Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Natasha Tori Maru]

This debate is like arguing why your arm is better than your leg

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But I was being serious. Women are probably better at those tasks if you organize everyone on a bell curve.

I can agree.

[Alexop]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This debate is like arguing why your arm is better than your leg

I understand. But it also is a very important subject. We need to understand it as society if we want to fix it. I personally don't discuss it just to inflate my manly ego, I just see again and again how dysfunctional we are because we don't get it. I also live in Sweden, which makes it 2x worse.

I am women too, I am everything. I see society as my body. My arms are good at some stuff, my legs at other stuff. We have to debunk people who come and present studies that claim we can run well on our arms too if we really want. 

I am sure you would've like to see better men around. Men who are confident, responsible, fun, but also safe and cozy. This is what I want to see. What I see here in Sweden, is a bunch of boring scared boys who are making women choose to have children alone.

Edited 7 hours ago by Alexop

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Alexop oh I think the topic is a good one for discussion - it just easily turns into weighting how important one trait is vs another. How much each sex has of each trait. Then people's personal bias and opinion on what is "masculine" "feminine" gets slapped in with reasoning that research doesn't support. 

It's when it gets into these mirky waters and bias infects it all that I tune out and find little value remaining.

I dislike where it typically goes, not the topic itself 😊

[oOo]

11 hours ago, Thought Art said:

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

@Thought Art yes, I read the objections. My point is that a headline can mislead people who disagree with it, too.

If a journalist announces that physicists have abolished gravity, replying “Scientists are idiots, my mug still hits the floor” rejects the conclusion while faithfully accepting the journalist’s account of the physicists.

The journalist still supplied the story, the reader just added an angry soundtrack.

That’s the distinction I’m making about replies that move from this article to dismissing science itself, so rejecting what the research supposedly established isn’t the same as checking what it actually established.

The researchers arguments deserve scrutiny too. I’d just give them the courtesy of being criticised for something they actually argued.

Otherwise, the attempt to expose science as a religion begins by accepting a journalist’s account on faith @Alexop.

This is a circus thread, I'd prefer to call it that rather than being another example of "sycophantic cesspool" as I have previously diagnosed.

I'm waiting for the next act, one thing I've always admired personally are the acrobatics of many circus acts; truly Olympic first class some of them. I swear some of the gentlemen here would rival in word salad acrobatics; its an impressive display, and as far as I can see it as long as you take it all as an act, no body digitally gets hurt. 

[oOo]

But you're all only just kiddos.. So...

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@oOo Brah why it have human eyes.... UNCANNY 

[Basman]

A lot of women reject biological essentialism, especially relative to maternity, because it feels stifling and demeaning. likr it's a myth. It's not wrong to be free and feel entitled to personal happiness in modern day, but you have to be delusional to think we're perfectly equal. The biological differences are very obvious. It would be easy for society physically enslave women if it wanted to. Post-modernism is such a luxury problem.

[enchanted]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

A lot of women reject biological essentialism, especially relative to maternity, because it feels stifling and demeaning. likr it's a myth. It's not wrong to be free and feel entitled to personal happiness in modern day, but you have to be delusional to think we're perfectly equal. The biological differences are very obvious. It would be easy for society physically enslave women if it wanted to. Post-modernism is such a luxury problem.

Yes it's become somehow sexist to say women are better with kids. Like wtf? 

Edited 1 hour ago by enchanted

[Joshe]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Here is woke ideology:

 

I’m guessing 95% of people correctly understand the physical differences between male and female. You guys are always dissecting fringe positions and acting like they’re more common than they are. 

For example, probably not even 1% of the population would agree with the above video. Obviously, it’s fine to analyze it, but I get the sense you guys are inflating the numbers in your head and thinking these fringe positions have proliferated or will soon reach critical mass.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[enchanted]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you quote some examples from this thread?

Im taking about the IRL world and growing up in it. That's the impression and vibe I got. 

[Joshe]

16 minutes ago, enchanted said:

Yes it's become somehow sexist to say women are better with kids. Like wtf? 

If you were a woman who was horrible with kids, you might object to the claim because for such a woman the claim is just false, and maybe “sexist” is her best explanation for why you’re wrong. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[trenton]

On 10/20/2026 at 3:07 AM, AION said:

Men are not only physically stronger. Even with mind games like chess and such it is no match. Hunting is mostly a mind game.

I think women are fine with mind games. Judit Polgar is a good example given a decent childhood environment with training. I think in competitive sports most women just aren't as interested. The competitive mindset in outperforming others seems to be more in men in these fields. You can also look at debate teams. Some women claim there is misogyny, but at the same time I think most women aren't as interested in intellectual sports compared to men, though they can be good at them given interest and training.

When I do play with the average woman in a game like chess, I notice they tend to be way less confident than men. Men act like they are definitely going to crush me. Women don't really hide their nervousness. I notice they have a lot more doubts than men up front, thinking it is very complicated and they can't do it. They are afraid to even learn. However, given interest and confidence I think a woman could be a decent player, but they tend to be less interested in this compared to men.

[Alexop]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Alexop oh I think the topic is a good one for discussion - it just easily turns into weighting how important one trait is vs another. How much each sex has of each trait. Then people's personal bias and opinion on what is "masculine" "feminine" gets slapped in with reasoning that research doesn't support. 

It's when it gets into these mirky waters and bias infects it all that I tune out and find little value remaining.

I dislike where it typically goes, not the topic itself 😊

Yes! This happens. The human ego is sneaky.

[Alexop]

Am I a limbist if I say legs are stronger than arms?

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Alexop said:

Am I a limbist if I say legs are stronger than arms?

If you say it 20 times a year, yeah, probably, lol. 

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald Also, back then providing meant hunting or gathering which is like 2 things. It could also include, fighting, defending, etc..

We know that men and women did bits of both, and men did the majority of hunting especially for bigger animals. Women, did many tasks including gathering, crafting, socializing, cooking. Men did these tasks too. 

Men are optimized for providing.

They surely aren’t optimized for giving birth and having kids. Men gotta have a thing. 

An optimization isn’t a total list of ability or potential. 

Even look at dating. Women want a guy who provides a lot of the time. Why is that? It’s not a universal rule but, it is most of the time the case. 

Also, can we admit that modern women are a new thing? An evolution of the mind, culture, etc? And, so far we can’t judge the cultures through this lens…

Its clear to me… in my opinion that most women, are optimized in body and mind for raising children then compared to most men. 

Back then, when we were in pre-agrarian groups, the roles we had to fill were not specialized. 

So... women were just mothers, foragers, and camp keepers... and men were just fathers, hunters, and warriors. (and there was interchangeability because of the lack of specialization in pre-agrarian groups)

But even then, it wasn't that women were the parents and men were the providers. Men and women both parented and provided.

Provision was a communal effort... not a man-specific role, like the common assumption is.

That's the real issue comes about when pop-evo-pseudoscience gets involved. And we extrapolate black and white rigid ideas about gender (like man provides, woman parents) that aren't reflective of the more nuanced realities of how humans currently operate and how humans have historically operated. 

And if you apply the binary idea of "Women parent. Men provide." to modern society like it's a Venn diagram with no overlap (which is how it often gets treated), it means... women are better suited to parenthood and men are better suited to all other human endeavors, which include all career specializations.

And this is where your idea of "Men have to have something" idea doesn't hold up... as we don't have to organize this into a binary, as parenting and providing was never treated as a binary.

Instead of splitting things into an arbitary dichotomy of "parenting vs providing" and feeling like "men have to be superior at one whilst women are superior at the other", we can look at all of these as human specializations... including parenthood.

And we can get a clearer idea on which specializations men are generally better suited to and which specializations women are generally better suited to... of course with many exceptions to rule.

And to say "men are better providers" gives men credit for all human specializations and achievements... even things that women have historically done and gotten no recognition or credit for, largely on the basis of the same false gender assumptions. 

So, with the framing that "women are optimized for parenting and men are optimized for providing" it splits a wide variety of thousands of human specializations into two distinct arbitrary categories.

And it ends up being an inaccurate and unfair assessment because there's only one thing in one of the arbitrarily chosen categories and a bajillion things in the other arbitrarily chosen category.

So, it's not like, "Men have to be superior at one of the two. Women can't be superior at both." There's not even two.... there's a jillion. 

But we can talk about which specializations that men and women are generally superior at. (again with many exceptions)

Men are generally superior at specializations and provisions that require strength and physical speed. So, men will generally be better at weight lifting, running, heavy duty physical labor, plowing fields, competitive team sports, and hand to hand combat. 

And women are better at specializations that require social and environmental attunement. So women will generally be better at teaching, raising kids, working with human psychology, maintaining social harmony, interior decoration/other aesthetic endeavors, and various daily sustainer tasks like cooking and cleaning.

Then, outside of those super-powers, things are likely relatively equal if you organize all men and women on a bell curve relative to all specializations that don't have anything to do with strength, speed, social attunement, and environmental attunement. 

And modern women (and men) is definitionally tied to the current era. But I'd imagine there's nothing so very different about the psychological anatomy or physiology of a modern man or woman compared to a man or woman of 500 years ago. 

So no... there wasn't some 'magical utopia' in the past where women weren't the way they are now. Women have always been women. It's just that women haven't always had the freedom of choice over which direction their lives go in.

And the mythologized past of a time when women were only mothers and were blissful about only fulfilling that single role never existed. Women have always worked throughout the entirety of human history... except for wealthy women (and middle class women in the 1940s and 50s). 

Perhaps that's disappointing, but there's no time in human history where women weren't operating like humans do.

Edited 44 minutes ago by Emerald

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Am I a limbist if I say legs are stronger than arms?

That's just your limbist conditioning 

End leg supremacy!

[Natasha Tori Maru]

33 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Am I a limbist if I say legs are stronger than arms?

@Alexop don't even start, you! 

Forfeiting out opposable thumbs so easy for the quadriceps and glutes... Ngl I would love another set of hands instead of feet though