Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Alexop said:

That still is an exceptional situation. Normally you just can't have pregnant women running after prey for kilometers. If they didn't have to bear so many pregnancies during their whole adult lives, then I could buy some of that. Only in critical survival situations would you force a woman to do that.

They were still significantly contributing to the calorie intake of the tribe, but not by running after prey I think. They were picking up lots and lots of berries, fruits, roots etc. 

The entire point is that women fulfilling hunting duties likely wasn't an exceptional situation for most human groups. It was common.

Even now, in 79% of foraging societies, women fulfill a significant portion of the hunting duties.

Based on the evidence, it seems to reflect that men were/are usually the primary hunters in foraging societies but that women commonly fulfill(ed) hunting duties.

So, your assumption that women hunting is an exceptional situation is just a pop-cultural assumption based on how you believe these societies to have operated. And these pop-cultural assumptions about gender roles arise because we project agrarian and industrial dynamics onto pre-agrarian groups.

The reality seems to be that hunts were much more communal. And large hunts often involved every capable adult. And even elders and children would get involved.

Also, I've been pregnant before. And you're not bed-bound or anything like that. You can still be quite active when pregnant. I worked well past my due date during my second pregnancy. And many pregnant women do physically active jobs.

But even if pregnancy were a hindrance to action, there's only a 20 year period in a woman's life where she can get pregnant. And before agriculture, women didn't need to have so many children to fulfill farm roles.

And based on DNA evidence in women's teeth, the studies showed that pre-agrarian women often had 4-5 births in her life spaced out every 3-4 years during her fertile period... And it's estimated that only 2-3 of those children would survive to adulthood.

And in contemporary foraging groups, a similar pattern of waiting every 3-4 years to have another child is the norm... as having multiple babies at a time can be a liability in these circumstances.

And if you just look around the world, in agrarian farming societies women have often done quite hard labor all throughout human history with a baby wrapped to them. It's not an uncommon image to see women doing hard labor out in a field with a baby in tow.

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

@Schizophonia Dépends on the man I bet.

 

Of course; i meant in average. 

Quote

 

Pro-cycling those men have more energy than women. 

Professional cycling is very hard on the muscles it's painful.

In most sports men will outperform women because of muscle factor, but women are probably less lazy/have higher stress resilience because of estrogens. Hence women tend to live longer, while in the same time be more professional, succeeding studies more, be cleaner, be more attentive to children and to others in general etcetc.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I do not hold that men are superior to women.

You are saying that men are superior to women with regard to the survival contributions we make to society. (which is all other domains of work outside of parenting)

So, you're saying "Men are superior with the vast majority of human occupations. But women are just superior with parenting."

And that's just untrue. Throughout human history, women's non-parenting work has contributed just as much to survival as men's work.

In fact, if we recognize that women were the primary foragers... foragers provided over half of the calories to the group in nomadic times.

So it isn't like... men are the survival apes and women are the reproduction apes. There's no evidence to back that up.

Men and women are both survival and reproduction apes.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

You are saying that men are superior to women with regard to the survival contributions we make to society. (which is all other domains of work outside of parenting)

So, you're saying "Men are superior with the vast majority of human occupations. But women are just superior with parenting."

I am not saying that. Please stop assuming what I am saying.

I do not hold that men make superior survival contributions to society. And parenting is not different from survival.

Women excel in all sorts of roles, like social ones.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Elliott has received so many warning points over the last 2 years that he has now been banned.

He received over 10 warnings for name-calling and insults.

Shame. Please don't force us to ban you. We do not like banning anyone, but constantly insulting others will get you banned.

Sorry to hear that, we lost a perspective. Reading his posts they seem perhaps a bit immature and overreactive, but to me they are also funny. Maybe not so much if you are on the receiving end, nor considering the forum standards.
 

Edited 3 hours ago by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not saying that. Please stop assuming what I am saying.

I do not hold that men make superior survival contributions to society. And parenting is not different from survival.

Women excel in all sorts of roles, like social ones.

There are no assumptions here.

You said, "Women are optimized for motherhood. Men are optimized for providing."

That means... "Women have superior capacity for parenting and men have superior capacity for doing other kinds of work that contribute resources to group (aka all non-parenting work endeavors)."

Tell me how that isn't a statement of who is superior at doing what? 

And tell me how that isn't a statement that frames women only as superior at one endeavor... whilst framing men as superior at most endeavors?

Either that, or you just see the non-parenting work that women are superior at as inferior in the value it provides to society.

So, you did make a statement that indicates that you see men as superior with providing... and providing means working to provide resources.

Working to provide resources encompasses thousands of endeavors. Parenting is just one endeavor.

Edited 3 hours ago by Emerald

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You said, "Women are optimized for motherhood. Men are optimized for providing."

That is true regardless of arguments are made.

Quote

That means... "Women have superior capacity for parenting and men have superior capacity for doing other kinds of work that contribute resources to group (aka all non-parenting work endeavors)."

Tell me how that isn't a statement of who is superior at doing what?

Men are not superior at all other kinds of work. Only some kinds. Women could be better at picking berries than men, as just one example.

You are fixated on this superiority issue. I am not a male-supremacist.

Quote

And tell me how that isn't a statement that frames women only as superior at one endeavor... whilst framing men as superior at most endeavors?

Even if men were superior at most endeavors, (I honestly don't know cause I haven't counted), that doesn't mean anything because women would still be superior at parenting.

Your position is ironic because it dismisses the importance of parenting. If all women could do is parent, that would be enough. But obviously women excel in other things on top of that. So there is no need to speak of absolute superiority. Superior is relative to the task as hand. Obviously men are not superior at all tasks outside of parenting. Men are not superman.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Schizophonia Yes, I think women really gifted at many things compared to men. Though, men and women have the ability to develop skill through investment, education, training and practice. Women can do pretty well any job a man can. But, would they? Depends on the woman. 
 

Looking at whole sexes we can see that women are designed to give birth. Men are not. For a species, both are important for survival. It seems natural the sex that gives birth, has breasts, would be more genetically oriented toward mothering as a foundational function. 
 

It would make sense the sex without those functions, has more natural strength, agression, is less emotional, is essentially freed up to go hunt, etc. 
 

Though both sexes gathered, fished, hunted. They did and do play different roles in ancient and even modern societies. 
 

Our sexes do mean differences that should be observed. 
 

I’ve worked with brilliant women, and with women who kick ass at tree planting which is one of the hardest manual labour jobs in the world. But, those girls are outliers. I think the men in that industry are also outliers because of how brutal the work is. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thought Art

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is true regardless of arguments are made.

Men are not superior at all other kinds of work. Only some kinds. Women could be better at picking berries than men, as just one example.

You are fixated on this superiority issue. I am not a male-supremacist.

Even if men were superior at most endeavors, (I honestly don't know cause I haven't counted), that doesn't mean anything because women would still be superior at parenting.

Your position is ironic because it completely dismisses the importance of parenting. If all women could do is parent, that would be enough. But obviously women excel in other things on top of that. So there is no need to speak of absolute superiority.

I am not dismissing the importance of parenting at all. In fact, I'd say it's one of the the most important occupations that there is.

It's just that parenting is one endeavor... and providing encompasses many endeavors.

And it's very common that people who see women as inferior will try to pare women's value and humanity down to a single function... whilst seeing men's value and humanity as spanning many functions.

And don't deflect the responsibility for your own hierarchical views onto me. I'm just noticing that you have them and pointing them out to you.

You may not realize it. But you do have a lot of male supremacist views... and you protect them dearly.

Edited 3 hours ago by Emerald

[Thought Art]

@Emerald Okay, but he has addressed more nuanced points in his recent post… you seem to not acknowledge them. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thought Art

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald Okay, but he has addressed more nuanced points in his recent post… you seem to not acknowledge them. 

What's an example of a point that I haven't addressed?

I'm happy to address them.

[Ulax]

21 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

Sorry to hear that, we lost a perspective. Reading his posts they seem perhaps a bit immature and overreactive, but to me they are also funny. Maybe not so much if you are on the receiving end, nor considering the forum standards.
 

Bro was spamming abu graib debate tactics. The gg was inevitable 

[Thought Art]

@Emerald For example he says: 

« But obviously women excel in other things on top of that. »

I think that shows he acknowledges nuances beyond the basic functioning and division of the sexes. 
 

Both sexes are Human, humans excel at a variety of things. 
 

But, the reason one is a man and one is a woman has a purpose… 

There is a reason humans are uni-sex and that should be acknowledged…

Edited 2 hours ago by Thought Art

[Emerald]

Just now, Thought Art said:

@Emerald For example he says: 

« But obviously women excel in other things on top of that. »

Yes. I saw that he said that. 

But I was talking about his original claim that "Women are optimized for motherhood. Men are optimized for providing".

And saying that "women excel in other things too" doesn't mean that he doesn't view men as even better optimized for those roles that women excel at. And it also doesn't mean that he sees the roles that women excel at as equal in societal value to those that men excel at.

For example, he could say "obviously women excel at certain things"... and those things that he doesn't see as valuable.

Or he could say "obviously women excel at certain things"... and believe that men are still better at those things.

So, the reason I didn't address it is because I'm working with his actual claim... which I that "Women are optimized for motherhood. Men are optimized for providing".

And believing that "women excel at some things" doesn't mean that he stopped believing "Women are optimized for motherhood (one thing). Men are optimized for providing (many things)". 

So, I stick to the original claim... as his softening statements doesn't mean that he isn't claiming that men are superior with the majority of human endeavors.

[enchanted]

It's interesting, when men do something better than women we attributed it to male privilege and unfair biases.

But when women do something better we attributed to women being superior.

And also there is an implied narrative that this whole time society was mistaken and it's women who can do everything better.

Women played the ultimate Uno reverse card.

Edited 2 hours ago by enchanted

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, enchanted said:

It's interesting when men do something better than women we attributed it to male privilege and unfair bias, 

But when women do something better we attributed to women being superior.

And also there is an implied narrative that this whole time society was mistaken and it's women who can do everything better.

Women played the ultimate Uno reverse card.

Can you quote some examples from this thread?

[Alexop]

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

 

https://news.nd.edu/news/woman-the-hunter-studies-aim-to-correct-history/
 

LMAO, how can someone read this without laughing?

If bias was an article.

"Ocobock said scientists have to be extremely careful about how modern-day bias can seep into one’s interpretations of the past. She cautioned that researchers have to be aware of their own biases and make sure they are asking the proper questions so the questions don’t lead them down the road of looking for what it is they want to see."

I think this is the best advice you can give to yourself Ms. Ocowoke...

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[Alexop]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Men are not superior at all other kinds of work. Only some kinds. Women could be better at picking berries than men, as just one example.

It is confirmed that women see more color nuances, it might be because they adapted to better seeing which berries are ripped.

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you quote some examples from this thread?

I think he was doing a bit of projecting there.  

[Ulax]

27 minutes ago, enchanted said:

It's interesting, when men do something better than women we attributed it to male privilege and unfair biases.

But when women do something better we attributed to women being superior.

And also there is an implied narrative that this whole time society was mistaken and it's women who can do everything better.

Women played the ultimate Uno reverse card.

True