Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Human Mint]

On 10/21/2026 at 11:44 PM, Emerald said:

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.

Women are better suited at motherhood. It is common sense that parenting requires both genders. But kid's dynamic with a father will be different to the mother!

Put away the father from the picture and distress and psychological problems will ensue. You need to look the answers from your own experience. I say this in general, not only to you.

[Salvijus]

41 minutes ago, Alexop said:

What was the challenge about and why did women win?

The challenge was who can survive in a wilderness the longest. 5 men vs 5 women. Both sides had a limited starter supplies for a couple of days. After that they had to rely completely on themselves: create their own shelter, create their own water supply, provide food... Basicly to survive. It's a game of survival. 

Men were relying on endurance mainly and had team dynamic issues like internal ego friction that caused them to make mistakes. While women played a smarter long term game and were more strategic. They were better at resource management too.  And they just had less ego and could work better as a team. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Salvijus

[Human Mint]

2 hours ago, Alexop said:

. One of the few places where it can be discussed at an advanced level. 

This forum UI makes it so each pov is seen. Not like those nested threads thing where people speak all over the place, everyone yelling at each other to be heard.

[Human Mint]

51 minutes ago, Alexop said:

I won't watch all that nonsense. What was the challenge about and why did women win?

It's a fun watch. Then you can come to conclusions.

I see that women are good at diplomacy as their baseline. Which made them succed in that experiment.

If you have juvenile males in your group trying to survive you're SCREWED lol.

Probably, also, men are more ambitious. If the goal is half a million they will go nuts over it. Women will generally be more detached to that.

Edited 15 hours ago by Human Mint

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

The challenge was who can survive in a wilderness the longest. 5 men vs 5 women. Both sides had a limited starter supplies for a couple of days. After that they had to rely completely on themselves: create their own shelter, create their own water supply, provide food... Basicly to survive. It's a game of survival. 

Men were relying on endurance mainly and had team dynamic issues like internal ego friction that caused them to make mistakes. While women played a smarter long term game and were more strategic. They were better at resource management too.  And they just had less ego and could work better as a team. 

Aha. It can be like that. Our men today suck ass.

[Inliytened1]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

She was here to argue, by her own admission. She uses this forum to scratch her itch for arguing. That is not in alignment with truth-seeking.

Nothing personal against her.

@Emerald does he have you read like that? Dang. And I thought he couldn't get girls.  But he gets them. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Joseph Maynor]

This is all such nonsense.  

[Willy Phallicus]

47 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is all such nonsense.  

It doesn't have to be.  Here, lets use Nature and its laws and apply them to see how things actually work around here.

Might = right. 

Might doesn't always mean right but without might there is no right.

The women are pissed because they're mostly locked out of that category and who could blame them really but its just the reality of the shituation.  Nature don't give a fuck about your opinions.  Nature is cold, hard and brutal. 

If men actually were the demons many women claimed the gender to be the human female would be a slave race and there wouldn't be a damn thing they could do about it.

As it so happens that dynamic does exist inside human nature (which is just nature) except its the ruling class running both sides of the gender war (pretty much every war really) against the middle.

We were good at Susan B Anthony.  Anything after that is total dogshit.

Edited 9 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[enchanted]

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

The challenge was who can survive in a wilderness the longest. 5 men vs 5 women. Both sides had a limited starter supplies for a couple of days. After that they had to rely completely on themselves: create their own shelter, create their own water supply, provide food... Basicly to survive. It's a game of survival. 

Men were relying on endurance mainly and had team dynamic issues like internal ego friction that caused them to make mistakes. While women played a smarter long term game and were more strategic. They were better at resource management too.  And they just had less ego and could work better as a team. 

That's not enough evidence for anything. That's a sample size of one.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, enchanted said:

That's not enough evidence for anything. That's a sample size of one.

Both can be equally intelligent so..it could go either way.  Personally I think men would prevail because we have physical prowess and also we don't bicker over shit.  

Edited 9 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Willy Phallicus]

4 minutes ago, enchanted said:

That's not enough evidence for anything. That's a sample size of one.

Yeah post a link for that one because the documented video evidence we have on that is that survival reality TV show that did a men vs women event and the men passed with flying colors and the women would have died.

Edited 9 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[Willy Phallicus]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Personally I think men eould prevail because we have physical prowess and also we don't bicker over shit.  

Courtesy was born the day two extremely dangerous and armed men met and no one wanted to die.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Two forces of power meeting and deciding not to smash each other speaks less civility to me than someone with power choosing to treat those weaker than them with autonomy & respect.

[Willy Phallicus]

27 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Two forces of power meeting and deciding not to smash each other speaks less civility to me than someone with power choosing to treat those weaker than them with autonomy & respect.

That's a great and all but we don't live in your fantasy universe.  

Life feeds on life.  Bitching and moaning about it will not change that fact.

Where Im from its still law of the jungle where the people are cattle by nature and the predator preys on them because that is in its nature.  

Its tough to see when you're domesticated as I can personally attest too.

[Etherial Cat]

I've lost count of how many times I've seen obviously intelligent women dismissed on this forum by guys who are, quite frankly, intellectually mediocre, yet somehow convinced of their innate superiority in logic, rationality and the ability to provide, simply because they're men.

And yet, Emerald excels in exactly by all metrics in those masculine principled departments, while also being of great emotional intelligence. And over the years, I've watched plenty of guys kick and scream, seemingly unable to stomach the fact that they couldn't hold a candle to her. And that was lame, and added even more up to their lack of discernment.

Sorry to state is so bluntly, but this was the elephant in the room and I rather expose it than beat around the bush.

Generally speaking, it is a huge problem that some highly incompetent men keep being praised and empower into leadership positions simply because being male is somehow mistaken for being inherently more capable than women (who would obviously be better human resources and thus better providers to society than these specific men) but are being told they better be soft, nurturing mothers instead! This is how we shoot ourselves in the leg collectively.

As for Leo, I genuinely think he's a one-in-a-million intellect, and I'll gladly give him credit for that. But that doesn't mean some of his takes don't occasionally leave me scratching my head.

Leo has contributed tremendously to my personal growth, and discovering Emerald through his forum was really the icing on the cake. She was an incredibly valuable contributor, and I think that deserves some recognition. I'm genuinely grateful I found this place and had the opportunity to be part of some fantastic, genuinely thought provoking discussions that have stayed with me over the years and shaped the way I see reality.

While I find pitiful how conflicts emerged, I also think it's great to remember that perspective clashing together is also what makes great room for growth. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Etherial Cat

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Courtesy was born the day two extremely dangerous and armed men met and no one wanted to die.

Haha that must have been something. Pistols at dawn.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Willy Phallicus said:

That's a great and all but we don't live in your fantasy universe.  

Life feeds on life.  Bitching and moaning about it will not change that fact.

Where Im from its still law of the jungle where the people are cattle by nature and the predator preys on them because that is in its nature.  

Its tough to see when you're domesticated as I can personally attest too.

You sound really confused by my comment.

What came out above reveals more about your pathology than anything else.

Edited 6 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Etherial Cat appreciate your words and contributions also. There's a lot of uninspected social conditioning being revealed in this thread.

No one can transcend biology or incentive structures. Not even the awakened... 

I think we are done here. 

Closed.