"The question is the order of values and the definition of leadership. Sure, there are cultures in which intelligence, though not defined perhaps in the way we define it, is considered superior to muscles."

But this statement would indicate that strength and intelligence are mutually exclusive things, which they are not. A society's needs at any given point are what determines which attribute - strength or intelligence - is most valued. It may be the strong man's ability to rip out stumps and plant fields which is valued at first, and then it is the smart man's ability to design a reliable irrigation system which is later lauded. But I have to imagine that given the choice, any society would prefer strong and brilliant men over stupid, strong men, or stupid, weak men.

"The degree to which different cultures value physical strength in men is an open question,..."

No doubt. The degree to which different cultures value male strength would vary from culture to culture, given the needs of that culture. My point was simple, that in all human cultures physical male strength is valued - to some degree - for what it can do. It might be as vital to a society as being able to fight off bears and enemy tribes, or it may be as non-vital as giving women something good to look at poolside, but in any case strength in men is valued.

"...and you're not going to get an answer to it by pretending that all cultures are the same, or were the same. A basic ignorance of ethnography leads to the assumption, held by all the ethologists, that all cultures are fundamentally the same. This is an assumption, I repeat, not a fact."

Can you name one or two cultures wherein physical male strength is not valued at all? Me and "all" the ethnologists who have this wrong are dying to know.

"...No one has demonstrated that musculature is the primary source of reproductive success, even in the animal kingdom, and certainly not among the primates, who are our closest relatives. Animals who engage in rutting contests are frequently trumped by other males who are mounting their females while they are beating their brains out. And songbirds frequently mate with one and are mounted by others."

Again, I think you are attempting to draw a bright line which does not always exist, between that of the Dumb Lug and the Brilliant Wimp. There is such a thing as the lion who is both physically imposing and intelligent enough to outsmart his competitors for mates. If Darwin was right, it is a combination of physical strength and intelligence that survives and gets passed down and keeps the species vital.

"Muscular men may tend to have other attributes, such as roughness of manner, which women may find objectionable."

Hah! I find this statement pretty amazing coming from a guy who has just written numerous posts accusing the professor - and now me - of jumping to cultural assumptions and biases.

"It is not all so straightforward as you think, and you are arguing from a position of ignorance about both culture and evolution."

Well, sorry. Being 6'8" and 330 lbs of muscle, I tend to be ignorant like that. I'm so busy lifting heavy things and having sex I don't get to read up much on that ethnuh...eth...ethnugh...well, all that science stuff!