1 point

I like how they are lumping hunting and trapping in one pot

permalink
report
reply
3 points

The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female’s ability to hunt.

Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.

“It holds” - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.

I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.

The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging “all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists”.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

it is just an example how gender stuff infitrates siences like archeology and anthropology.

“It assumes that males are physically superior to females”

I hate how this is presented. I have vitamin deficency and i am really weak and lost a lot of weight, but i am still able to lift objects most women would not get of the ground. I weigh 64 kilos. that is not that much for a man.

this does not make me superior. it is just like it is.

I want to know how women like it to hunt while pregnant, having a baby on their hip, or small whiny children in tow.

give me a break. men evolved to hunters because the women told them to hunt.

they did not want to have them sit around and chew the fat with the children.

show me ONE women who says the she is worse than her husband in child rearing.

right, that will never ever happen. maybe if we have a drug addict or a severely cancer ridden person, but no.

women will die to have their children around. they will not go hunting if there is someone else that wants to do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think you went off on a tangent. This is not what I was complaining about. Also, I do not have a problem with “gender stuff” - I just have a problem with a lack of objectivity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

but this is what I complain about. but yeah, i went over the rails, you are right. you have a point.

in that other thread, i mean, where the crosspost is, they talked a lot about patriarchy and stuff.

and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I think the wrong point of view here is using evolution as the biological term. As we are genetically make to do that. We probably are not. As most human behavior is not a product of genetics but a product of culture.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

As most human behavior is not a product of genetics but a product of culture.

Pretty sure it’s a heavy combination of the 2. Not just culture

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It seems obvious that some of the women would be better hunters than some of the men. But that only suggests that too much specialization was bad, not that there wasn’t any specialization at all. So headline seems wrong.

Also persistent hunting seems like the most inefficient type of hunting. You exhaust yourself and the prey and loose calories, the time it takes, traveling far over unknown terrain and then having to carry it all the way back and beware other predators. Is the argument that women are best at “shitty hunting”?

I imagine you’d track an animal, get close, throw spear, miss, keep tracking the animal. And if they haven’t invented the spear yet, can they even be called human?

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Running an animal to death is just one method. Useful on a hot day when your prey is far more susceptible to heat exhaustion/stroke than you are. And the calories gained from the animal outweigh the calories expended to gain them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-44 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

Put the gun down, incel and get into some therapy. Srs. And stay away from women. Far far away. In fact maybe stay out of topics like this cuz they are clearly a trigger for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If you were lost in the wilderness and had to rely on either my wife, who spent almost her entire childhood in Girl Scouts, then worked for the Girl Scouts, then was a Girl Scout leader while my daughter was also in Girl Scouts, who also goes camping with her best friend regularly, or me, who hates sleeping in tents and wants a flushing toilet in the morning… rely on the “bitch” and not me. Because you’re going to die if you decide the MAN has to be in charge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

I think if you sent a woman out to gather and she didnt come back, it wouldnt be because she got lost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<— rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

Community stats

  • 2.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 680

    Posts

  • 5.9K

    Comments