The thing is, physically strong hasn't been on top since the creation of civilized society. Although from physical strength contributes to fitness biologically, not even the most important trait as other factors contribute to health beyond fitness, as fitness doesn't necessary connect to appearance and noticeable health, it never held a high attribute to success in society. Although always a virtue made important, much of it is rationally contributed on how the elite control society. The elite tend to be those of higher intelligence and status that did not rely on their own fitness for power. They found their mating success through position alone. Emphasis on male fitness though benefited these elites greatly. The male stereotype of being strong, unemotional, and incredibly loyal meant elites had perfect enough soldiers to die on their behalf while accepting their roles honorable and epitomized. Keeping these traits epitomized by males meant elites could always have men to strive for strength and virtues that kept them in place to die for their causes. Biological male virtues apply more to animals that have not reached societies where power (positional since we haven't put physically strongest since per-historic times) leads to mates and better chance at survival.Westaway said:
Being strong garners the illusion of respect due to the pawned role elites in society have placed on men. You can see this in how soldiers, those who exhibit strength and heavy male traits, are treated greatly in use but disrespected as finished pawns after their jobs are finished.
