Ok I re-read the linked article.
It seems to be saying this:
1. Tribes/Families have to determine distribution of resources
2. Physical strength is a (historical) proxy for ability to defend and acquire resources
3. In the past, we settled disputes by shows of physical strength
This means that the stronger the male, the better he's able to defend and acquire resources and win disputes. So it's evolutionary. It's selection
pressure. There's a reason to favor strong males.
So nature tried to produce strong males for probably millions of years. There's even evidence that woman find muscles attractive or even sexy. In
fact, it's common knowledge that homosexual men have a fondness for muscular men. Studies have shown that the brain of a homosexual man has some
similarities to heterosexual woman, so it makes you wonder, eh? In fact, I've seen a variety of studies. One shows woman prefer men with upper-body to
leg ratios that make his upper-body bigger. I also saw a study that showed they prefer the triangular shape (big shoulders). Yet another that shows
they prefer tall males. However, because strength is decreasingly useful in modern civilization, woman are turning to other traits like commitment and
emotional intelligence when looking for a partner. Physical strong men are consistently shown to have more sexual partners, but they're falling out of
favor when it comes to the bigger picture.
So basically tall and big shouldered men with big upper body to leg ratio and toned muscle frame.
By why would this apply today? Physical strength is not as important anymore. You don't need big strength to socialize and to graduate college and to
find a good job. So why would it by meaningful?
My guess is that the researchers hypothesized that there're still lingering affects from the past. For example, our ancestors needed to eat a lot to
survive winter and famine. This led to evolution giving us a strong appetite. But that trait is now leading to increasing obesity as people seem
unable to control their food consumption habits. I think there're other examples. For instance, our brain is hardwired to dumbly chase things and
socialize and get rewards, but now computer games have addicted millions across the world by sabotaging this mechanism and giving people easy access
but without the other benefits of RL (like exercise and real acquisition of resources) that allows us to survive on this planet.
Maybe strong men feel more empowered somehow. Perhaps evolution linked our emotional state to our strength? So men who're stronger will tend to feel
better about things and more independnet? Or perhaps it's even more ominous. Maybe strong men are just more broadly healthier? How is that, you might
ask? Well, evolution favored strong men. Any dent or misaligned gears will lead to problems. It might not even have anything to do with genetics. And
even genetics can sometimes give you traits that're not favored. Nature is not a machine, but it does have rough designs for things (the average dna
of humans). If you fall outside the range of average then the rough design might fail to produce.
There might be in fact some benefits to strong men still remaining. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. I'd say that eating too much and being addicted
to games is bad. But being strong? No.
(sorry for all my speculating and tl;dr)
edit on 16-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)