Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Google Podcasts | RSS
Rundown
In this episode, Mexie and Marine discuss the ways in which sexual dimorphism, which has been exaggerated by millennia of social oppression, is at the root of patriarchy and rape culture, and informs our other oppressive systems like capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, and white supremacy. Drawing on anthropological theory and literary works, we argue that the physical dominance of men is not something purely natural, although as a global society we’ve come to understand it as such. What if women were encouraged, as men are, to bulk up and fight back against any attacker? What would the world look like if the physical power dynamics were flipped? What forms of liberation would that enable; what abuses of power?
Sources and Links
- Virginie Despentes, King Kong Theory: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7624359-king-kong-theory
- Naomi Alderman, The Power: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29751398-the-power?from_search=true
- Silvia Federicci, Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/403846.Caliban_and_the_Witch?from_search=true
- Sylvia Kirchengast, Human Sexual Dimorphism: A Sex and Gender Perspective: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262264342_Human_sexual_dimorphism_-_A_sex_and_gender_perspective
- Nora Bouazzouni, Faiminisme: Quand le Sexisme Passe à Table: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36169091-faiminisme
- Priscille Touraille, Hommes Grands Femmes Petites une Evolution Couteuse. Les régimes de genre comme force sélective de l’adaptation biologique: https://www.amazon.fr/Evolution-Couteuse-s%C3%A9lective-ladaptation-biologique/dp/2735111865
- Un Podcast à Soi, Un Autre Homme Est Possible: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/un-podcast-%C3%A0-soi-n-8-un-autre-homme-est-possible/id1294224809?i=1000410467992&mt=2
“Vegandale” Research Opportunity
- Contact Becky Ellis at rellis23@uwo.ca
Support the Show
32 thoughts on “24. What if Men Weren’t Physically Dominant?”
Beung a big fan of “The Power” by Naomi Alderman, I was looking forward to lustening to this, but then I read this…
“sexual dimorphism, which has been shaped by millennia of social oppression”
That is a bunch of horseshit.
Sexual dimorphism exists throughout the animal world. It exists because of genetic and hormonal diffetences which have evolved in species including humans BEFORE we were actuall human.
Why are men larger?
Women. Women are the more selective gender in mating and they have bred human males to be bigger.
I am sorry to say this, but your obvious blibd unthinking (and unscientific) bias is worthy of the worst in the GOP. Sadly, it is liaded speech reflecting bias like this that does not help tje feminist cause. Men do not get together and have meetings on how they can oppress women. That does not mean that oporession doesn’t de facto happen but, by and large, men love women and want the best for them.
Please do some self-reflection. The attitude you have only preaches to the hard core misandist feminist base aka “the converted”. This does not advance the feminist cause which needs to include people (women and men) who are not misandrist.
Hi, thanks for the comment. Perhaps we should have said “exaggerated” rather than shaped, because although there are clearly other factors that have shaped sexual dimorphism the worldwide undernutrition of females is an issue that also obviously contributes to physical force. No one is suggesting that men get together and have meetings about this. We’re simply having a conversation about how male violence and dominance has been normalized and thinking about what the world would look like if that weren’t the case.
Thanks for the reply. I knew that I was coming down hard and fat-fingering up the wazoo. I am going to listen to your podcast and nice to know you are Canadian and not living in our wacky MAGA-ville to your south.
thats the problem. you dont do it, at least not in the first 15min, that was enough for me to stop listening. first you assume only male violence is normalized and forget that females violence is also normalized and most of the time ignored or blamed on the man…but i guess that isnt worth a discussion or would not fit your agenda. the next thing you both present totally bullshit and nonsense reasons for the differences in males/females that goes totally against science.
for the next podcast discussing such topics i suggest to actually take a look at reality….big woman stigmatized? the present doesnt reflect the past….take a look at past fashion and beautytrends….there was a time where curvey woman where found attractive.
respectfully, you’re not engaging with any of this in good faith. you didn’t even listen to the entire podcast. what we’ve presented does not go against science whatsoever, and we never said we took anything as 100% true. these are theories backed up by evidence that expand our understanding of social and biophysical phenomena, which are relevant to consider in today’s social context where women are not encouraged to bulk up or fight back against attackers. male violence is certainly normalized. not sure why you continue to listen if you hate discussions about patriarchy or rape culture so thoroughly.
Females mating with the largest/most dominant male available is not necessarily their choice. Nor do they exclusively mate with large males. I enjoy reading about primatology as it could give insight into early human’s sexual preferences. It was/is much more nuanced than “women choose big men”.
I don’t disagree, but females are the more selective gender. As such, they are really the architects of human evolution. Thus, males are what females (statistically as a group) have chosen to create.
Unfortunately, like all dynamical systems, there may be unintended emergent behavior.
“The Patriarchy” (what a misnomer) is an example of that.
In science, we have something called Occam’s Razor and it is a very useful logical tool to get to the root of things. I have to use it all the time. So, despite my ardent feminism, when I hear what is tantamount to “blame the penis”, that is really irksome. That is an example of poor thinking skills. Always ask “Why?” something is the way it is. Too often, people are lazy thinkers and look for the most convenient answer that just reinforces their beliefs.
*sigh* As much as I despised him, what Nixon said to his White House Staff the morning he left office is correct:
“Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”
Our position isn’t “blame the penis”, and this whole discussion is about asking why things are the way they are. Saying males are what females have chosen to create is quite simplistic as well. In many species males fight each other to be able to reproduce, which does not so much mean that females are “choosing” them. Being physically dominant and being able to control others/mate with females means that females will bear your offspring, which is not maladaptive. If males can’t fight off bigger males they’ll choose mates who are smaller that they can “be successful” with. Our main argument wasn’t about that anyway, it was about nutrition and the fact that women have been consistently receiving half the calories of men, and that we are socially conditioned to seek to be small. It feels like you’re assuming that this is about man-hating or something, which is bringing up defensive near MRA or anti-fem arguments like women have chosen all of this for themselves. The discussion we’re having is bringing nuance to questioning why we have accepted that women are smaller and weaker, how that acceptance is shaped socially, and thinking about what would happen if the situation were reversed, or at least if women were conditioned to eat more and bulk up the way that men are encouraged to do so.
I’m not so sure on that. Historically, men who had resources and political power were the ones doing the mating choices. Genghis Khan wasn’t the ancestor of 0.1% of the world’s population because he was the most jacked man in the group all the way up to his 50s. Generally men with political power would funnel all the community’s women towards him and the majority of men never even mated. Rarely was any of this up to the women.
Your explanation doesn’t explain why men have a preference for smaller women on average. It’s implied that this preference exists because these targets that are easier to intimidate into mating with the male. Otherwise men would prefer larger stronger women who would produce larger sons. Fatter women also are more likely to produce healthier offspring with less complications. The obsession with very thin, petite, and small women can’t really be explained except as a product of power dynamics.
No one ever says that all of the men or any of group X are actively conspiring with each other. We have a two tier legal systems where rich people like OJ Simpson can get away with killing their wives despite clear evidence to contrary. Rich people did not get together to meticulously create the for profit lawyer system which provides disproportionate successful defenses to the wealthy. I’m sure plenty of rich people want whats best for the poor, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is what works and what are the facts.
One of my favorite episodes so far. I’ve never thought about this and it’s helped me understand many of my experiences better – my boyfriend lamenting that he’s not significantly taller than me, the personal trainer who said I have plenty of muscle mass (I did not share that opinion) and just need to look fat (I have a BMI of 21), the fact that I feel the need to strut like a man while walking at night in the hopes it will inhibit any would be attackers, and on and on. My parents called me a “brick house” when I was young. Their tone was a mix of pride and concern.
The biological factors that have led most men to be larger than most women and the social influences at play are certainly nuanced. And sadly, I’m not sure how this hypothesis would be tested. But the reality that women experience day to day – diet culture, rape culture, and just the tacit expectation that smaller is better (except for breasts) – is undeniable and harmful. Call any man a “pussy” and you’ll see first hand how these same tools of patriarchy are just as harmful to men. It is an interesting thought experiment – what if these cultural expectations were eliminated and women started to eat and work out just as much as men. Tens of thousands of years from now, would sexual dimorphism be less pronounced?
I’ve always wanted to get bigger and buffer and you guys have inspired me to pursue that unapologetically. I consider myself to be into fitness, but have never thought about what that actually means. I’d have to say that fitness to me means leanness, being agile, and endurance. All traits of a marathon runner, which is not a sport I have any interest in. So, why do I automatically think of a “runners body” or a “dancers body” as the physique to strive for, especially for women? Conversely, many vegan men in endurance sports are given flack for not “bulking up”, I’m thinking of That Vegan Couple in particular. In any case, thank you as always for the encouraging commentary.
Thank you so much! And ugh, yes. Can relate to so much of what you wrote. Although of course there are many reasons why sexual dimorphism exists, we really do feel that if women were encouraged to eat as much as men and strive to bulk up/be bigger, the differential would very much decrease. And yes, absolutely, these tropes are just as harmful to men! We’re with you on getting bigger and buffer too 🙂 much love
First of all, great discussion you two! This was a breath of fresh air and a topic that has always interested me.
I have always wondered why sexual dimorphism was so prominent in humans compared to other mammals, especially the chimpanzee. My theory is similar to yours; it all stems from when humans were hunter gatherers, which was a much longer period in proportion to the bronze age-modern times. The only real thing that I don’t understand is why men would want women to be small and frail. It seems to be counter-intuitive for the prosperity of the species. Also, the fact that sexism existed at a level similar to modern times (pre-civil rights/2nd wave feminism) in the hunter gather era is dubious. I also am skeptical that the trend of sexism and the patriarchy ramped up in the Middle Ages with privatization. I am pretty sure the Romans and Greeks were pretty damn sexist as well. I would assume rampant sexism started with agrarianism.
Hunter-gatherers lived a short time and had a hard existence. A tribe/group could only produce a set amount of children and it was indeed a time of “survival of the fittest.” That being said, why would a hunter gatherer man choose a mate who is small and frail? She needs to have the strength to bear children and provide milk for the infant. You are correct in that men ate more, they had to have more caloric intake to hunt and chase down prey. I think it’s a stretch to say that women became weaker than men due to selective breeding and genetics. Sexual dimorphism is universal among humans and it stems from hunter gatherer times when men NEEDED to go out and hunt so the women could adequately raise and feed their offspring. I sincerely doubt there was a conscious decision by the men to keep the women “barefoot and pregnant” due to the patriarchy. Even from the earliest stages of modern human evolution there was sexual dimorphism.
I loved the conjecture about what would happen if the switch was flipped and women became the stronger and larger gender. Here is another hypothetical, what if human evolution started off with the FEMALES being larger and stronger? On one hand forcible rape against women would be non-existent and they would likely be the clan leaders and would dictate what the tribe did and how it moved. On the other hand, they STILL would need to bear children to keep the species alive and would need someone to hunt and provide food for them during the process. Would hunting parties comprise women AND men, then (assuming women are the better athletes)? To me there is no question that men would still hunt and fight if women were the stronger gender; men are disposable by nature regardless of physicality. If a tribe is 10 men and 10 women and 8 of the men die, 2 men can still produce the same amount of offspring as 10. So, it’s really interesting to speculate how humanity would progress with men as the weaker sex. Would wars be fought by men and women side by side? Would armies have female commanders (Alexandra the Great)? Conflict would exist even if women were stronger, hunter gatherers would still need to kill of other groups by necessity due to scarcity of food and resources. Human nature would be similar if the switch was flipped, in my humble opinion.
Anyways, sorry for the TL;DR post, it’s just a fascinating topic. Thank you both!
Thank you so much! And for engaging with this so thoroughly. Well, like we said these probably weren’t conscious choices. Being physically dominant over your mate means that they will only bear your offspring, which someone pointed out is not maladaptive. However I believe Priscille was saying that this really started to take off in the neolithic, which is when sedentary agriculture began. This makes sense in that we know that hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian and polyamorous, and that many of those societies were actually matrilineal. But with the advent of sedentary farming and property, societies became patrilineal and men became dominant. Perhaps at this time is when women really began sacrificing their calories for the rest of their families. And it really is hard to say how things would have been if things were reversed!
I’ve read Federichi’s book and found it compelling (in a sense her emphasis on class struggle picks up on crucial aspects of the ‘Brenner debate’ in Marxist historiography), and I look forward to reading the other pieces you discussed. I have a lot of sympathy for the notion that male dominance and aggression are partially socially constructed, but I do think such factors only make up a portion of the story. Inadequate nutrition was no doubt an important factor in shaping female subjugation, but it’s a very incomplete picture. It’s always environment AND genetics. To take a classic example, height, someone who is genetically predisposed to grow to 6’0 will have his/her growth stunted in the absence of proper nutrition, but if the genetics are not there then no amount of calorie/nutritional intake will cause that growth. We know now that there are very real hormonal differences between men and women that explain differences in size and strength. For instance, inadequate levels of free floating testosterone in women essentially make it impossible for most females to reach the genetic muscular potential of most males, as anecdotal and experimental evidence show, regardless of nutritional intake and training. There is also some evidence that male aggression has evolutionary roots, though of course this doesn’t make it inevitable, and as noted, biology/evolution always interact with social phenomena. At any rate, great podcast!
Surely, we don’t mean to say that genetic or hormonal differences aren’t important, but that our social conditioning is likely exaggerating many issues that themselves help the systems going. Thank you!
Such a great episode! I took so many notes so here’s a long-ass comment. 🙂
“Humans are the only species whose males kill females” holy shit I never realized that. This feels like such an important fact that everyone should be aware of??
I think it’s revealing that women are discouraged from reacting in violence and it’s creepy that we do half of the work by suppressing our violent reactions (even when it’s absolutely justified like for self defense) by questioning and doubting our abilities to fight back. Yikes. Women are absoutely conditioned to perceive themselves as weaker than men. But like you pointed out, the reason is that men often are bigger and physically stronger and they could easily kill us for any attempt to fight back. That’s extremely fucked up. I also think that even if women aren’t physically stronger than men, then reducing or stopping sexual assault could happen if there were serious concequences to it. Currently there are 0 consequences for sexual assault and it’s disgusting what these men in positions of authority get away with (Trump, Kavanaugh etc) because rape culture is a thing.
If women had the kind of power and capacity for violence or self-defense as men do, then it might equalize the power structure but as soon as one group is more powerful, it would establish a hierarchy again, right? Would a society ruled by women then become oppressive to men? I think it doesn’t necessarily have to because violence is a cultural norm for men (and not for women). And power doesn’t necessarily need to be gained and maintained by violence.
Do you know about the research done by Robert Sapolsky with baboons? He’s a neurobiologist and he was researching stress in a baboon troop which had a strict hierarchy with an intensely dominant and violent alpha male at the top. Sapolsky found out that everyone (except the alpha male and other high ranking baboons) were constantly stressed because they were subjected to unpredictable violence from higher ranking baboons.
But then suddenly half of the male population died (they ate contaminated food – which ironically was because powerful males get access to food over lower ranking baboons), including all the most violent individuals and the hierarchy collapsed. Since the most aggressive baboons were gone, the troop became peaceful and everyone (including the remaining non-violent males who were socially well-adjusted) thrived. This also reduced everyone’s stress levels since they spent more time on grooming and socializing and not fighting and terrorizing one another.
Interestingly, even the aggressive baboons that joined that troop later became assimilated and stopped their aggressions. I’m not sure if there was still some kind of hierarchy in the resulting troop but it’s notable that violence and aggression were then rejected as part of the ‘culture’ of that troop in future generations as well.
So at least according to science, one solution seems to be distrupting the hierarchy by eliminating all the violent alpha males so that the rest of the non-violent group can live in peace and thrive. Similarly to baboons, in human societies violence (or non-violence) is culturally ingrained and the change has to start with reinventing our values/norms, I think. But how do you change the dominant culture that is not going to willingly give up its power? Is violence really the only option?
So many interesting book recommendations, thanks for sharing! Some of them seem to be only in French unfortunately. :’)
Wow, the research on the baboon troop is so interesting!! Thank you for sharing that, certainly gives us a lot to think about. Definitely we need to reinvent our values/norms, move away from the individualistic, competitive, aggressive and oppressive values ingrained in us through patriarchy and capitalism. Not sure on what the options are – but maybe some kind of collapse, like ecological collapse, would also free us from aggression. And yes, there are currently hardly any repercussions for sexual assault at all, unless perhaps you’re a person of colour. Thanks for your comment <3
That intra-vagina castration device would certainly make for a very interesting Black Mirror episode. And I actually started giggling a bit at Marine’s little addendum and awkwardness with the whole topic. Thanks for the laughs :p
Not sure what to think about the evolutionary theories put forward here. All I can think about is that this type of evolutionary thinking tends to be highly speculative and also opens doors to a whole lot of “interesting” race theories like the infamous ice age theory that’s supposed to explain racial IQ differences. Maybe someone who’s more into evolutionary psychology could enlighten me about how speculation about gender is somehow more viable than speculation about population genetics.
I think you are totally correct that male dominance is backed up by physical dominance. It was interesting to hear your takes on it because I haven’t really given it much thought. And god damn I finally need to pick up that witch book!
Male physical dominance is such a mixed bag because it comes with a whole lot of destructive BS that shouldn’t exist like men’s higher rates of deaths caused by physical violence. Plus, being beaten up doesn’t necessarily get you any sympathy but contempt because you’ve commited the great sin of being weak.
Wish you would have had more time to talk. Maybe you would have gone more deeply into the sexual aspects, which kinda interest me. A whole lot of male status competition and focus on physical strenght is propped up by the fantasy that this gives you access to women and sex. I mean, it’s not an accident that you see so many shirtless douchebags on Tinder. It’s not wrong in the sense that women really do have a tendency to find physical dominance – or rather its bodily signals – attractive and it often comes up in research on sexuality and attraction. But there’s definitely a male fantasy aspect to it as well. It’s like it’s all for the imagined feminine gaze. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this went into all this evolutionary-psychological speculation about women choosing alphas as their mates…
We should definitely submit this to Black Mirror. :p
How does this relate to racial IQ differences? To me that’s very different. We’re talking about women worldwide suffering from chronic malnutrition at twice the rate of men and this contributing further to their relative physical weakness, as well as the way we are socially conditioned to think in terms of self-defense. And absolutely this social conditioning harms men as well. The sex stuff is interesting yes, maybe something to go into in a future episode. And yes pick up the witch book! 🙂
Wait…weren’t you also talking about socially influenced sexual selection processes whereby physically weaker and petite women were selected against stronger and bigger ones thereby contributing to women’s biological constitution? At least that’s what I gathered from the discussion about men selecting physically weaker women. I don’t know the details of the malnourishment thesis but if that’s supposed to have resulted in physically bigger and stronger women getting wiped out leaving only physically smaller and weaker women who could survive with lower calories – i.e. if malnourishment is supposed to operate like an evolutionary selection process – then it’s not much different from evolutionary race theories.
Yes, that is theorized to have been one part of it all. There are a lot of factors both genetic and hormonal that go into this, but we’re looking at some of the ways that social organization can also exaggerate the difference, and women on average getting much fewer calories follows that they would develop to be smaller. In terms of race and IQ, IQ tests themselves are biased towards wealthy white men. I guess if people are arguing that this is due to malnourishment as slaves or as oppressed people under colonial masters? But certainly throughout the paleolithic and neolithic periods people of colour were not malnourished.
Well, some people on the internet do indeed speculate that slaves were aggressively selected against intelligence during slavery, which is supposed to be the explanation for why DOS have lower IQs today. But the more common theory is that the onset of the latest ice age imposed harsh conditions on some human populations, exerting selection pressure on cognitive ability. James Flynn debunks this in his 2012 book while others argue that the time frame simply isn’t long enough to have resulted in significant genetic differences in cognitive abilities across human populations. My point is that it evolutionary speculation is quite ad hoc and politically motivated and if you open the door for one type of speculation it also gives a whole lot of ground to other similar speculations but from the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Btw, I don’t buy constructionist claims about the nature of IQ. Cognitive abilities are real and have a significant genetic component to them, creating genetic ability hierarchies between individuals (claims about group differences, e.g. race differences, are dubious for technical reasons). I used to think otherwise but having looked into the research I just can’t bring myself to believe in constructionism anymore and I’ve come to believe it has become a knee-jerk response from liberals and leftists who can’t accept and deal with facts that they find politically repulsive. So I rather follow people like James Flynn or Eric Turkheimer on this. They’re both socialist or liberal but also realists about IQ.
I think physical dominant may have at one point in human history a crucial factor in determining who in control of a male-female relationship. However, in much of western society, there’s laws punishing physical assault/harassment. In the case of rape/sexual harassment perpetrated by Trump and similar men, these people use the social/economic position to lure and coerce people, not their physical dominant. It’s is this social/economic power that embolden them, not their physic capability. In fact, in today society, if you are physical apt, but not socially/economically/intellectually apt, you will find yourself at the bad end of the stick, men or women.
about the castrate device. it doesn’t change the fact that some men can still overpowered some women. they just don’t prone to penetration as much. plus, this kind of device can only ward against random offenders, and not the kind who use their social position of power to lure/coerce women under them into sex. Even with random offenders, they tend to threaten their victims with their lives. thus, the victims have to choose between being raped or being murdered. In reality it is much better for women to be able to fend off potential offenders – like self defense technique, pepper spray, stun gun, or guns. I feel like such a castrate device is of no practical use beside serving the revenge fantasy of a rape victim. after all, it shouldn’t be hard to make a device to disable the castrate device, or to simply detect whether or not the castrate device is active.
Yes, absolutely, unequal economic power plays a huge role. But men historically got that economic power by being the dominant force and thus controlling all of the property. (Old) white men are still in that dominant position of the property owners, although things have obviously shifted. And yes, if you are physically dominant but not economically so, you suffer. But still you can overpower and assault people.
As we said, the castrating device would not stop rape culture or all forms of attack, but certainly it would deter men, even if they were using their economic power. Keep in mind that they have economic power PLUS physical power. We were merely using the example to demonstrate how much we’ve been conditioned to think that there should be no violent consequences for men who do this – that physical harm is what women bear, not something they should think of perpetrating to attackers.
Thanks for the reply. Such a device only have its use in a dystopian society, Where people lost all faith in the laws and rules of society. and when people have to take matter into their own hand, because there are always some potential predators lurking in the dark . I’m sure you don’t want to spend a substantial amount of time a day to think about your reproductive organs or to check whether or not such a device is active. It’s would be a terrible thing if we could not deter such a future and create a society where despite our differences, men and women can treat/ have respect for one another.
about men of power, a victim will still have the options of having sex with them or being punished socially/economically (I don’t see how this device can change the situation).
That part where you were talking about sleeping with a knife :O I feel terrible that anyone feels this unsafe
I remember reading about sexual dimorphism from a really young age when I was going through my must learn everything about raptor birds phase.
So I must admit I’ve always related that term to birds and never really thought about how it effects us, so thank you for this one (will relisting taking notes )
also thanks again for the last podcast with Spenser I have now listened to just about all of eyes left !!
And Caliban and the Witch is on my list now too
Yes, they are pretty annoying thoughts to have! But thank you. Glad you’re loving Eyes Left and YES you will love Caliban and the Witch!
Hello again!
From what I can recall on my basic biology class, the Lamarckian evolution theory is not valid…So when it comes to women usually being smaller than men, the calorie intake would only count for the current generation, not the next ones. Not to say that there is no culture that men should eat more and women less; but even if for millions of years women eat less and therefore don’t experience the best possible growth in their youth, every next generation has the same “chance” (?) to experience the best possible growth. Anyway, next point.
“That intra-vagina castration device” might be difficult to design in such a way that it’s safe for the woman to insert and take out again. I mean, it has to be sharp?
these are just my thoughts, keep up the good work!
Thanks for the thoughts! There are a lot of theories on this, which are interesting to dig into.
you both make a important mistake. you take every book that underlines your worldview or theories as true….this podcast is really bad. you both read some book of bad authors that literally ignore science and reality. just a couple example from the first 15min
– malnutrion of the female partner would increase the risk of weaker offspring and would risk the offspring in the early years. also choosing deliberatly a smaller woman would increase the risk of problems at childbirth… i guess you both know how that works
– slavery responsible for better black athletes? what? sorry thats also bullshit. the only reason is the socio economic situation. more black participate in sport -> more blacks are on top.
– man only find small woman attractive? sorry, that author ignored prob. the rest of the world and was only looking fashionshows in the west. the fact that curvey woman are preferred as example in africa or in general by black ppl makes the whole theory invalid…
i closed the podcast after 15min, because it was clear for me that this was going nowhere by the amount of nonsense at the start already. please dont take every book you 2 read as absolute truth.
I will reply the same thing I did above:
respectfully, you’re not engaging with any of this in good faith. you didn’t even listen to the entire podcast. what we’ve presented does not go against science whatsoever, and we never said we took anything as 100% true. these are theories backed up by evidence that expand our understanding of social and biophysical phenomena, which are relevant to consider in today’s social context where women are not encouraged to bulk up or fight back against attackers. male violence is certainly normalized. not sure why you continue to listen if you hate discussions about patriarchy or rape culture so thoroughly.
further, you don’t seem to realize that your own conjectures are based purely on your own opinion. you ignore the much higher rates of malnutrition as not meaningful and provide your own ideas for why. this is exactly what discussion is about! thinking about the implications of various narratives and why we base our entire way of life around these assumptions.
Interesting discussion. I haven’t listened to the podcast and I’m already pumped for jumpin in.
From my understanding, the earliest tribal societies were matriarchal. (Patriarchy evolves out of matriarchy). In matriarchal societies, a general gender-equality exists; and balance, where, women are warriors as well as mothers, and men are often sweet and sensitive alongside their physical strength.
In general, men are physically larger, and they also have a more ‘masculine’ mentality that goes along with it; but in a balanced matriarchy, this difference has little negative consequence: women are strong enough to make men think twice about physical aggression, and men are sufficiently in awe of women’s powers, (sexual, intuitive, emotional, to name a few) to not even go there.
In other words, the problem lies not in the distinctive physical strength; but rather, aggressive male patriarchy which is blind to the fact that women embody a ‘power’ which goes beyond the merely physical.
Within advanced patriarchal societies, women are trained to THINK small, timid, submissive.
Time to put on my headphones. Thanks