The whole concept of dimorphism (the manifestations of sex-based differences like men being taller, larger-framed, and stronger than women) is BECAUSE women have been selecting those traits for tens of thousands of years
Occam's razor
Its more likely to be due to the fact that larger, taller men simply survived longer to breed and killed off the competition, you still haven't answered under which
ENFORCED RULESET were women
ALLOWED to
SELECT, who was stopping men from just claiming and owning women?
Let me guess, we had "cave jails" and the police of those days used wooden batons?
That's why in species without female sexual selection (like the bonobos), the females and males look almost identical
FIRST OFF -
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bonobo-sex-and-society-2006-06/
Although female bonobos are much smaller than the males, they seem to rule.
SECONDLY, there's a lot going on in the process of evolution, too much for you to just point out one species and just say that one is proof that the women weren't selecting, whose to say that
THE CRITERIA that the women were selecting on was different than the usual criteria of human females
LASTLY - You litearlly just described humans, male bonobos just look like slightly larger female bonobos,
MALE HUMANS JUST LOOK LIKE SLIGHTLY LARGER FEMALE HUMANS
YOU ASSUME TOO MUCH by asserting all females of all species will always want to choose a larger male
HOW THE FUCK DO BLACK WIDOW SPIDERS EXIST (THE MALES ARE SMALLER THAN THE FEMALES)
Because every woman passed on their subhuman genes, so undesirable genetic traits have never left the genepool
This is what happens when you quote something and ignore the context, that post was in reference to the "fisherian runaway" theory, so your argument makes no sense, becuase why didn't the subhuman genes of the female peacock not stop
ALL of the males from have the ridiculously large and flamboyant feather arrangement, that's my point.
ALL OF THEM HAVE THIS OUTLANDISH THING THAT MAKES THEM IMMEDIATELY UPON SIGHT STAND OUR FROM THEIR FEMALES
MALE HUMANS DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THIS
CHAD TRAITS WOULD BE MORE COMMON IF WOMEN WERE DOING THE SELECTING ALL THESE YEARS
IN THE SAME WAY THAT PRETTY MUCH ALL MALE PEACOCKS HAVE THAT LARGE FEATHER ARRANGEMENT, ALL MEN OF THIS SPECIES SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOMETHING EASY TO NOTICE THAT REALLY STANDS OUT, THAT MAKES US MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN WOMEN
Men are taller, are larger-framed, have more bone mass, have more muscle mass, have better and more developed facial skeletons, age much better, etc.
None of those things, are
OBVIOUS indicators of "higher attractiveness", colour is usually the first and simplest thing nature uses to distinguish males from females, when females are selecting males,
THEY GO FOR WHAT'S "FLASHY", we see that in pretty much every other species, but for some reason in our species, men basically only end up as "larger women" and that's your fucking proof of women selecting?
Come on dude, you know that makes no sense at all - "Well men are larger versions of women, that means women were selecting"
So peacock males end up with large ridiculous and flamboyant feather arrangements
Mandrill male apes end up with brightly coloured fur on their faces a genital areas
AND HUMAN MALES JUST END UP LOOKING LIKE LARGER FEMALES WITH MORE TESTOSTERONE
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WERE GOING WITH HERE, YOU ARE SERIOUSLY ARGUING THIS?
