Oh, it's been DEBUNKED, huh? Just like that? Not called into question or warranting a revisit, just DEBUNKED. Well, if it's DEBUNKED, that settles it! The science, it's settled. BTW I'm sure the DEBUNKING was completely intellectually honest and scientifically rigorous, I'm sure the methodology was completely sound! It's not like an EXPERT would ever set out to find a certain answer and manipulate and cherry pick data in order to DEBUNK some understanding they find objectionable or inconvenient...
... and it's not like men and women have trivially observable physiological differences. I mean... it's been DEBUNKED.
I'm not sure why they downplay the amount of work raising kids is so much. It's fucking all encompassing and there's no reason to look down on anyone committing to it. It's kind of fucking important.
But did the study check if the women hunters identified as male? They might have been trans! After all, that's definitely been something that existed forever and isn't a modern psychological affliction!
Most societies and cultures knew not to risk the women because they give birth, you lose half your men, you still survive. Half your women and you suffer massive population decreases.
It's also why women were more in homemaking roles, because they couldn't risk being in danger, they were put to improve the camp/home. Thanks to automation taking care of those roles, they now need to imply they had more of a presence in men's roles than they did.
Not even just that.
We are physically inferior. I said it. And that is just ignoring the fact we are in a sub-optimal state compared to ourselves regularly.
Like you need zero thought about procreation and how it works (Which... I'm not sure cavemen really understood), yet you would notice that CERTAIN members of your tribe are a fucking mess quite a lot.
For example the pelvis of women allows them to give birth to babies with larger skulls (which is great for babies) but at the sacrifice of leg strength, due to leverage.
Women (in general) have a higher percentage of body fat to lean muscle; This allows them to have the energy reserves to (more often) carry a healthy baby to term with an uncertain food supply.
Women are phytologically different, in ways that make them much more likely to love and care for children and they needy; which optimizes them to raise an incredibly demanding baby to independence.
Men are fantastically motivated to make women happy. Men went to the moon basically to impress ladies and have children. Men run down antelope in their bare feet because someone told them it impresses chicks.
Essentially, at a simple level, if a man is slashed across the chest by a big cat, good chance he'll survive, have a few scars and that'll be it.
Woman same injury, dear god the amount of damage that could cause. Better keep them in the cave cleaning up the place while the guys that can run faster, use more strength and survive worse injuries and keep fighting di the hunting.
Really makes you glad to the first genius who decided 'wonder if I can make food here so I no longer need to hunt and gather' though more questioning the guy that went 'I know it's another animals milk but I'm gonna try it'
This is my counterargument whenever people claim that the dark ages were a myth. Military technology continued advancing at a steady pace, but civilian (or rather peasant) technology in general was subpar until the early Renaissance. Sanitation was inferior well into the early industrial revolution.
That's before you account for all the medieval peasants that literally shit in their own water supply.
Before major sanitation projects, as population grew, the Thames flowing through London would turn into a near-solid garbage sludge when water levels were low.
Even this measured statement is wrong. Women weren't even allowed to touch spears or arrows, let alone a "small minority."
Throughout most of human history a woman trying to take a man's role would get her a swift beating.
edit I'll add one exception: Spartan women were trained in combat and athletics on the belief that every able-bodied adult should defend the town when attacked, but they were highly unusual for this practice.
It also depends on what you're considering to be hunting. There's not much danger or strength required to throw rocks at small animals damaging the crops.
These people are so detached from reality that I get the impression they've never been around a woman before.
Just look at women in sports or in computer games. Not only they're physically weaker but they also have a harder time aiming and calculating a projectile's trajectory.
Sure some women have hunted out of necessity, as surely men have done typically female jobs of it was necessary.
But do you think it's a coincidence that men evolved in a way that is conducive to hunting and fighting, and women didn't?
Everyone is focusing on the hunting aspect, but I'm almost certain the purpose here is on the "women were for domestic duties and children."
This is just a round about way of getting girls into girl power mode with this Hunter Myth, so that way they can force men into domestic chores more to further uneven the gender separation of roles.
Also they straight up drew a man on that cover and are just calling it a woman because it has long hair. The bone structure is clearly male, and the only way anyone would even guess it was a woman is because of the title on it.
force men into domestic chores more to further uneven the gender separation of roles
That seems to be their entire shtick when it comes to relationships, at least ones with a beta. The attitude is that she goes above and beyond by letting him starfish her a few times a year, so he needs repay her by being her 24/7 slave, both at work and at home. When that doesn't happen she sees him as ungrateful and it makes her even more resentful that he's not the alpha that she feels entitled to.
There can be nothing special or distinct in certain kinds of people, except for what our betters say should be celebrated. Each individual must be as capable as everyone else.
Imagine being this fucking retarded you think a tribe courld rely on someone who is too impaired to hunt 4+ months per year and thus naturally gravitated towards developping other skills than hunting.
P.S. : We can witness RIGHT NOW in the wild totally isolated tribes. The men are hunters / warriors, the women care for kids, tidy the camp and forrage.
I'm sure there were numerous women hunters throughout prehistory, after all everyone's got to eat regardless of if they're a man or a woman. But the idea of men being the hunters while the women were in charge of the home/village/children, probably arises from what would happen in a more standard situation where there's fairly equal numbers of both sexes.
I mean, spend 1hr at a renaissance fair at the axe throwing booth. men just seem to hit the target naturally, blade-first, after a few throws. Women? LMAO. It's so God damn funny to watch.
When push comes to shove and the choice is starving or trying, I'm sure plenty tried. And a scant few probably succeeded by sheer luck.
Because that's almost certainly what happened. A catastrophic situation arose, and a random woman hunter managed to successfully take down something through sheer dumb luck and she became known for it for her short lifetime.
Or some bitch got buried with a spear and they are just making wild assumptions again.
To be fair, most modern men couldn't throw a spear either. I'm meaning in a situation where there's a woman by herself or two women by themselves, of course they would hunt to survive. They wouldn't really have much of a choice.
Humans were persistence hunters. Every failed attempt meant having to chase the prey for another couple of miles at least. Men are faster, more accurate (hand-eye coordination) and significantly stronger. Even if a woman managed to kill an animal, she wouldn't be able to carry it 15-20 miles back to the settlement.
I agree actually. I'm talking more about situations where a woman was on her own or dealing with specific situations where men may not be able to hunt. Men were most definitely the hunters 99% of the time though.
One of the plausible hypotheses floating around was that some women were capable of persistence hunting. The gap between the sexes is smaller in endurance sports, for whatever that's worth.
A web search however proves that self-identified feminists are dumb and dishonest, and that the s/n ratio of the modern web is abysmal.
You know those stories of people leaving young women as a sacrifice to a dragon, monster, god, or demon? Maybe that is what they are talking about: a weak women is set up as a sacrifice to lure the beast out, then is ambushed by the men as she is attacked. Good job woman, you drew out the beast and helped hunt!
The old books I remember reading were prettty clear about how hunter-gatherer women were opportunistic small-game hunters (up to and including small deer.) Which makes total sense, when you're living hand-to-mouth like every other wild animal, you take what you can catch, because sometimes you catch nothing.
They also tended to be the ones to tend to snare lines.
Recent studies of savannah chimps (which is basically what "humans" started out as), suggest that spear use is more common amongst the females, precisely because they are weaker, and they generally use the spears to weaken small prey before killing it with their hands.
It's actually far more clear cut than your examples.
Women can't run as fast or as far as men.
The entire strategy of early hunting was to wound then harass a much larger animal. To do so would involved hounding it for days, having to keep pace the entire time. It's a hunting strategy based almost entirely on stamina and is probably a driving factor for hairlessness in humans (more sweat area).
If a woman can't throw, hit, or carry as much, she could still perform a lesser role.
However, if she can't keep up with the hunting party, she's worse than useless.
Oh, it's been DEBUNKED, huh? Just like that? Not called into question or warranting a revisit, just DEBUNKED. Well, if it's DEBUNKED, that settles it! The science, it's settled. BTW I'm sure the DEBUNKING was completely intellectually honest and scientifically rigorous, I'm sure the methodology was completely sound! It's not like an EXPERT would ever set out to find a certain answer and manipulate and cherry pick data in order to DEBUNK some understanding they find objectionable or inconvenient...
... and it's not like men and women have trivially observable physiological differences. I mean... it's been DEBUNKED.
Also, hunter-gatherer societies still exist and shocker of all shockers, the men hunt and the women do women shit.
I'm not sure why they downplay the amount of work raising kids is so much. It's fucking all encompassing and there's no reason to look down on anyone committing to it. It's kind of fucking important.
Men's work: go find enough food so we don't all starve
Women's work: stop this goblin from constantly trying to kill itself every way possible and then some
I know, right?! I don't know how the hell our species made it through the middle ages. God toddlers are fucking dumb.
I didn't mean to downplay the importance of their role, but I can see how you might think that because of my phrasing.
No, I didn't feel you did. You were just summarizing it since it's kind of a little more complicated.
Believing your lying eyes.
What did jewish men evolve to do?
Omg I'm gonna deboooooonk!
But did the study check if the women hunters identified as male? They might have been trans! After all, that's definitely been something that existed forever and isn't a modern psychological affliction!
Were there women who were hunters: Yes
Were they an incredibly small minority: HELL YES
Most societies and cultures knew not to risk the women because they give birth, you lose half your men, you still survive. Half your women and you suffer massive population decreases.
It's also why women were more in homemaking roles, because they couldn't risk being in danger, they were put to improve the camp/home. Thanks to automation taking care of those roles, they now need to imply they had more of a presence in men's roles than they did.
Not even just that.
We are physically inferior. I said it. And that is just ignoring the fact we are in a sub-optimal state compared to ourselves regularly.
Like you need zero thought about procreation and how it works (Which... I'm not sure cavemen really understood), yet you would notice that CERTAIN members of your tribe are a fucking mess quite a lot.
Women are optimized for different functions.
For example the pelvis of women allows them to give birth to babies with larger skulls (which is great for babies) but at the sacrifice of leg strength, due to leverage.
Women (in general) have a higher percentage of body fat to lean muscle; This allows them to have the energy reserves to (more often) carry a healthy baby to term with an uncertain food supply.
Women are phytologically different, in ways that make them much more likely to love and care for children and they needy; which optimizes them to raise an incredibly demanding baby to independence.
Men are fantastically motivated to make women happy. Men went to the moon basically to impress ladies and have children. Men run down antelope in their bare feet because someone told them it impresses chicks.
I wouldn't trust a woman to hunt a sandwich in a kitchen, much less trust her to hunt anything in the wild.
Essentially, at a simple level, if a man is slashed across the chest by a big cat, good chance he'll survive, have a few scars and that'll be it.
Woman same injury, dear god the amount of damage that could cause. Better keep them in the cave cleaning up the place while the guys that can run faster, use more strength and survive worse injuries and keep fighting di the hunting.
Really makes you glad to the first genius who decided 'wonder if I can make food here so I no longer need to hunt and gather' though more questioning the guy that went 'I know it's another animals milk but I'm gonna try it'
Considering how dangerous dysentery was before modern sanitation, sucking another animal's tit was the lesser evil. The goat acts as a natural filter.
That's before you account for all the medieval peasants that literally shit in their own water supply.
Kinda sad that knowledge was not picked up from the Romans as they knew the value of clean water and sanitation.
This is my counterargument whenever people claim that the dark ages were a myth. Military technology continued advancing at a steady pace, but civilian (or rather peasant) technology in general was subpar until the early Renaissance. Sanitation was inferior well into the early industrial revolution.
Even the nobles weren't that better off with their moats of literal piss and shit.
Well, except for their Plumbum.
Before major sanitation projects, as population grew, the Thames flowing through London would turn into a near-solid garbage sludge when water levels were low.
London is as ever a massive shit hole, however.
"Create a little dysentery among the ranks!"
-Sun Ta-zoo, the Chinese Prince Matchabelli
Look, milk is milk, and cows respond better when you grab a dispenser and go to town on it. Our ancestors were smart.
It's 50/50 as long term incredibly smart decision
Short term, our bodies weren't used to it so we tended to puke a lot until we built up a tolerance to it.
Seeing your mate puking after drinking an animal's milk and seeing him continuing may make you question if he's making the right choices in life lol.
"He's not dead like Yargus after eating those mushrooms, so he must be doing something right."
Fucking idiot Yargus. Always dying to something.
The Mongols used to do it - when all you have is grass, sheep's and horse's milk are some of the few sources of food fit for human consumption.
Lies, there are no grills on the internet.
Even this measured statement is wrong. Women weren't even allowed to touch spears or arrows, let alone a "small minority."
Throughout most of human history a woman trying to take a man's role would get her a swift beating.
edit I'll add one exception: Spartan women were trained in combat and athletics on the belief that every able-bodied adult should defend the town when attacked, but they were highly unusual for this practice.
It also depends on what you're considering to be hunting. There's not much danger or strength required to throw rocks at small animals damaging the crops.
These people are so detached from reality that I get the impression they've never been around a woman before.
Just look at women in sports or in computer games. Not only they're physically weaker but they also have a harder time aiming and calculating a projectile's trajectory.
Sure some women have hunted out of necessity, as surely men have done typically female jobs of it was necessary. But do you think it's a coincidence that men evolved in a way that is conducive to hunting and fighting, and women didn't?
I'm gonna need a Community Note on this one.
I could take this a bit more seriously if science magazines hadnt been worshipping at the altar of wokeness for the past decade
Everyone is focusing on the hunting aspect, but I'm almost certain the purpose here is on the "women were for domestic duties and children."
This is just a round about way of getting girls into girl power mode with this Hunter Myth, so that way they can force men into domestic chores more to further uneven the gender separation of roles.
Also they straight up drew a man on that cover and are just calling it a woman because it has long hair. The bone structure is clearly male, and the only way anyone would even guess it was a woman is because of the title on it.
That seems to be their entire shtick when it comes to relationships, at least ones with a beta. The attitude is that she goes above and beyond by letting him starfish her a few times a year, so he needs repay her by being her 24/7 slave, both at work and at home. When that doesn't happen she sees him as ungrateful and it makes her even more resentful that he's not the alpha that she feels entitled to.
BELIEVE THE SCIENCE
Exception Redefines the Rule
Edge cases have been weighed as more important than the vast majority of historic and even current observable data
modernartlionizingexception.jpg
R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
E q u a l i t y
There can be nothing special or distinct in certain kinds of people, except for what our betters say should be celebrated. Each individual must be as capable as everyone else.
The world record men's javelin throw is 98m. The women's record is 72m. And the men's javelin is 1/3 heavier than the women's.
But I'm sure the woke sociology majors are right, and women are actually better hunters.
Imagine being this fucking retarded you think a tribe courld rely on someone who is too impaired to hunt 4+ months per year and thus naturally gravitated towards developping other skills than hunting.
P.S. : We can witness RIGHT NOW in the wild totally isolated tribes. The men are hunters / warriors, the women care for kids, tidy the camp and forrage.
I've read, in a reputable source, that there's no evidence for men to be hunters, so you must be wrong, lol
complete and absolute bullshit
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
OH MY GOD.
I'm...
I'M...
DEEBOOOOONKIIIIIIIINGGG
What's a woman though??? How can you assume the gender of fossils without asking the dead hoe what she identified as??? Very transphobic guys....
I'm sure there were numerous women hunters throughout prehistory, after all everyone's got to eat regardless of if they're a man or a woman. But the idea of men being the hunters while the women were in charge of the home/village/children, probably arises from what would happen in a more standard situation where there's fairly equal numbers of both sexes.
have you ever seen a woman try to throw a spear? LMAO. No. They were never hunters. ever.
I mean, spend 1hr at a renaissance fair at the axe throwing booth. men just seem to hit the target naturally, blade-first, after a few throws. Women? LMAO. It's so God damn funny to watch.
There's a reason why women can't play baseball, but play a bastardized version called "softball."
Female softball players are peak fit fat. Change my mind.jpg
Why is that? You would think all that running and standing around would make them slimmer.
Maybe it’s a certain archetype that is more likely to play vs the effects of exercise.
When push comes to shove and the choice is starving or trying, I'm sure plenty tried. And a scant few probably succeeded by sheer luck.
Because that's almost certainly what happened. A catastrophic situation arose, and a random woman hunter managed to successfully take down something through sheer dumb luck and she became known for it for her short lifetime.
Or some bitch got buried with a spear and they are just making wild assumptions again.
Grug bury woman with spear. Future girly men big fooled. Grug’s laugh echo from distant past.
To be fair, most modern men couldn't throw a spear either. I'm meaning in a situation where there's a woman by herself or two women by themselves, of course they would hunt to survive. They wouldn't really have much of a choice.
Humans were persistence hunters. Every failed attempt meant having to chase the prey for another couple of miles at least. Men are faster, more accurate (hand-eye coordination) and significantly stronger. Even if a woman managed to kill an animal, she wouldn't be able to carry it 15-20 miles back to the settlement.
I agree actually. I'm talking more about situations where a woman was on her own or dealing with specific situations where men may not be able to hunt. Men were most definitely the hunters 99% of the time though.
Lone humans don't survive.
Feather-Indians had separate languages for genders, the squaws couldn't even talk about hunting, let alone participate. They weren't taught the words.
You see this all the way across the world with the Chakobsa hunting language of the Caucases, known only to men (shamelessly stolen by Dune).
Just to question the win loss record of those in the Woman King
SciAm turned into woke faggotry decades ago.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One of the plausible hypotheses floating around was that some women were capable of persistence hunting. The gap between the sexes is smaller in endurance sports, for whatever that's worth.
A web search however proves that self-identified feminists are dumb and dishonest, and that the s/n ratio of the modern web is abysmal.
Those comments are insane. Peace and prosperity have been a disaster for the West.
Is that why the Williams sisters in their physical peak lost to a chain-smoking has-been?
Ultramarathons. Men still preform better, but some of the world records are held by women.
You know those stories of people leaving young women as a sacrifice to a dragon, monster, god, or demon? Maybe that is what they are talking about: a weak women is set up as a sacrifice to lure the beast out, then is ambushed by the men as she is attacked. Good job woman, you drew out the beast and helped hunt!
The old books I remember reading were prettty clear about how hunter-gatherer women were opportunistic small-game hunters (up to and including small deer.) Which makes total sense, when you're living hand-to-mouth like every other wild animal, you take what you can catch, because sometimes you catch nothing.
They also tended to be the ones to tend to snare lines.
Recent studies of savannah chimps (which is basically what "humans" started out as), suggest that spear use is more common amongst the females, precisely because they are weaker, and they generally use the spears to weaken small prey before killing it with their hands.
well, i guess one thing they got right without saying it is that men are better at taking care of children and househollds than women
munchausen-by-proxy and all that
And they'll put in their praise for a great bereaved woman from herstory at the end
Saw a funny video of a group of young Lioness attempting to take on Gazelle. Male Lion loses patience and just wades in sacking a half dozen of them.
It's actually far more clear cut than your examples.
Women can't run as fast or as far as men.
The entire strategy of early hunting was to wound then harass a much larger animal. To do so would involved hounding it for days, having to keep pace the entire time. It's a hunting strategy based almost entirely on stamina and is probably a driving factor for hairlessness in humans (more sweat area).
If a woman can't throw, hit, or carry as much, she could still perform a lesser role.
However, if she can't keep up with the hunting party, she's worse than useless.