Hmmm.., fascinating. But. This one seems suspect.. Domestication seems more a result of tech advances than selectivity against dimorphism. Meaning-- it doesn't discriminate according to sex. Women's bone structure 7k yrs ago were roughly that of male athletes today..
-
-
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/prehistoric-women-stronger-than-elite-rowers-manual-labour-anthropology … This would suggest parallel changes in the sexes. Some traits we consider dimorphic are related to activity levels. Based on the high activity levels of men & women going back my bet would be they were less dimorphic as opposed to more.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Love your work Rolf, but the term 'toxic masculinity' is as grating to my ears as 'toxic femininity', 'toxic Islam' etc.
-
Indeed, the term "toxic" is not even mentioned in the paper. Tu quoque, Rolf.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice anti male propaganda
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This doesnt explain why hypermasculine men are the most sexually successful today (and the near-universal unattractiveness less masculine men) or much of the recent past. Though it does seem valid for East Asia.
-
Hyper-masculine or hyper-wealthy?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Toxic masculinity isn't a thing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Could domestication of animals also have selected for more "docile" humans (better handlers)?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Time for psychology to die.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.