45

24 comments

Did this person confuse force (oftentimes being more capable openers of jars) and violence or is he just mental? Since we do not live in the days of yore, never once has the Nigel gone out, killed a pig brutally and then skinned it with his teeth to gift me a pigskin coat. This would be the only scenario I would see myself benefitting from male violence.

I suspect that women in the days of yore were quite capable of slaughtering pigs themselves. Domesticated pigs are surprisingly big animals, but nevertheless ... women have always done a lot of back-breaking work that men would have been better suited for but were too lazy for.

Things men might be useful for: Chasing an antelope until it drops dead. That would be a good use of their male lung capacity, larger hearts and blood supply and all that.

Other than that ... yeah, male violence: Not terribly useful to women.

Male-type aggression is even LESS useful to women. Defending the tribe against large predators is not male-type aggression, it is defense, an instinct mammals of both sexes have. (It is quite fascinating. Scientists have found a way to eliminate male type aggression in mice by reducing testosterone supply in the first days of life. The males thus manipulated still defend themselves, in the way a female would, but they don't show the typical male types of aggression against other mice.)

Women actually have more longterm endurance than men so I think we’d be the best at antelope chasing