If endurance running has significantly affected human evolution, why are there not more pronounced differences between men and women? Anthropological evidence is unequivocal, I thought, about the fact that men hunted far and women gathered nearby. So you would expect men to have evolved much higher endurance running traits that women, if their primary hunting technique was running animals down. Yet many of the modern ultra-distance runners are women, and last I checked my toes were shorter than most men's :-)
Yet bipedalism has effectively made human reproduction a nightmare (due to the orientation of the pelvis with respect to the birth canal). So if there is an evolutionary reason for bipedalism I would expect it to apply at least equally if not more to women. Naively, anyway.
Men and women have a lot more similarities than the males and females of some species, and we'd hardly be the first species where a genetic trait hurt one gender but helped the other.
Yet bipedalism has effectively made human reproduction a nightmare (due to the orientation of the pelvis with respect to the birth canal). So if there is an evolutionary reason for bipedalism I would expect it to apply at least equally if not more to women. Naively, anyway.