Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Alexop]

20 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

My brother's wife is a hunter.

I am afraid they did not have rifles back then when our biologies formed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[Raze]

This article was debunked 

http://www.vivekvenkataraman.com/blog/2023/7/5/debunking-a-debunking

https://datepsychology.com/sex-differences-in-hunting/

[Alexop]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

This article was debunked 

http://www.vivekvenkataraman.com/blog/2023/7/5/debunking-a-debunking

https://datepsychology.com/sex-differences-in-hunting/

Cool, thanks for that!

[Leo Gura]

In olden times women didn't even have time to hunt because they were having babies every year by the dozen. Being a mother used to be a full-time job, unlike today. When you have 10 kids, that's a full-time career. You got no time to invent new hunting techniques.

Man and woman is a division of labor. Divide and conquer.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Alexop]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In olden times women didn't even have time to hunt because they were having babies every year by the dozen. Being a mother used to be a full-time job, unlike today. When you have 10 kids, that's a full-time career. You got no time to invent new hunting techniques.

Man and woman is a division of labor. Divide and conquer.

It is even embarrassing that we need to tell this to very educated people again and again. My grandma who barely could read and write knew this. Because she lived those times. And she told us how it was back then. But we are too arrogant to listen to these people.

We take it for granted how easy we have it now. And how hard people had it even 100 years ago. 

The problem is not that we are different, the problem is that men got too much power in society since the agricultural revolution. We need to come back to a more equalitarian society where both perspectives are taken into account.

We don't need to switch to the other extreme where the female perspective becomes more important and create a woke dystopia where a woman crying is good enough judicial proof to send someone to jail.

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

The post-modern equality agenda is problematic. It leads to utopian views of society works.

Society is hierarchical because humans are very unequal in ability and temperament. But this is a priori unacceptable to post-modernists.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Ulax]

36 minutes ago, Alexop said:

We don't need to switch to the other extreme where the female perspective becomes more important and create a woke dystopia where a woman crying is good enough judicial proof to send someone to jail.

frfr

[Alexop]

@Leo Gura what is your prognosis with the West? Are we going to have a woke dystopia phase, or are we going to recognise the post-modern trap soon enough?

Because right now we are at an inflexion point where Blue and Orange is radicalising Green and Green is radicalising Blue and Orange

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Because right now we are at an inflexion point where Blue and Orange is radicalising Green and Green is radicalising Blue and Orange

That battle needs to play itself out until everyone is exhausted and sees the futility of it.

There is not going to be a top-down solution. People just have to fight it out.

Over the long term, false ideas quietly die off.

The falseness of certain woke ideas will be revealed for all to see if wokeness is seriously enacted. The same is true of anti-woke ideas.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[something_else]

1 hour ago, Alexop said:

@something_else you just need some common sense to realize that women did not evolve to have hunting and defence/attack as their main thing. You just need to know if tribes fought with each other for resources (which we know), how many children did women have (lots), how strong their bodies are compared to men (weaker). 

 

Hunting and warfare are quite different. Like I said, men's strength adaptations were probably more for war with other humans/tribes rather than specifically for hunting. 

Humans have never relied on their strength for hunting, even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. Our strengths when it came to hunting were stamina, being able to throw things, and being able to use tools, all of which a pre-historic woman could do effectively too.

Quote

You don't send women to risk their lives to hunt dangerous animals or defend the tribe. A woman was veeery precious. A man can impregnate 100 women maybe in one year. A woman can bear max 2-3 babies at once. And bearing the baby, lactation, mens periods made her body even more vulnerable.

That's a perfectly reasonable evolutionary hypothesis, and I suspect there's some truth to it. But it assumes hunting was sufficiently dangerous that the reproductive costs of women participating outweighed the benefits of the additional food they could provide. We don't actually know that, hunting deer and small animals probably wasn't very risky. And even if it explains why men generally hunted more, it doesn't establish that women were excluded from hunting altogether.

Also, there's another flaw in this argument. Men aren't nearly as disposable as you're making them out to be. If a tribe lost 20% of its men, it's not like their partners would suddenly just jump into bed with other men. Humans formed pair bonds even back then. Men also contributed to childcare and providing resources, so losing them would have real consequences beyond just their ability to reproduce.

It's not like tribes would happily send men off to die just because they were easier to replace reproductively. They likely had to balance the risks and benefits of hunting for everyone, not just women.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by something_else

[Alexop]

18 minutes ago, something_else said:

Hunting and warfare are quite different. Like I said, men's strength adaptations were probably more for war with other humans/tribes rather than specifically for hunting. 

Humans have never relied on their strength for hunting, even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. Our strengths when it came to hunting were stamina, being able to throw things, and being able to use tools, all of which a pre-historic woman could do effectively too.

That's a perfectly reasonable evolutionary hypothesis, and I suspect there's some truth to it. But it assumes hunting was sufficiently dangerous that the reproductive costs of women participating outweighed the benefits of the additional food they could provide. We don't actually know that, hunting deer and small animals probably wasn't very risky. And even if it explains why men generally hunted more, it doesn't establish that women were excluded from hunting altogether.

Also, there's another flaw in this argument. Men aren't nearly as disposable as you're making them out to be. If a tribe lost 20% of its men, it's not like their partners would suddenly just jump into bed with other men. Humans formed pair bonds even back then. Men also contributed to childcare and providing resources, so losing them would have real consequences beyond just their ability to reproduce.

It's not like tribes would happily send men off to die just because they were easier to replace reproductively. They likely had to balance the risks and benefits of hunting for everyone, not just women.

 

Women had better stuff to do. Plenty of veggies and fruits to be picked up and children to be taken care of. Of course they could learn to hunt if just they had time for that. 

When you have no men around to bond with, you either take in more men from other tribes or bond with one of those where there. You had no choice, when survival is at stakes, you compromise.

 

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, something_else said:

even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. 

Humans have never hunted animals with bare hands, so that's a moot point.

Spearing a lion requires manly strength. A girl will not be good at spearing a lion.

Edited 53 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[something_else]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

No human has ever hunted animals with bare hands.

Spearing a lion requires manly strength. A girl will not be good as spearing a lion.

That's essentially exactly what I said in the rest of my response outside of the small section you quoted.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

My tits provide. I evolved to lactate.

That's covered under being a good mother.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, something_else said:

That's essentially exactly what I said in the rest of my response outside of the small section you quoted.

Sorry.

[AION]

Couple of months ago I sparred against a female ex kickbox world champion and I was surprised I could beat her so easily while she dedicated her life to it. 

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That battle needs to play itself out until everyone is exhausted and sees the futility of it.

There is not going to be a top-down solution. People just have to fight it out.

Over the long term, false ideas quietly die off.

The falseness of certain woke ideas will be revealed for all to see if wokeness is seriously enacted. The same is true of anti-woke ideas.

That is a reassuring view