new thread
I finally got around to reading snakedog's blog (re. why men have short hair and women have long), and regret not checking it out sooner...
For those who are into the topics of Evolution and Anthropology, it is truly a great read and narrates some fascinating concepts as well as some little-known early human history in there. Originally I mistook the title of the blog for that of a commentary on society's shallower reasons for men having short hair and women having long; but it was way more anthropic than that...
I hope more people here have a chance to check it out -- and thanks again for taking the time to write it & share it with us, snakedog!!
- Ken
I'm off this weekend so I'll take a trip up to London dump and mews around the Natural History museum. Look out tourists!
Cheers,
John.B
While this certainly is a theory, when it comes to Evolution we often end up simply rationalizing changes, some of these rationalizations are ridiculous, and some are highly plausible. What we do know is that the hair is adversely affected by many male sex hormones (predominantly in males) and thus MPB, and women generally having better hair (if all other things are assumed equal). A counter to his argument could be, why don't they have the kid just sit on the beach for awhile, after all if they are so young that they can't even swim I find it improbable that they have the stamina to hold onto their mothers hair for long periods of time.
There are many of our relatives (other species, not your relatives from West Virginia) in which babies do hang onto their mother's fur for long periods, so that isn't implausible atall. OTOH, that doesn't mean I necessarily buy into all the rest of the theory.