As you are debunking a published work , I think it would be interesting if you cited some academic source to back up your refutation also maybe include more of the article in your post as it is behind a paywall . I know this can mean a lot of additional work but I ' m sure we would all benefit from it . Also , I would warn against any attempt at applying fitness based selection when talking about human evolution on such a short time scale . Human effective population is small , which can result in some deleterious trait to be kept in a population . And on the top of my mind , I could actually produce a few alternative narratives . Here one Let us imagine that in the presence of gendered role , males are the main food producer eg . they can go hunting and foraging , while women are often pregnantcaring for infant and can only do so with limited efficiency . Under this model , a unequal protein intake favoring the males , which are more active and having a bigger body often means greater dietary needs , means that they can bring more food overall . Having more food overall can compensate the loss incurred by females because of the unequal food repartition . This can also , in turn , favor a tribe or family , or clan , or whatever where females are small and thus require less food because then the tribe can expend more food on males , which increase the tribe overall fitness because more food overall . What is above to be clear , I speak about my paragraph here is most certainly complete BS that I just spewed out in a few minute . I only did so to show that it is very easy to cherry pick a few evolutionary rules to write a nice story fitting the point we want to make and also because this is a fun exercise . Hence the need for serious references which confront themselves to the actual data in these subject . I hope I was able to convey my point and I look forward to a more academically oriented debunking of this article from you .