i see the most recent TRA argument against sexual dimorphism in humans regarding male strength (and height) is âgirls are fed less and told to keep thin, if they werenât malnourished as children, they would be just as strong as menâ
iâd like to ask: how do you explain the physical advantages women have over men, then? how do you explain women having higher body fat, stronger immune system, greater flexibility, higher pain tolerance and endurance? if women are capable of being just as strong as men, then do these advantages make us strictly superior? or would men eating less result in somehow having more body fat and more endurance??
idk why they insist on completely denying sexual dimorphism in muscle mass like it doesnât make sense that evolutionarily, men evolved to be glass canons since they are less necessary for reproduction, and women evolved to survive. no one is saying women are destined and doomed to be barefoot pregnant housewives, but itâs stupid to pretend evolution doesnât occur based on survival and reproduction of the species. it might be uncomfortable, but i donât think feminism is going to go anywhere if we insist on denying science and reality.
men have no advantage over women in STEM, management, education, social sciences, arts, or just about any other non-physical field. lord forbid, maybe women arenât the best pick for lifting as much weight as possible, but that isnât particularly relevant in modern life anyways, is it? besides the value men put on their own strength, awarding themselves for lifting, it really isnât very practical - would you rather be able to lift more or get sick less often, experience less pain and live longer?
the fact that people hear âless muscle massâ and for some reason think that translates to âincapable of paid work in modern society, only useful for making babiesâ is absurd
There was this article orbiting radblr (and I can't never find it when I need it) about prehistoric women being stronger than current elite athletes. So probably as strong or stronger than prehistoric men.
Question is: what happened between then and now we got nerfed strength and size wise but retained other advantages over men?
Realistically, with regard to evolution/reproduction, the answer is probably rape.
Smaller/weaker women were easier to rape and therefore were raped more, and that happened so often that women are now smaller/weaker because of that, unfortunately.
All women are pretty much disadvantaged when it comes to fending off men.
Maybe small children might be more vulnerable because of their size but women in general are not getting targeted for sexual violence because they are very small or smaller than average or something. They're targeted because the men find them sexually attractive I guess that might have some link with how small they are. There's plenty of anthropological evidence of men's pedophilic tendencies.
I don't disagree about the pedophilic tendencies. But men are also incredibly lazy.
But it is undeniable that sexual violence towards women and girls is not entirely about sexual attractiveness, men will rape anything that they think they can and it is quite clear that they will choose an easy target, sometimes that is a child, sometimes an animal, sometimes an elderly woman or disabled women or drunk woman, or simply a smaller weaker woman who is less able, or perhaps willing, to fend off an attack than a larger stronger woman.
