Stronger males and weaker females

[nickycheese]

Evolution is mainly 'powered' by natural selection. Natural Selection selects genetic characteristics based only on reproductive advantage. This can be affected by strength, looks, intelligence, but isn't necessarily.

 

Any genetic trait that allows you to produce more offspring, that also live to reproduce, has an evolutionary advantage.

[foxy lady]

Males in many species are taller, bigger or stronger; their whole life style is built around males being taller and stronger.

In todays modern world, people are equal, does this under-mind millions of years of evolution?

Women like stronger men, our whole society is based on power and wealth, do most women really just want to partner with an equal?

Equality will take many years to achieve.

 

That would rather depend on how you define strength. The days when physical strength was important are gone. A midget with a gun will defeat a giant without every time.

Power is now defined by wealth and influence. If Hilary Clinton becomes US president she will become the most powerful person on the planet.

[Gamston]

And Bill Clinton will be the World's most powerful backseat driver

[Cyclone]

Males in many species are taller, bigger or stronger; their whole life style is built around males being taller and stronger.

In todays modern world, people are equal, does this under-mind millions of years of evolution?

Women like stronger men, our whole society is based on power and wealth, do most women really just want to partner with an equal?

Equality will take many years to achieve.

 

In some species women kill the males after mating with them.

In today's modern world we've made laws so that women can't kill men after sex.

Are these laws under minding[sic] millions of years of evolution?

Women like to kill men after sex, it will take many years before they don't. Men should just accept their inevitable death and stop this futile effort to live beyond copulation.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2016 at 13:11 ----------

 

Wow. I really wish I could sit back and watch the fallout from this all day, I really do...

 

But just for a different perspective, seeing as you brought up the topic of evolution... It is a reasonably well considered fact that the human race is the only species on the planet that has evolved itself out of natural selection. We are no-longer subject to 'survival of the fittest'. Do you really think that people like Bill Gates would be one of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world back in the times you refer to, where bigger and stronger was the key?

 

Just a thought...

 

That's not a fact at all, it's just a lack of understanding of what "survival of the fittest" means.

 

Clearly we are still subject to this law, it's just that the pressures which act on us have changed.

 

Funny that you single out Bill Gates, someone who has only 2 children. Genetically speaking he's doing less well in the survival game than anyone who has managed to get 3 children through to adulthood.

 

Genghis Kahn on the other hand father so many children that a sizeable portion of all men in the world today share some of his DNA. He was pretty much the all time winner of the game (if the game is to spread your DNA as far as possible).

[El Cid]

The power and wealth you refer to above has got very little if anything to do with the physical aspects that you mention.

 

I did not narrow it down to physical strength.

[Cyclone]

In that case, 'fittest' in our species now amounts to most intelligent, adaptive and creative - rather than strongest, tallest, fastest etc. And women are equally as capable at that as men are.

 

No it doesn't. That's what we might like it to mean, but whatever it means, it's measured by successful transmission of your genetic material. And being intelligent, adaptive and creative doesn't appear to help that much.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2016 at 13:14 ----------

 

That would rather depend on how you define strength. The days when physical strength was important are gone. A midget with a gun will defeat a giant without every time.

Power is now defined by wealth and influence. If Hilary Clinton becomes US president she will become the most powerful person on the planet.

 

Will she actually reproduce more effectively though?

[El Cid]

That would rather depend on how you define strength. The days when physical strength was important are gone. A midget with a gun will defeat a giant without every time.

Power is now defined by wealth and influence. If Hilary Clinton becomes US president she will become the most powerful person on the planet.

 

And that is the point, although I am sure many men will like Hillary, some men will be put off by a powerful woman.

[MickyA]

Males in many species are taller, bigger or stronger; their whole life style is built around males being taller and stronger.

In todays modern world, people are equal, does this under-mind millions of years of evolution?

Women like stronger men, our whole society is based on power and wealth, do most women really just want to partner with an equal?

Equality will take many years to achieve.

 

 

Looking round now the women are often taller, bigger and stronger than their other halves (fat in other words) they walk down the street and it looks like an auntie is taking their nephew for a walk

 

Yes indeed things have changed, I think that most men would except that women are stronger virtually in every way other than physically. Women can use their strengths in every way and often do to get what they want but yet a man cannot use the only strength that he has so basically we're screwed

 

In time to come it will be men demanding equal rights as women will be running the show

[Cyclone]

taller, stronger = fat in other words?

What.

[Gamston]

And that is the point, although I am sure many men will like Hillary, some men will be put off by a powerful woman.

Or by Hillary Clinton's annoying voice.