Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Woke here means leftist, not spiritually woke.

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

And even if they would have pushed for good stuff, they have to understand that progress will never happen overnight. And if they push for too much progress, they might end up with regress due to ego backlash.

[Wilhelm44]

22 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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. 

She psyched her male competitors out by nagging in their ears about nothing in particular for 250 miles 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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?

They don't need to rig that.

The problem is higher up stream. Just because they found some women who hunt in some part of the world does not make it disprove larger average trends.

No one is denying that some women in some cultures hunted. And some women were cannibals. So what?

In ancient times women had to be more hardy just to survive. A man isn't always around to save you. So women had to step up or die.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

She psyched her male competitors out by nagging in their ears about nothing in particular for 250 miles 

Damn! Her lung capacity is amazing to be able to win an ultra-marathon whilst nagging the whole way.

[Nercohype]

@Alexopit's men's problem, not women's or anyone else's. It's not the left that's pushing this. It's the right that is too uncomfortable living alongside people who are different from them. It's the right that pushes people toward radicalization.

I was pushed to the left because of this right-wing madness. And my point still stands: the far right is the problem, not the left. Claiming that both sides are equally responsible is a false equivalence.

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, Emerald said:

Damn! Her lung capacity is amazing to be able to win an ultra-marathon whilst nagging the whole way.

 This one really came as a surprise to me. Good on her !

[Nercohype]

@Leo Gura To me, woke means being aware. Being aware of the injustices happening around us. Being aware that you're part of a society that includes everyone.

You can lump anything you don't like under the label "woke," but that doesn't mean that's what woke actually means. Woke means awareness. Being conscious of what's happening around you. It's not Marxism or any of that. The right connects it to those things to make people afraid of it, but that's not what it actually means.

And what's so wrong with fighting for equality? What's so wrong with standing up against social injustices? That's what I find weird. We should be doing those things. I genuinely don't understand what's so wrong about wanting a fairer society for everyone.

[oOo]

Alexia Baldwin.

Alec concurs.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by oOo

[Emerald]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They don't need to rig that.

The problem is higher up stream. Just because they found some women who hunt in some part of the world does not make it disprove larger average trends.

No one is denying that some women in some cultures hunted. And some women were cannibals. So what?

The study was over 100+ different burial regions in the Americas... which is a very large land mass. It's like a quarter of the world's total land mass.

So, it wasn't a small area that was studied.

And the cannibalism and hunting comparison doesn't match. Those are apples and oranges.

First off, I don't think that cannibalism was ever gender-delineated. So, it's not like we have historical narratives like, "Men were the cannibals and women were the non-cannibals." Then, that gets debunked and we discovered, "Oh! Even though men in most cultures were the primary cannibals... women often partook in cannibalism too."

Secondly, hunting was a component of the vast majority of cultures... if not every culture. And cannibalism was not.

So, cannibalism itself is less relevant to the understand of how the majority of human cultures functioned compared to the topic of hunting.

So, saying that the answer to the question of, "How many societies had women in the role of hunter?" is just as insignificant as "How many societies had female cannibals?" is just dishonest.

And you're just looking for a way to maintain your worldview in the face of opposing evidence... which is very human of you.

Edited 2 hours ago by Emerald

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The study was over 100+ different burial regions in the Americas... which is a very large land mass. It's like a quarter of the world's total land mass.

Fine.

But this does not change the fact that women are optimized for mothering and men are optimized for providing.

Valid scientific facts can be used to come to false and absurd conclusions. The ego manipulates science to construct a view that serves its political agenda.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Ulax]

10 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

@Leo Gura To me, woke means being aware. Being aware of the injustices happening around us. Being aware that you're part of a society that includes everyone.

You can lump anything you don't like under the label "woke," but that doesn't mean that's what woke actually means. Woke means awareness. Being conscious of what's happening around you. It's not Marxism or any of that. The right connects it to those things to make people afraid of it, but that's not what it actually means.

And what's so wrong with fighting for equality? What's so wrong with standing up against social injustices? That's what I find weird. We should be doing those things. I genuinely don't understand what's so wrong about wanting a fairer society for everyone.

Woke has many positives. But it also denies many harsh truths and refuses to see the numerous negative consequences of its viewpoints.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

To me, woke means being aware.

But it is much more than that.

Woke is an ideology.

[Ulax]

25 minutes ago, Alexop said:

And even if they would have pushed for good stuff, they have to understand that progress will never happen overnight. And if they push for too much progress, they might end up with regress due to ego backlash.

This happened in my country with Jeremy Corbyn.

Of course Corbyn didn't take responsibility for the backlash

[Alexop]

11 minutes ago, Ulax said:

This happened in my country with Jeremy Corbyn.

Of course Corbyn didn't take responsibility for the backlash

Great example. Obama-Trump shift too.

[Alexop]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They don't need to rig that.

The problem is higher up stream. Just because they found some women who hunt in some part of the world does not make it disprove larger average trends.

No one is denying that some women in some cultures hunted. And some women were cannibals. So what?

In ancient times women had to be more hardy just to survive. A man isn't always around to save you. So women had to step up or die.

They will always use the exceptions in order to argue e against the norm.

Of course you become masculine when there is no masculine entity to protect you. To make you feel safe, lead and taken care of. E.g. most long relationships 

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexop

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Fine.

But this does not change the fact that women are optimized for mothering and men are optimized for providing.

Women are optimized for mothering of course. And men are also optimized for fathering.

But you're very protective of the idea that men are the primary providers... when history doesn't actually bear out such a strong delineation in who provides until relatively recently in human history.

That's especially true since the majority of the calories in nomadic times were foraged and not hunted. So, to the degree that there was a gender delineation in tasks, women were bringing in more of the foraged food.

Then in agrarian times, it was usually a man, his wife, and like 10 kids all having a hand in producing the food. That's really what a traditional Stage Blue family dynamic actually looks like. And it just wouldn't be accurate to say that the man is more valuable to the farm than the wife is. The farm is a joint family project.

The issue is that industrialization skewed our perception of what traditional divisions of labor actually looked like.

For a couple decades of industrial economic prosperity, men went out to work in factories for money... which broke from the old farming model. And women stayed home with kids to tend to domestic duties and weren't allowed to work in many roles outside of the house for a period of time.

This cemented the idea of man as provider... and woman as the one provided for. But that's modern... and not traditional at all.

And this period in the 1940s and 50s, cemented the idea of the middle class working man and the woman who doesn't work... when that was only available to the very wealthy before.

And we tend to think of "Leave it to Beaver" when we think of a traditional couple... when there's nothing traditional about that set up at all.

So, if you really look at traditional families now and in the past, everyone is contributing calories and resources to the group... and everyone has to contribute calories and resources to the group to survive. 

I feel like your perspective may be based in two things...

1. Your resistance to community... and wanting to feel like your maleness optimizes you to be a sole provider who has no need to be provided back for.
2. A romanticized but false notion of men's roles in women's lives and society in human history (believing in a mythologized past, where men were men and women were women... and where men were hands-down the most valuable people in the society).

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But you're very protective of the idea that men are the primary providers

Not really.

I don't really care.

Men are obviously better equipped for providing security and handling tough survival tasks. This does not preclude that women could handle some of those tasks when situations demanded it.

Personally, in my own dating, I do not play the provider. A woman should be able to provide for herself today. I am not her workhorse. But in the past that made more sense.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Alexop]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Personally, in my own dating, I do not play the provider. A woman should be able to provide for herself today. I am not her workhorse. But in the past that made more sense.

Same. Money, roof over head and food can she fix herself. What I do is making her feel safe and taken care of. A feeling that if something unwanted happens and she is tired etc. it is me who jumps and fixes it. Of course initiative, responsibility, fun, and all that good stuff that she loves.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Alexop

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not really.

I don't really care.

Men are obviously better equipped for providing security and handling tough survival tasks. This does not preclude that women could handle some of those tasks when situations demanded it.

Personally, in my own dating, I do not play the provider. A woman should be able to provide for herself today. I am not her workhorse. But in the past that made more sense.

I didn't mean necessarily from a dating perspective... I meant from a collective identity perspective.

Sometimes, it can be a bit of an ego boost to believe that one belongs to a superior group and that superiority is ensured if you belong to that group... even by no personal merit of your own.

So, you may not have ever hunted in your life. But perhaps the belief that, "No matter what, I'm a man and can always best almost all women at these kinds of tasks" is something that's part of how you build up a sense of superior identity.

But I would agree that there are tasks that men are better equipped for than women... 

Pretty much anything that requires a lot of upper body strength and/or speed is going to be men's forte.

But apropos of this discussion, endurance hunting doesn't require either of those things, as you're not running the animal down with speed and you're not wrestling it with your bare hands. That's why the idea that nomadic women were commonly endurance hunters doesn't strike me as an outlandish hypothesis.

Plus, hunting was also described in a pretty easeful way in some descriptions where even elders and kids would get involved in the hunt and chase an animal off of a cliff or into a trap. 

So, hunting isn't always some knock-down drag out brawl with a Siberian Tiger and a strong manly man with a spear.

Hunting is also just tracking a deer until it's too weak to fight back. 

So, I'm sure hunting wasn't always a difficult survival task... when the opportunity to hunt actually arose.

But when it comes to truly difficult survival tasks that require strength and speed, men would certainly have a strong advantage because of their muscle mass and testosterone.

[Alexop]

@Emerald in the tribes era, the political power was quite balanced, sometimes even  skewed towards women in matrilineal and matrilocal tribes. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a division of labour. You had to be quite stupid to not have that division. It would be harder to survive without it.

Only after the invention of the plow and mass agriculture men got significantly more power. They started to accumulate capital. "Cap" = head in romanian language. Heads of cattle. 

Edited 52 minutes ago by Alexop