So, you know a whole more than an actual research expert in this field?? And no, testosterone does not “cause” aggression. Honestly, is there a fable around this stuff that you haven’t bought into?
“In fact, almost all the most common beliefs about testosterone are either outright wrong or, at best, greatly exaggerated. Certainly, some of the rhetoric around hormones is inspired by facts, but mostly it’s a bunch of misguided attempts to drape the mythology of sexist cultural assumptions atop an endocrinological scaffold.
As Brown University anthropologist Matthew Gutmann puts it, one would have to be either castrated or “a gym rat on steroids” before testosterone levels began to correlate with the inclination to pick a fight (Gutmann). In other words, there’s no good boys-will-be-boys biological explanation for playground bullying. But it’s important to notice that both of Gutmann’s hypothetical scenarios — castration and steroids — are situational. That is, the hormones change depending on the context. This is how testosterone works, a fact that becomes clear when you consider an oft-cited series of experiments involving the cichlid fish of East Africa. These lake fish demonstrate behavior which shows that social status regulates testosterone. And therefore, it disproves the common assumption that hormones drive so-called alpha-male behavior.”
And I haven't said that men shouldn't be strong? You are so swimming in your emotions around this stuff that you can't even think straight. It's actually kind of funny.
But how does your extreme binary view of strength and aggression account for the long history of women as hunters, soldiers, pirates, etc.?
During the 17th century, the Agooji were a battle-hardened, all-female warrior force that held a special place within the African kingdom of Dahomey. Most were former slaves, with only the bravest and toughest admitted into the fold.
Onna-musha (女武者) is a term referring to female warriors in pre-modern Japan. These women fought in battle alongside samurai men. They were members of the bushi (warrior) class in feudal Japan and were trained in the use of weapons to protect their household, family, and honour in times of war.
“The hunting was purposeful,” Wall-Scheffler tells NPR. “Women had their own tool kit. They had favorite weapons. Grandmas were the best hunters of the village.”
"The researchers also found that women played an active role in teaching hunting, and they used a wider variety of weapons and hunting strategies than men did. For example, while men tended to hunt alone or in pairs, women hunted alone, with a man or with groups of women, children or dogs. Women hunted small game in 46 percent of the studied societies and took down medium or large game in 48 percent of them. In 4 percent of societies, they hunted game of all sizes. While previous research has found that women may have rivaled males when it came to taking down big game, historically, scientists have dismissed females’ hunting prowess, possibly because of researcher bias, per the paper. But recent studies have increasingly shown women as hunters: In the Americas, a 2020 study found that females likely represented up to 50 percent of prehistoric big game hunters, suggesting the practice was gender neutral. "
