The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/

>The influential idea that in the past men were hunters and women were not isn’t supported by the available evidence

Another interesting thing

>The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.

It is amazing how much we have advanced in the field of anthropology lately.

Also, this counts as "Humanities" or "Science"? Anthropology is Humanities, right?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.

    Then why trannies always butcher biological women?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Patriarchy giving them too much power and confidence

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wait but aren't trannies contradictory to patriarchy as they break traditional gender norms?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          They are fifth column designed by moids to keep women down by pulling out progressive card you mong? I mean who watch the troony porn? Only moids. They clearly love them and want them to succeed

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Women's sports were literally created because they started to win some medals after they were allowed to compete and that made a lot of people butthurt

      The "trannies" don't "butcher" "biological women"
      You are welcome to prove it though

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        haha yes, now is behavior biological in origin?
        ok so why do women commit vastly less crime?

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stone age hunter-gatherer tribes still exist right now you don't have to speculate about how they live

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tribes have contact and are influenced by Western Civilization, where they learn our gender norms.
      Tools in graves and other archeological artifacts are a far more reliable way to see the gender norms of the past.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >tribes learn how to hunt and gather from people who don't hunt and gather
        Cool story bro

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah and observing them shows that most of the time women and men both hunt and gather depending on the conditions

      The /misc/tard argument is that that's why they are still stone age tribes n shiet

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The weakest man is about as strong as the strongest woman within an ethnicity
    although the weakest Swedish woman would be about as strong as he average South Asian
    not sure what they expect to gain from denying the obvious reality

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      First of all no.
      There's lots of women much stronger than the average man.
      Those that do sports or physical labor.

      Second of all, go to Vietnam and see how weak South Asians are, lol
      People who work their ass from morning to evening cannot be weak

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Women aren’t shorter than men, they’re all just standing further away

    The state of modern “science”. These people are a joke.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >“science
      anthropology is not and never has been a science. neither is pscyhology, sociology or any of that other crap.

      if your field does not produce analytic theories, it's not science, simple as. which is to say, the softest legitimate science is (some parts of) biology. no, fitting regression models to data until you find one that could be interpreted in a way you like is not "theory". neither is writing prose in natural language.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution is a psy op

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.
    1) Who are you quoting?
    2) That makes 0 sense.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nvm 1 I missed it

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This article is such a weird cope when we have the entirety of recorded human history as a counterpoint.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: screeching incels that don't even read the article

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Males living in the Upper Paleolithic—the cultural period between roughly 45,000 and 10,000 years ago, when early modern humans entered Europe—do show higher rates of a set of injuries to the right elbow region known as thrower's elbow, which could mean they were more likely than females to throw spears. But it does not mean women were not hunting, because cope cope cope
      We all know very well that the primary human development that allowed us such evolutionary success was throwing. This is not something that just started happening 45,000 years ago - humans have been hunting and fighting via throwing for hundreds of thousands of years and, as the quote from the article above concedes, throwing spears or rocks is something that the male body does much, much better than the female.

      Can a woman throw a spear? Sure. Can the average woman throw a spear as quickly and accurately as the average man? No. And no hunter-gatherer group with any sense would send inferior people out to hunt - regardless of whether these were women or just weak men - when there are plenty of other helpful activities those people could be doing instead.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You have to explain why so many Mesolithic females are buried with hunting tools. When males are buried with such tools archeologists assume they belonged to them.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Mesolithic
          Because by that point we'd invented weapons like the bow and arrow that required significantly less strength to use. I'm not saying women never hunted, just that it doesn't make sense to have them doing it if it wasn't necessary. Children and the elderly could hunt too if it were absolutely necessary but if there are enough healthy men available, there's no reason to send them out to do an inferior job when there are plenty of other useful tasks they could be doing.

          Being buried with hunting tools could just be some belief about being on your own after death and needing to fend for yourself, who knows. Any assumptions about the motivations of people who lived 40,000 years ago is pure speculation.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >mentions "social media trolls" and Hollywood movies
          >wrongly believes sex isnt a binary in biology
          >complains about people misunderstanding averages and then goes on to grossly misinterpret data to imply women have better endruance than men (they dont, the difference is just smaller than in strength)
          >cherry picks effects of estrogen to support her theory
          >hits us with the mother of all word salads because its too embarassing to write the cope out in any other way: "...males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events..."
          >implicitly denies her own theory when whining about no male pacesetters in all female races
          >Continues to make completely baseless assertions a la "Low sexual size dimorphism is characteristic of egalitarian and monogamous species." With 0 evidence to back this up.
          >goes back on her own logic about neandertals when talking about modern human elbows (when we find no difference in elbow wear it means they both hunted the same, when we find a difference it doesnt suggest the opposite!)
          somewhere in there she also cherry picked some modern hunter gatherers where women participate in hunting
          generally her M.O. is to say that the fossil and historical record is insufficient when it contradicts her theory and as sufficient when it supports it, that and to conflate "women generally didnt hunt" with "women never hunted"

          because mesolithic people believed they could be reborn as a woman or a man and would need the right tools for both cases to be waiting for them when they were resurrected

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and the guys buried in graves that did not have such tools believed in what? Come on, lol.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            your assumption is they hunted because they were buried with those tools, my assumption is what I gave you
            can you see what they have in common?

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Both hunted because meat was their primary food source. Gathering was never that common, especially in northern climates.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Naw, I'd rather just believe that the article is wrong.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >article
      This is a shitty pop article. Read the original from PLOS One.

      >Of the 63 different foraging societies, 50 (79%) of the groups had documentation on women hunting. Of the 50 societies that had documentation on women hunting, 41 societies had data on whether women hunting was intentional or opportunistic. Of the latter, 36 (87%) of the foraging societies described women’s hunting as intentional, as opposed to the 5 (12%) societies that described hunting as opportunistic. In societies where hunting is considered the most important subsistence activity, women actively participated in hunting 100% of the time.

      >The type of game women hunted was variable based on the society. Of the 50 foraging societies that have documentation on women hunting, 45 (90%) societies had data on the size of game that women hunted. Of these, 21 (46%) hunt small game, 7 (15%) hunt medium game, 15 (33%) hunt large game and 2 (4%) of these societies hunt game of all sizes. In societies where women only hunted opportunistically, small game was hunted 100% of the time. In societies where women were hunting intentionally, all sizes of game were hunted, with large game pursued the most. Of the 36 foraging societies that had documentation of women purposefully hunting, 5 (13%) reported women hunting with dogs and 18 (50%) of the societies included data on women (purposefully) hunting with children. Women hunting with dogs and children also occurred in opportunistic situations as well.

      It's about modern foragers.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >One of the most prominent discoveries recently includes a 9,000 year old burial located in the Andean highland area of Wilamaya Patjxa in Peru [9]. The burial included an adult female alongside a hunting toolkit consisting of stone projectiles as well as animal processing equipment [9]. Researchers typically presume that stone projectiles buried alongside males are hunting tools but are less persuaded when projectiles are associated with females; the specific assemblage clearly evidenced hunting in this case. In their own review of the literature, Haas et al. [9] examined burials in the Americas from the Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene period, identifying eleven females from ten sites who were associated with big-game hunting tools. By using a probability analysis of all twenty-seven sites which had evidence of big-game hunting, Haas et al. determined that females made up a “nontrivial” amount of big-game hunters across the Americas [9]. In fact, their analysis suggested that females represented up to fifty percent of big game hunters from the Americas prehistorically.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    i can't wait for 20 years from now to see how the gender ratio in sports changes. because i don't think it will change a lot. in particular in chess, where physical strenght doesn't matter and everything is the mind, the only argument they have other than admitting that they are inherently inferior at this is discrimination, harrassment and bias and so on in competitions and surrounding the game in general, and lately they are very fricking vocal about it, lots of people advocating to stop mistreating them online and so on, and tons of money being poured into telling girls to play chess and funding women only tournaments so they have a monetary incentive to play. i wonder if it will make any difference

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Men evolved to hunt and gather
    Women evolved to look beautiful (except british and german women) and be bred

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >new study says grass is actually blue and sky is green

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *