Because they have more muscle mass.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Because they have more muscle mass.

Well that's like throwing the ball out. That's what makes us stronger and his question turning into why males have more muscles mass ?

I thought it was so I could fend off a group of women.

Animavore wrote:I thought it was so I could fend off a group of women.

That should be my post

Animavore wrote:I thought it was so I could fend off a group of women.

Or just one very motivated one.

Why females give birth not males? Those "why questions" :)

There is pop-sci book on the topic from Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Not sure how up to date/accurate it is.

I can think of at least two plausible reasons (caveat - this is not based on any anthropological research whatsoever so it's purely speculation).

Looking at other primates to whom we are closely related, there is an alpha male phenomenon, where the biggest, strongest male gets more breeding rights through subduing his smaller weaker competitors. Some of that may have persisted into our hominid ancestors.

Then there is possible competition for resources between warring families/clans/tribes. When wars were fought hand to hand, as they would have been for millions of years, the winners (ergo the survivors) of these conflicts would be more likely to be those that had a preponderance of larger, stronger males.

The modern era of homo sapiens is a mere blip compared t the millions of years of prior hominid evolution, so it's not surprising that the trait of larger males has descended into our species. More particularly, the relevance of post-Industrial human civilisation to our physical evolution is almost meaningless on the timescales that evolution usually work in.

lucek wrote:Are they?

When weight and height are controlled for there isn't a difference in strength between men and women.

Wait, is that true? I thought women had different makeup of muscles and higher body fat percentages to remain healthy?

There are plenty of female distance runners who are as tall and heavy as some of their male counterparts, but they cannot perform to the same level, for what I thought were well understood physiological reasons.

Macdoc wrote:The joints for women alter their strength characteristics, they don'y have the same leverage....then there is testosterone.

Also, women have to carry that large black rectangle around on their chests.

Blackadder wrote:I can think of at least two plausible reasons (caveat - this is not based on any anthropological research whatsoever so it's purely speculation).

Looking at other primates to whom we are closely related, there is an alpha male phenomenon, where the biggest, strongest male gets more breeding rights through subduing his smaller weaker competitors. Some of that may have persisted into our hominid ancestors.

Then there is possible competition for resources between warring families/clans/tribes. When wars were fought hand to hand, as they would have been for millions of years, the winners (ergo the survivors) of these conflicts would be more likely to be those that had a preponderance of larger, stronger males.

The modern era of homo sapiens is a mere blip compared t the millions of years of prior hominid evolution, so it's not surprising that the trait of larger males has descended into our species. More particularly, the relevance of post-Industrial human civilisation to our physical evolution is almost meaningless on the timescales that evolution usually work in.

Regarding the warring and fighting - from a standing start today you might look at the stronger base female protectiveness for offspring as a base for a more physically dominant gender. I wonder did it all come down to the need for the female to nurture and feed the child while the male's "lookout" role provided protection by proxy and he grew stronger down the generations?

Dimorphism explained in some detail here. Won't really give you a 'why' answer though. Prepare to be owned with knowledge.

This grave stone is very popular in Turkey people very often share it on the social media. I'll translate it for you.



Here rests who grieved and sickened because of his wifes and mother's grumbles and disputes. His testament was to have these lines on his grave stone.

Esseyid Halil Ağa lost his life because of women's nagging.

The reason I told is maybe nature want us to be powerful to endure female trauma on us.

Edit : you know what, its actually old alphabet, his death is in 13th century but since his grave turned into a holy place by males who suffer under female oppression somebody translated it to new alphabet.

Here old and new grave stones side by side

In every instance I've run across where the "why" question is posed about seeming evolutionary results, the same basic things are commonly ignored.

They include that there IS no logic behind a lot of what happens in evolution. It's mostly a luck thing. Classic example: there is and obvious evolutionary advantage to being the biggest, strongest, most powerful and agile creature in your environment. That is, unless an asteroid chances to whang the planet, and everything with a biomass and large need for food, suddenly has nothing to eat. Then it's the little guys who are good at hiding who "win."

Another ignored thing is, that evolution and how creatures act as a result, is an interactive thing. If someone HAPPENS to be bigger and stronger, the society they are in is likely to react to that by deferring to them in any activities in which strength and size is decisive. In other words, it's a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing.

igorfrankensteen wrote:it's a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing.

The egg.

devogue wrote:Broadly speaking human males are physically stronger than females, and this phenomenon is also obviously very apparent across the animal kingdom.

Why is that?

Where there less males at one point, meaning they had to fight over females? Is it a hunter gatherer thing?

It's just mammals. It's an accident of evolution. Why are female reptiles larger than male reptiles? Why are female amphibians larger than male amphibians? And so forth.

Murmur wrote:It's just mammals.

Obviously with notable exceptions like hyena?

igorfrankensteen wrote:They include that there IS no logic behind a lot of what happens in evolution. It's mostly a luck thing. Classic example: there is and obvious evolutionary advantage to being the biggest, strongest, most powerful and agile creature in your environment.

Genetically? Consolidating your future reproductive success into a handful of huge monoliths that can get knocked out of the game by a bad cold seems pretty silly to me.

VazScep wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:They include that there IS no logic behind a lot of what happens in evolution. It's mostly a luck thing. Classic example: there is and obvious evolutionary advantage to being the biggest, strongest, most powerful and agile creature in your environment.

Genetically? Consolidating your future reproductive success into a handful of huge monoliths that can get knocked out of the game by a bad cold seems pretty silly to me.

The way you phrase this, implies that evolution is the result of CHOICES AND DECISIONS. That is not how most of it has worked.

And besides, if you instead "choose" to "consolidate your future reproductive success" into a handful of very small, tasty morsels of prehistoric chicken nuggets, you ALSO aren't likely to fare well, again, unless something happens that wipes out your predatory neighbors.

That's my point. What is, is the result, NOT of some brilliant single entity DECIDING that this is what should be. According to the theories of evolution, what is, is simply the RESULT of what happened, intersecting with what was.

As Yoda might have put it, "there is no WHY."

igorfrankensteen wrote:

VazScep wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:They include that there IS no logic behind a lot of what happens in evolution. It's mostly a luck thing. Classic example: there is and obvious evolutionary advantage to being the biggest, strongest, most powerful and agile creature in your environment.

Genetically? Consolidating your future reproductive success into a handful of huge monoliths that can get knocked out of the game by a bad cold seems pretty silly to me.

The way you phrase this, implies that evolution is the result of CHOICES AND DECISIONS. That is not how most of it has worked.

And besides, if you instead "choose" to "consolidate your future reproductive success" into a handful of very small, tasty morsels of prehistoric chicken nuggets, you ALSO aren't likely to fare well, again, unless something happens that wipes out your predatory neighbors.

That's my point. What is, is the result, NOT of some brilliant single entity DECIDING that this is what should be. According to the theories of evolution, what is, is simply the RESULT of what happened, intersecting with what was.

As Yoda might have put it, "there is no WHY."

I think he said, "try".

igorfrankensteen wrote:The way you phrase this, implies that evolution is the result of CHOICES AND DECISIONS. That is not how most of it has worked.

I'm going on the usual caveat that such language is metaphorical and can be rephrased.

And besides, if you instead "choose" to "consolidate your future reproductive success" into a handful of very small, tasty morsels of prehistoric chicken nuggets, you ALSO aren't likely to fare well, again, unless something happens that wipes out your predatory neighbors.

Right. There's nothing obvious about which is better in terms of reproductive fitness.