Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Willy Phallicus]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

She literally beat professional male tennis players

No she didnt.

[bazera]

1 hour 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.

Won't that change if she had babies with you? Won't she be in more vulnurable position that needs more caring / providing from your part?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, bazera said:

Won't that change if she had babies with you? Won't she be in more vulnurable position that needs more caring / providing from your part?

Yes.

Babies is another ballgame than dating.

[Elliott]

24 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Yeah but she will never beat the top male players. She maybe ranks 100th when compared to men. She may beat some pros but not the top, and not consistently enough to be the best man. 
 

There are exceptional women at sports. Though, notice how they usually don’t have kids during that time, live in a nation with wealth directed towards sport, have unique 1 in a billion genes etc. 
 

Though, athletes aren’t good examples of how populations of women survived in ancient pressure cookers. Read about indigenous tribes of the Americas, of Africa. Men were BRUTAL. Women really had to survive with men. Sometimes despite them, on individual basis. Women did not hunt during this time. They did house holding, raised babies, etc. Perhaps some gathering tasks and I’m sure some other things T some points in time. 
 

Men and women are equal, but asymmetrical. 
 

However, in ancient times prior to our modern conveniences and education humans were savages in general and survival was brutish. This meant socially in many societies men held more power. This doesn’t make them better than women. 
 

In many cultures too many women are seen as a burden. The babies tossed out or the child sold by the tribe. This is because men are considered providers by the cultures which know struggle, know hunger, know survival, know strife, know lack. There is a brutal nature here and I’m sorry. These tribes do what they do to survive.  They need enough providers to hold the population of women. If this ain’t maintained women must be sacrificed. 

This is retarded though, she never played in male tennis for 10 years like the top ten did, and, she is unlikely to be the pinnacle of female physiology given women are DISCOURAGED to get into sports. Professional women in sports barely make a living wage. Those pros play 1,000 matches, she never played 1, out of 6 million amateurs in 1960, 70% were male, amateurs.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

32 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

L

However, in all tribes we see today which are not modernized men are the hunters. 
 

 

More lies

 

Modern and contemporary foraging research shows that women actively hunt in about 79% of studied traditional and indigenous societies, challenging the old "man the hunter" stereotype. Prominent examples include the Agta people of the Philippines, the Awa people of Brazil, the Matses of the Amazon, and ancient or nomadic groups like the Scythians.

 

 

[Thought Art]

@Elliott Okay RETARDED? Come on show me some respect. 
 

However, going back to the core discussion, I think we are all kinds wrong and right on this. 

Men and women likely both hunted and gathered plants, small animals and fish at times. Men larger game, and there also as likely a split and major social differences. Not all tribes had the same social dynamics too. This is complicated! I have to remain open. 

[Thought Art]

@Elliott I may be wrong, but I’m not lying or retarded. Stop being an asshole! No one wants to talk to an asshole. 
 

I can push back on your claims too, I just looked up some of them showing your wrong. So, we have a challenging place to figure out what’s true. 
 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Thought Art

[Willy Phallicus]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What exactly do you mean by this?

Human society is just as hierarchical as anything observable in the animal kingdom.  No man (or woman) is created equal.  

The strong, dominant male has more mating opportunities than the inverse.  And they can breed at a much higher frequency than their female counterparts.  Breeding females typically want to mate with the dominant male for obvious biological reasons.  That's as true today as it was 10,000 years ago.

That's not to suggest its a better model or way to live.  It just is what it is.  

Personally, I don't really care about traditional gender roles.  I still think the marital bond/nuclear family produces a more stable society than most of the other options available.

 

[Leo Gura]

@Elliott Be more kind.

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Elliott I may be wrong, but I’m not lying or retarded. Stop being an asshole! No one wants to talk to an asshole. 
 

I can push back on your claims too, I just looked up some of them showing your wrong. So, we have a challenging place to figure out what’s true. 
 

 

You're a fucking liar

 

Dumagat Huntresses in the Philippines: The documentary Philippines: Becoming a Huntress to Marry Among the Dumagats tracks a young girl named Ema as she is taught by her mother and aunts to track, hunt, and forage. This film highlights the unique structure of the Dumagat/Agta people, where women act as primary hunters and gatherers.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Thought Art]

I came across some terms I like, there is a distinction between "common division of labour" and "universal division of labour". 
 

We should be wary to say what is common for men and women in tribes, and what was universal. 
 

There are tasks in the societies which are predominantly male, some that were highly variable (small game, gathering, etc) and other tasks that were predominantly female. Some tasks were seasonal, politically contextual, etc. This according to a study by George Murdock and Caterina Provost’s 1973 where they analyzed 185 different societies. 
 

(Table from CHATGPT)

Activity General historical pattern

Large-game hunting Strongly male

Warfare and armed defence Strongly male

Metalworking Strongly male

Tree cutting and heavy lumber work Strongly male

House construction Variable, often male

Small-game hunting Variable

Fishing Variable, often male

Farming and gardening Frequently shared

Gathering wild plants Predominantly female

Food preparation Strongly female

Childcare Strongly female

Clothing and textile production Often female

(End of ChatGPT)

These societies had many tasks to do, and we should be wary to say men hunt, women babies. As that’s not what evidence shows. It was more complex. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

@Elliott 😄 Do you know what a lie is? 

[Elliott]

Oh yes, must be respectful to misogynists, yes yes

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Elliott 😄 Do you know what a lie is? 

This

52 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

 

However, in all tribes we see today which are not modernized men are the hunters. 
 

 

 

 

 

Dumagat Huntresses in the Philippines: The documentary Philippines: Becoming a Huntress to Marry Among the Dumagats tracks a young girl named Ema as she is taught by her mother and aunts to track, hunt, and forage. This film highlights the unique structure of the Dumagat/Agta people, where women act as primary hunters and gatherers.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Alexop]

@Thought Art  just block him. Life is too short to waste time on such.

 

[Thought Art]

In order for us to explore these subjects it so important for us to bounce off one another. We all can bring value to improving our understanding of how tribes survived, what men and women are and do. 
 

I am willing to change my views, and improve. 
 

Men and women are equal. Yet, we have differences and different survival considerations and challenges today all around the world. My wish is for humans to strive and to be well. I shared some heavy material here in an earlier post because I know those things happen in some places and I want you to know I didn’t share it lightly. 

[Thought Art]

@Elliott No, define a lie for me. Use your words. 

[oOo]

Many of you have misinterpreted the research. 

The author of the article has misled readers by mischaracterising the original findings of the science and you've helped him by spreading his own disinformation. 

This should not be a debate on science bad and "anti-science" good, its which researchers are rigorously aligned scientifically and which authors are aligned with the truth of the research versus those that are not. And in this case, its not "Are women better hunters than men?", its "Are these authors claims credible relative to the actual research?" Yal gotta be more careful scrutinising the science there.

Otherwise, I think most of you males would be beaten by Serena Williams in an arm wrestle, even though the research was not even attempting to go to these sweaty arm pits. Including the fact that a female that gets a PhD in mathematics is likely going to have genes that are far more compatible with strategic hunting capacities compared to your average Bill who can barely get a job at Mc Donald's (though have compassion for Bill just as much as the female having the wits to tame strategic hunting as a capacity). 

[Thought Art]

@oOo I don’t know what your saying? We’ve largely contested the article have you read any of the responses? Am I wrong?

Edited 2 hours ago by Thought Art

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Elliott No, define a lie for me. Use your words. 

You think it's not a lie because you were mistaken, no, it was a lie because you're perpetuating an ideology. Whether you're ignorant is irrelevant, anyone that spreads lies even through pure ignorance is a liar because the lie is a lie. You stated it as fact, not speculation, YOU knew that you did not know if it was true.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott