A professor whose field this is had this comment to make about this story:

"Bravo, Elle! This is "my kind" of article. Very well written, thought-provoking, critically thinking based, well researched and documented, and meticulously accurate.

An oasis in a Medium desert of bullshit!

Thank you!"

I've already said this:

"In modern times, unless the tribe hunts big game, both men and women often hunt and gather, paying little attention to whose role it is to do what, and depending on where they live, meat may be a comparatively small part of the diet." (2)

Dimorphism of 10-15% has nothing at all to do with how mate competition takes place (although it does impact big game hunting and using a plow - but I already said that). As I've noted, in many H-G cultures, most of the food comes from gathering and not hunting anyhow. You are drawing false correlations and jumping to conclusions -not a good practice for a scientist.

Gorillas have small testes and a penis about the size of your little finger because they compete for mates prior to copulation. Chimps, bonobos, and humans have large testes to store up semen for multiple matings and larger penises to deliver that semen. Human females have a cervix whose purpose is to sort genetic material from a variety of partners. In case you haven't thought it through, being tall, strong, etc., is no indication of fertility or that you are of good genetic compatibility -which is why multiple mating is a good evolutionary strategy. Only 3% of animals are monogamous maters for that very reason.

That's hardly a political statement to say so and to describe what that means biologically.

And how do you account for all of the cultures around the world that do not fit into this myth of the standard narrative? Unless you can give me something beyond your "everybody knows" ideas that you learned in the 1970s, with things that actually refute my citations and analyses, I don't think there's anything left to say.