Women were originally the tougher sex, mean ugly b!tches who always demanded and got their own way. To demonstrate their superiority, they fought off all potential male suitors. Men were afraid to challenge or even approach them. The women who managed to get pregnant killed their offspring in order to pursue their own selfish goals.
These types of women died off after a generation, lonely, bitter and cold.
Somehow, a few of the more docile, cooperative, family-friendly females managed to survive, reproduce, and nurture their offspring to adulthood. Their legacy and progeny survives to this day, and society owes everything to them.
History has a way of repeating itself. The combative, family-hating females have made a comeback in modern times. Their genes probably won't be here in the next generation, but their anti-family philosophy could prove devastating in the short run.
When it’s based on evolution - garbage in, garbage out.
Menopause actually lines up pretty well with life expectancy 200 to 300 years ago.
Other primates mature much more quickly than homo sapiens.
A female gorilla will begin ovulating at 6 years old. Female Homo sapiens begin ovulating at about 12. This is a significant difference.
The point being that there is necessarily a great deal more time invested in bringing the young to maturity in humans. There for an older woman may stop being able to bare children because her chances of bringing that child to maturity (independent survivability) significantly decreases as age advances. Also as age advances the chances of a woman surviving pregnancy decreases.
It could be the excessively long childhood of humans caused the evolution of menopause.
I think they are grasping at straws (or ovariea).
Growing old, functions slowing down, functions losing their vitality seems to be part of the human condition, so why would it not apply to our reproductive system?
Maybe, with equal evidence I would think, that “growing old” in every other sense triggered the evolution to menopause and its infertility, as pregnancy & childbirth have been known for ages to be more of a difficulty for the woman as she ages.
But no, let’s blame men. It’s like blaming Bush I think.
I've had the chance to speak with 'scientists' about their subjects and consistently the biologists seem dumb as rocks. They 'study' things, but if you ask them their procedure, baselines and how they test they clam up or get defensive. Why is that?
I suspect they are less than scientists and more like parrots. As long as they parrot the party line, which may be government or professor or institution driven, but is most certainly a political process, they get funding and gigs. Any real science would end all that.
When confronted by well informed amateurs who won't toe the party line, they get frustrated. It's why it's so great to be a conservitive in America's North Korea. You're constantly challenged to come up with solid, irrefutable evidence for your theories. Something few scientists face today.
"I'm still fertile! Come and get it boys!"