Human advancement was due to feminisation of the species.

thats really interesting

No I haven't MarchLikeAnAnt, thank you, I'll get it for Kindle - looks interesting.

Garlick where did that introduction come from because it doesn't seem to be in the article?

Have you read 'The decent of woman' by Elaine Morgan? I think you might like it.

There's more to hunting than hitting things over the head with main force, though. Let's face it, the World's Strongest Man would have a job wrestling a rhino into submission, and is a good bit smaller than youraverage mammoth. Cunning and co-operation are more effective. Let's not even start pointing out that it may not have been all men doing the hunting and women doing the gathering; men are actually capable of gathering too, if the rumours are to be believed, and I'm sure most women could have dug a perfectly serviceable trap. As we know, lions are larger and more powerful than lionesses, but not better hunters.

It's not the only choice Karbon.

www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/15/childrensservices.familyandrelationships

Surely the introduction doesn't say "more easier" - is this self-published?!

Given many technological advances have been made through warfare, I'm not sure tool making = less propensity for violence.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. The only choice in those days, and in hunter gatherer societies today, was to go for the best hunter, to provide for your children. No amount of tool making and social skills would have compensated for a lack of strength and courage in hunting.

That is really interesting, thanks Garlick.

I haven't got time to comment properly at the moment (supposed to be doing a job application but procrastinating as usual!) but I will comment on the use of the word "feminisation". I find it jarring even though I know why they have used it (primarily to talk about the lowering of testosterone levels and the consequential lowering of reactive violence) but they've also paired it up with 'self-domestication'. Again I know why, but...

It's an interesting take on it all though and they mention the re-emergence of inequality between sexes at the start of the agricultural period (although when sexual inequality occurred I think is still up for debate tbh).

It all still feels a bit 'man writing/imposing his view of history on us' again though. But I am happy to be persuaded otherwise by more experienced anthropologists. I think we have a couple around.