Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Evolutionary psychology tends to offer post hoc explanations that aren't really falsifiable.  

Passive misogyny

 

Quote

Recent anthropological discoveries show that prehistoric women were frequent big-game hunters. A 2020 study led by UC Davis archaeologist Randy Haas discovered a 9,000-year-old female hunter buried with a heavy-duty stone toolkit in the Peruvian Andes, challenging the long-held "man-the-hunter" paradigm.

Re-examining 429 late Pleistocene and early Holocene burials across the Americas showed that 30% to 50% of big-game hunters were female, proving early hunting was largely gender-neutral.

Research led by scientists like Cara Wall-Scheffler found that women actively hunt in 79% of contemporary and recent foraging societies, frequently participating in large-game hunts and sharing strategies across all life stages.

Studies by researchers such as Cara Ocobock note that female physiology—including higher estrogen and adiponectin levels for fat metabolism and wider hips for stride efficiency—is well-suited for endurance activity and long-distance persistence hunting.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is typically discarded or overlooked when forming up these narratives.

I think it's because fatherhood doesn't sound as sexy to them as some hyper-Masculine myth of the lone male hunter.

It also seems like the scientific findings from the article maybe undermined their worldview a bit. So, they had to call it "Stage Green nonsense" to save the worldview upon which they base their identity as men.

So, it may be a similar thing where fatherhood doesn't really compute with their identity and worldview framework around what makes a man valuable to society.

They may associate fatherhood with being some ordinary guy who exists in a society... and not outside of it or above it. And the guys on this forum like to believe themselves above belonging in a social context.

So, there's a lot of romanticization of a lone male... when there's no historical precedent for that.

Also, they seem to prefer to think... Women's only role is having babies and child rearing AND men were doing everything else. This positions men as the only force in society contributing to survival, whilst women are the only force in society contributing to reproduction which requires the survival resources from the man.

And in that framing, it gives an ego-boost where men can see themselves as superior and as more integral to survival than women... and as the sole foundation upon which women were surviving. 

I think it boils down to a lot of men having low self-esteem... and feeling like things would be better to go back to "the way things used to be". But if "the way things used to be" doesn't involve a sharp contrast in power, it takes away some of what they're using to soothe themselves.

So, for men who think that way and build their identities that way, they can't tolerate the idea that women were contributing equal value to society throughout the entirety of human history.

[Elliott]

You troglodytes act like you'd wrestle a mammoth.

 

Drrr drrr drrr

Meanwhile, Serena Williams would break you in half

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is typically discarded or overlooked when forming up these narratives. There was no globalisation. The family unit and the role of fatherhood (as well as motherhood) is the reason we survived and thrived as a species.

Maybe it sounds cooler to abandon the woman and skeet skeet all over the place 

I think it probably is cooler in their eyes.

They may semi-consciously see it as a higher form of manhood to impregnate a bunch of women (and not think much about the resulting children)... compared to actually being a mature dedicated father that plays an active role in family life.

So, this bias might tend to inform their conception of manhood and cause them to devalue the role of father and over-value more immature archetypes of manhood... like the playboy or the romanticized lone hunter.

[Joshe]

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And in that framing, it gives an ego-boost where men can see themselves as superior

Compensatory superiority: Establishing one's superiority over others to compensate for underlying feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, or insecurity.

They use SD the same way. They think they're just engaging in truth-seeking and reality-understanding, blind to the motivation behind the inquiry.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Meanwhile, Serena Williams would break you in half

Serena Williams cannot beat men at tennis.

Sports alone are all the science you need to see that men are stronger than women at athletic tasks.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Women are often referred to as mothers in discussions like this.

But men are more often referred to as men or providers. Not fathers. 

Because the context of this thread is about women hunting.

Men aren't refered to as fathers for the same reason a divorce court will give a baby to the mother, not the father, treating the father as provider. Baby needs the mother more directly.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Compensatory superiority: Establishing one's superiority over others to compensate for underlying feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, or insecurity.

They use SD the same way. They think they're just engaging in truth-seeking and reality-understanding, blind to the motivation behind the inquiry.

100%

There are a lot of men who viscerally feel like they're below women and powerless to women. And they often value women more than they value themselves, and see women as the arbiters of their sense of worth.

So, a guy in this psychological position is always going to be competing with women and trying to frame women as lesser in a variety of ways.

The same thing is true of any other kind of group identity... like race.

There's that quote from Lyndon Johnson that illustrates this... “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

Only men who struggle with feeling inferior to women will find comfort in narratives and ideologies where the lowest man is better than the highest woman. And it's a comforting narrative.

But if that comforting narrative is disturbed by scientific findings... they'll just toss out the science and call it ideology.

And it's been known for a long time that gender roles weren't as rigid in pre-agrarian human groups... where women would sometimes hunt and men would sometimes gather. I learned that like 19 years ago as a freshman in college taking art history classes.

It's somewhat new (I think) the studies on male versus female walking endurance. But if women can walk for a slightly longer time without tuckering out, it makes good sense that we'd be pretty decent at endurance hunting... which is how humans hunted large game.

Also, there are women today in various parts of the world having to walk miles and miles to get water with a baby tied to them in a sling. So, women with babies and children have historically worked very hard... and the children too.

Even pregnant women in most cultures tended to be very active with their chores and work through most stages of pregnancy.

But I suppose the information that women can walk SLIGHTLY further than men without getting tired was too much for their self-esteem to bear.

Edited 2 hours ago by Emerald

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because the context of this thread is about women hunting.

Men aren't refered to as fathers for the same reason a divorce court will give a baby to the mother, not the father, treating the father as provider. Baby needs the mother more directly.

Quote

I wonder why there is asymmetry there - it appears all over the forum in discussions of this type.

 

[Zen LaCroix]

13 hours ago, Alexop said:

Yes, I was too black and white there. You basically learn Green stuff plus some woke agenda. But this men/women, masculine-feminine is a very big thing. If you get it wrong, you are quite fucked. You have to come and live in Sweden to understand what I am talking about. Poor dudes. 

The feminists can cry and protest as much as they want, but if they don't want to understand how men work and what masculinity is, they won't stop the domestic violence, the rapes, the loneliness. They cannot divorce from half of society either. 

To be honest when it comes to male & female dynamics your parents mess you up way more than university. Its not even close. And then school messes you up to. Its easy to unlearn stuff from university. Think about all the false ideas that your parents taught you.

[Nercohype]

Oh no! A little biased lefty paper was published?! 😨 This is the end of the world! (s)

Meanwhile...

Far-right Russia is invading its neighbours. Far-right Israel is committing genocide. Far-right America is plunging our world into crisis, and it has also started a fucking war. 😂

But no... let’s keep demonizing the left and feminists.

There is no “woke agenda.” That’s a far-right talking point. Anyone who uses these words unironically has been corrupted by far-right propaganda.

What woke means is being AWARE. Being conscious. Being aware of the injustices happening in our world. Actualize.org is all about wokeism, yet people demonize it. Even Leo.

It’s anti-wokeism that has an agenda, not wokeism. Anti-wokeism is what enables these wars and injustices to continue. It’s anti-wokeism that contributes to the oil shortages. Anti-wokeism is part of why everything is falling apart right now.

If wokeism means being aware, then anti-wokeism means refusing to be aware. It’s ignorance. WILLFUL IGNORANCE. And that is one of the most dangerous things on our planet.

It’s not feminists, immigrants, gay people, or trans people who are the danger to us all.

It’s far-right white men who pose the real danger to us all.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Nercohype said:

Oh no! A little biased lefty paper was published?! 😨 This is the end of the world! (s)

Meanwhile...

Far-right Russia is invading its neighbours. Far-right Israel is committing genocide. Far-right America is plunging our world into crisis, and it has also started a fucking war. 😂

Whataboutism and false dichotomy. 

You can be concerned about multiple things at once.

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

There is no “woke agenda.” That’s a far-right talking point. Anyone who uses these words unironically has been corrupted by far-right propaganda.

Too far.

Denial of the woke agenda is exactly part of the woke agenda.

[Leo Gura]

There is a woke agenda, but conservatives overblow it.

There is an anti-woke agenda too.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is a woke agenda, but conservatives overblow it.

There is an anti-woke agenda too.

Sure, there's a lefty agenda.

I just don't think that the hypothesis that many pre-agrarian women were likely good big game hunters is some far-fetched lefty agenda. It seems pretty well supported and not even very surprising.

It's been well-known for a long time that gender roles weren't as strongly delineated in pre-agrarian times as we once thought they were... and that men sometimes foraged and women sometimes hunted. And there's plenty of evidence to this effect.

So, the idea of "Men only hunting... and women only gathering" was something that I learned was debunked when I was a freshman in college (almost 20 years ago).

And I just looked it up, and more recent DNA studies on the remains of nomadic big game hunters in the Americas, it was revealed that 30-50% of the remains belonged to women... with variations depending on the site where the remains were tested.

There's also a recent ethnographic study of modern foraging societies. And in that study it revealed that women hunt in 79% of hunter-gatherer societies... and engage in large game hunting in 36% of those societies.

And unless there's something fundamentally different about those foraging societies compared to historical foraging societies, we can likely gather some clues about how foraging societies have historically operated.

So, there's pretty strong evidence that women have historically engaged in the act of hunting... even if that wasn't their primary task.

There's also strong evidence that women do very well with endurance over long-distances... with women sometimes even being the outright winners of ultra-marathons when competing with men and other women. 

There's also strong evidence that big game hunts were largely feats of endurance, where humans would track a very fast animal down until it's too tired and weak to run away or fight back. And the tools used to kill the large game didn't require a ton of upper-body strength.

So, the idea that women may have an advantage with big game endurance hunting isn't an insane hypothesis... nor does it seem like a leftist plot.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I just don't think that the hypothesis that many pre-agrarian women were likely good big game hunters is some far-fetched lefty agenda.

That is exactly the kind of stuff that is happening in the social sciences. The social sciences have been corrupted by post-modernist, anti-colonialist, SJW agendas. It is a real issue. Woke people do bad science because they have a need to validate their political worldview.

A researcher with a PhD in colonialism or gender studies, like on that paper, will have a strong woke agenda.

The lefty agenda is so baked into the academic cake that they don't even know it is there. They are fish in an ideological pond.

David Graeber is a good example of this. His writes books on ancient history as science and he is a leftist political activist type. It makes his books unthrustworthy because he has an obvious agenda.

Many of these social scientists are Marxists or anarchists and see the world through that lens.

Edited 28 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Nercohype]

Woke agenda is being conscious 😂 Being aware. How is that an agenda? To me, it isn't. It's about being authentic and honest.

But anti-wokeism has a real agenda. There's a huge push for far-right propaganda, unlike wokeism. I haven't seen any real force pushing wokeism, though I could be wrong. But anti-wokeism has powerful forces pushing it on us, force-feeding it to people.

The Trump administration and those Russian fuckers are part of that force behind anti-wokeism.

Wokeism is about being aware. That's not an ideology or an agenda. 😂

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Nercohype said:

Oh no! A little biased lefty paper was published?! 😨 This is the end of the world! (s)

Meanwhile...

Far-right Russia is invading its neighbours. Far-right Israel is committing genocide. Far-right America is plunging our world into crisis, and it has also started a fucking war. 😂

But no... let’s keep demonizing the left and feminists.

There is no “woke agenda.” That’s a far-right talking point. Anyone who uses these words unironically has been corrupted by far-right propaganda.

What woke means is being AWARE. Being conscious. Being aware of the injustices happening in our world. Actualize.org is all about wokeism, yet people demonize it. Even Leo.

It’s anti-wokeism that has an agenda, not wokeism. Anti-wokeism is what enables these wars and injustices to continue. It’s anti-wokeism that contributes to the oil shortages. Anti-wokeism is part of why everything is falling apart right now.

If wokeism means being aware, then anti-wokeism means refusing to be aware. It’s ignorance. WILLFUL IGNORANCE. And that is one of the most dangerous things on our planet.

It’s not feminists, immigrants, gay people, or trans people who are the danger to us all.

It’s far-right white men who pose the real danger to us all.

Who said your concerns presented aren't important? 

Meanwhile relationships are a bunch of crap. Men are getting worse and worse, women are choosing to live alone. Far right is raising because the left is making clear mistakes. 

Want to have less of thost things you are concerned about? Fix men. You will never fix men if you don't understand masculinity and demonize it instead.

It is not enough to be "aware". You need to act properly too. 

Edited 25 minutes ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

Woke agenda is being conscious 😂 Being aware.

Woke here means leftist, not spiritually woke.

Woke agenda is often Marxist, anarchist, moralistic, and seeking artificial equality.

Yes, there is a real problem with pushing a woke agenda, especially in science and history.

Woke people don't believe in truth, they believe in social justice and equality. So they will sacrifice truth for equality. They will say things like that men and women are equally good at sports, and other such nonsense.

Edited 22 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is exactly the kind of stuff that is happening in the social sciences. The social sciences have been corrupted by post-modernist, anti-colonialist, SJW agendas. It is a real issue. Woke people do bad science because they have a need to validate their political worldview.

A researcher with a PhD in colonialism or gender studies, like on that paper, will have a strong woke agenda.

Sure... I don't deny that a lot of Sociologists have that bias. And I guess Archaeologists could have that bias as well... though it's harder to fudge that data.

How in your opinion, did they rig up the study where they found a bunch of female skeletons buried across a variety of regions in the Americas with game-hunting tool kits?

And how did they rig up the study where most foraging societies have woman doing some portion of the hunting duties?

At a certain point, you have to recognize when your modern ideas about historical gender roles don't match the reality of how humans have historically operated.

Edited 21 minutes ago by Emerald