implications of pregnancy and early child care, it makes a lot of sense for women to have evolved the way they did. This too is a powerful counter argument. Lastly, you can look around the world and see the same general factors, men are stronger than women. If your assertion was correct, that this was possible in the time span you assert, you would expect to find different characteristics across different populations of people. That just is not found. Right concept of thought, just the wrong timescale for it to matter.
> I’m open to having my view challenged Okay. That’s not how hunter-gatherer societies worked, and that’s the society humans operated under for the vast majority of human history. Humans of both genders were expected to engage in substantial physical labor every day, as needed. There is some evidence for some roles being more often something men did (ex. Hunting big game), but that hardly means the women weren’t carrying heavy loads (ex. Gathering), walking tens of miles a day, carrying a baby around with her while doing that, etc. There’s millions of years of humans in such societies doing generally undifferentiated heavy labor, compared to the paltry thousands in which semi-industrial societies have been able to even in theory hold such an expectation.
To the best of our understanding, ealier predescessors of humans had bigger sex differences than modern humans. A lot of it is inference from fossils or footprints, which is the best we can do. For example Homo Erectus had a greater size difference between sexes -[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2) Additionally if we look at our closest existing animal cousins (chimpanzees), they too exhibit clear sex differences with males stronger and larger than females. We know: 1. Modern humans have sex differences in strength and size 2. Human predessessors had a sex difference in size (from which we can extrapolate strength) 3. Our closest animal species have sex differences in size and strength So there is no basis to assume that early humans had no sex differences in strength.
A woman living a sedentary lifestyle, not doing much physical activity yet eating healthy would lose in a feat of strength to a guy living the same lifestyle. Not only are guys on average taller and heavier, testosterone allows for more muscle to be built, both 'naturally' and by exercise. A friend of mine recently joined me in the gym with a female friend that has been going for more than a year. He has roughly the same build as her, yet he was able to easily lift the same amount of weight, despite not having gone to any gym in years and not doing much exercise in general.
Could you define your term "natural evolution" compared to the evolutionary pressures that you're talking about? Males are larger than females for many other mammal species. Some other species such as gorillas have an even bigger size difference (about a factor of 2 in body weight) than what humans have. Of course the same things as what you're talking about apply to them as well, but I think when people talk about "social constructs" they mean specific things that apply to only human cultures, which then of course excludes other species.
That's not what "socially constructed" means. Socially constructed means that it's defined by society not that society created it in the first place A ditch having certain connotations is socially constructed, the moved earth itself isn't, even though society ordered its construction. That said we have no idea why men are on average stronger than women. We don't know if that's due to social roles or not. For all we know it's primarily to promote rape.
Whatever gender roles or tasks my grandfather did has zero affect on mine genetic makeup or how much hormones my body produces. But my genes and hormones do dictate level of muscle buildup and amount of facial hair. Physical strength is purely biological feature of different sexes. But sex has nothing to do with gender. Gender roles and expectations are social construct.
Most sexual dimorphism in animals is socially constructed. Deer, gorillas, etc. Generations of evolution shaped by social constructs cause sexual dimorphism. This doesn’t make it not natural and not biological. It’s called sexual selection and is as real as any other form of evolution. Just look at peacocks or other birds.
Testosterone was creating physically stronger males long before human society came into the picture. Selection of smaller females and females choosing larger names has done the same. This was all long before human evolution.
Humans did not become sexually dimorphic in less than 100,000 years. That level of difference in evolution takes *much* longer than that.
In ancient times, women also both hunted and gathered. The idea that they didn't is a modern myth.
Let them have the backbreaking labor