Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, AION said:

Women can become equally good but they need to become more like men.

That's the rub.

External effectiveness comes at the cost of empathy and children.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@AION

Quote

You don’t want a woman on her period with her finger on the nuclear button. 

Actually, this phase of the cycle is not particularly emotionally sensitive. You aren't correct. 

[Wilhelm44]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@AION

Actually, this phase of the cycle is not particularly emotionally sensitive. You aren't correct. 

Really ? What am i missing here ?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Wilhelm44 the week prior is more emotionally sensitive / volatile.

[Leo Gura]

Trump is more emotional and unhinged than a woman.

[AION]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Wilhelm44 the week prior is more emotionally sensitive / volatile.

Usually

[Ulax]

5 hours ago, Alexop said:

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

hahahaha

[eos_nyxia]

Agreed that the way this topic is usually discussed makes me sad.

There are many different perspectives I could take, and this is a more recent one: It is really sad that women's athletics gets turned into this sentiment -- what even is the point if a man could do it better? (as in faster, stronger, etc.) I thought one of the points of athletics as a means of self-development is to make the most of YOUR particular body, to make your strengths stronger and to round your weaknesses, to see for yourself what your body is capable of, and then honing it through competition (if this is your thing). You're competing with yourself first above anything else. (Really, it's not like you have anything else to work with, anything else is just a thought experiment to make sense of abstractly and/or amuse yourself with).

So many animals are stronger and faster than us too. Who cares? Brute anything isn't even one of our fortes as a species.  

Personally, I've overcome quite a few physical and athletic weaknesses in my lifetime, and the thought that someone would be like... well, a man could do it better!

....yea so what, so could a lot of highly athletic women probably, since I'm not very physically advantaged with my particular genetics as a woman either. Plus, there is literally always someone better than you unless you're at the very top, and if you are, you're probably not on here or any other place with time consuming niche interests, with your schedule... 

Question: Do people who think like this go around shitting on paraplegic athletes too? They're making the most of what they got too...  If your thing is shitting on the less able to justify the power structures in this world in the name of truth... why? Why you people this way?? 

On the plus side, guys who did athletics more seriously growing up (or who still do it) are less likely to have this attitude in my experience... you're woman, why bother, it's not very feminine, etc. It's usually the recreational gym goers and the dudes on their couches crowing about what they COULD do...

...but that isn't really much of a flex, either. Like if I'm stronger and faster than you, and it's because you never bothered to try,.. your body might catch up if you make an effort but the mental and emotional fortitude is just. not. there. You know, the character attributes that you acquire over time as a result of overcoming challenges, especially with a very limited roadmap, if there is one for you at all. The thing that is more likely to be useful to me on the daily rather than defending myself from lions or even... men.

This has the same kind of energy to me as when I was 14-15, and being lectured by grown ass men on the internet about the ~*~*~*~*sUperioriTY of MaaN*~*~*~*~ including in the domain of raw intelligence, and then those men patting themselves on the back for the accomplishments of others  (inventions seems to be a popular one) of their same perceived type (like being white and a man) when these people's accomplishments have nothing to do with them at all. People who have more going for them don't think like this unless they have something that are seriously overcompensating for emotionally.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump is more emotional and unhinged than a woman.

Many men I meet are on average easier to trigger than a woman. Maybe it is just my perception 

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Many men I meet are on average easier to trigger than a woman. Maybe it is just my perception 

True because immature masculinity represses emotions.

[Alexop]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

True because immature masculinity represses emotions.

Yes! exactly.

[Leo Gura]

Women are better at feeling emotions than men.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdkE1T2gv29/?mdxt=ZDNkcGFmaTUxdmtv

Both genders can be just as emotional, perhaps in different domains of feelings. Different expression & responses. I think perhaps women can identify feelings with more accuracy. Which could be a function of motherhood - reading/mirroring infants and family members states is about providing appropriate care for survival & healthy child rearing.

The ability to sit with an emotion and not be compelled to irresistibly act on it, is a huge green flag for maturity. 

People who genuinely think women are stronger than men, and can't see the obviousness of basic sex dimorphism, are likely to be tripped up by reality. It's just not aligned with truth.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Alexop]

One gender was specialized in creating and nurturing life, the other in taking away life. Baby nurturing activity is antithetical to the action of taking away a life. One requires max empathy and feelings, the other requires decoupling from empathy and feelings.

Edited 59 minutes ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Alexop said:

One gender was specialized in creating and nurturing life, the other in taking away life. Baby nurturing activity is antithetical to the action of taking away a life. One requires max empathy and feelings, the other requires decoupling from empathy and feelings.

Bingo

[Raze]

27 minutes ago, Alexop said:

One gender was specialized in creating and nurturing life, the other in taking away life. Baby nurturing activity is antithetical to the action of taking away a life. One requires max empathy and feelings, the other requires decoupling from empathy and feelings.

Except lionesses take care of their children, but they are the primary hunters 

Edited 40 minutes ago by Raze

[Alexop]

7 minutes ago, Raze said:

Except lionesses take care of their children, but they hunt and eat other animals. 

Yes, but lion cubs require much less nurturing. And maybe the circumstances pushed them to be more adaptable. The lion males are too large. They have a hard time prowling and being agile enough to hunt properly. They have one job, defending the pride. Lion social dynamics are the Tate fan's wet dream.

Edited 38 minutes ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Raze said:

Except lionesses take care of their children, but they are the primary hunters 

Humans ain't lobsters nor lions.

You have to treat each animal as it is, not as something it resembles.

Edited 34 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[eos_nyxia]

43 minutes ago, Alexop said:

One gender was specialized in creating and nurturing life, the other in protecting or taking away life. Baby nurturing activity is antithetical to the action of taking away a life. One requires max empathy and feelings, the other requires decoupling from empathy and feelings.

A couple of random points:

There are a good portion of us who have no intrinsic maternal drive, or it only feels "natural" to us to channel that nurturing drive in an "evolutionary useless" (at least if you are considering generic evolutionary psychology theories) way toward some other non-human creature, baby or not. Or like... plants. Or society/ the community at large. Or who only want to play the auntie/ uncle/ big sibling role, and that's it. If that's the definition of "maternal energy", many men have this in spades. Is it less than women on average, compared to the average man? .....maybe? But it's not like women get to call dibs on this specific quality that is nurturing and empathy.

If you want to develop this quality, what is stopping you or anyone else? Where is the actual skill "cap" or point of diminishing returns?  Like anything, regardless of where you start, how do you know what your actual cap is until you at least start to find out for yourself, experientially? What makes you think you couldn't be "better" than those who naturally have those qualities (according to whatever your metric is) if you really committed to it?

Anyway, I've had guys tell me, as a minor, that I was completely defective and broken as a female (and by extension, too man-like) because I lacked a maternal instinct for very young human children and babies and never wanted kids, which was fun way to be treated lol. Occasionally, that I am enough of an anomaly that people who are similarly inclined play no role whatsoever in any evolutionary psychology narrative. But why would anyone be so stubbornly sure about that? 

Also, purely for argument's sake: mother animals of all species are known to kill their young under enough stress or even if it just suits them... (the official term for it is maternal infanticide and selective maternal investment). How do you reconcile that will all of these woo-woo sentimental, soft-girl lifestyle perspectives of motherhood? 

Infanticide was an extremely common and widely tolerated practice across the globe in the past. Has everyone here heard about Ancient Greeks and Romans leaving sick or otherwise deemed defective infants out to die in the wilds? Not coincidentally, a different concept of motherhood came about because of modernity and "the soft life". I mean... 12 used to be that you were considered a man if you worked a man's job, and that was even 100 years ago, my great grandfather's generation. Our modern concept of being a teenager was similarly created because we had the societal luxury and infrastructure to do so.

 

Edited 23 minutes ago by eos_nyxia

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

There are a good portion of us who have no intrinsic maternal drive,

That is only because you live in a civilization that allows you to have freedoms and luxuries.

If you were living in a tribe in Africa, you would have no such options.

We also talking about averages, not edge-cases.

Edited 21 minutes ago by Leo Gura