I remember another "study" a while back claiming a similar thing, so this is really nothing new, just the usual 1984esque rewriting of history (and reality itself).
I felt like having a chuckle so I read the "article".
They state that women have better physical endurance (due to the action of estrogen), and since pre historic hunting was all about exhausting your prey women had an advantage. They even claim that women have longer strides because birthing hips allow their legs to rotate more.
First thing I have to point out is that to illustrate the piece they used a picture of big titted bimbo Raquel Welch in a movie where she was cast simply to be displayed in loincloths for hungry male eyeballs.
The people who believe this kind of shit really look at a pimped out harlot in some shitty movie as an example of their imagined stronk independent cave woman.
But OK, I'll indulge them. Let's say this was the case. Why are women marathoners slower than men? Why every job that requires physical endurance is dominates by men?
What happened to those neolithic queefing rockets?
Did they have their magical vagina turbo sabotaged by oppressive (yet inferior) men?
The goddamn patriarchy can't keep getting away with this...
They leave out that any animal that required a spear to kill, would either kill the woman, or be out of deadly range.. always. Even cave chicks can't throw.
Yet if you say women were more fit to be gatherers because of said stamina and being able to discriminate objects better than men you are sexist. Women don't have self-respect, they want to be men
Lookat dis pasty ass cracka comin up in my house and gettin all Karen up in my face like she deserve special treatment and shit y'all dont understand what black ppl have to go thru on the day to day all cuz yt jealous we got dat nubian melanin what make us kangz. sheeeit.
I think men's longer legs would add a better advantage for stride length than women's wide hips. I bet 5 seconds of rudimentary testing would prove me right.
Strange that the marathon record is held by a man considering women have so much better endurance... Very strange...
Yeah, the fact that with longer legs men will have larger strides is completely forgotten here. Just like the hand eye coordination that TheMerleOfHaggard mentioned.
And even with any possible benefit that a female hormonal composition might have on endurance, it's completely overshadowed by the even greater benefits that high levels of testosterone give you.
I can’t remember where I read it, but a feminist academic once openly proposed that the field of feminist studies should not concern itself with facts or truth but instead should always focus on advancing the feminist cause by any means necessary. As if abandoning truth is not a complete indictment of their ideology as corrupt and insidious. Judging by their academic output, I think it’s very safe to say that their adherents adopted these power games as sole guiding principle.
The rules change 5 times in the last 5 minutes of the game. It's the perfect encapsulation of the female mindset.
Now that I think about it, if the first movie ended with a Romeo and Juliet style double suicide (the original rules remaining firm), the others movies would be set up for a perfect case of revolution.
That's not even remotely solid evidence at all. Just because there's evidence of women carrying hunting equipment and had indications of hunting related injuries does not prove they were actually successful at it.
It's also funny, they claim that the (slower) metabolic differences are going to be more advantageous for women, yet that same metabolic difference is what makes women more susceptible to cold temperatures, store more fat, etc.
Isn’t it amazing how science confirms with whatever trendy left wing message is pushed. Bill Nye all of a sudden acting like gender can only be determined by what the person says after giving the scientific explanation back in the 90s is another example
You don't even need to wait for them to turn to bones. Line up a bunch of albinos and every honest person can tell you mongoloid, negroid, or caucasoid at a glance despite the "color" now being uniformed.
Same with every girl with baggy clothes and a short haircut, but we still know its a girl instantly.
You can definitely tell race and gender from bones. However the data becomes less reliable the less skeleton is actually available which is why we rely on DNA as well. Leftards abuse this fact by creating articles using incomplete or manipulated data and present that as fact while the MSM just repeats it without checking it
Men are physically inferior to women in only one way, and it is the most important physical function that any animal can perform. But modern western women have been programmed to deny and reject that function rather than embrace it, and now we’re dying out.
Previous studies have shown that women are better suited physiologically to endurance activities and sports, which would provide an advantage as primitive hunters.
Laughs in Kenyan hunters
This is such hilarious made up bullshit that they can’t even explain how a bunch of female hunters carried back the kill of larger prey.
One of the funniest things about (female) feminists is their inferiority complex. They know they are not as good at men at men's roles. So to make themselves "feel better" they invent fictional stories to reassure themselves that yes, they are actually as good at men in men's roles.
This argument is more revealing when one maps it on to male behavior. Let's say there's a man who sucks at something and feels bad about this because he wants to be good at it. What does he do:
Actually go out and improve himself and get better at it; or
Just make up a story about how he is actually good at doing that thing and so he feels better.
Most men would choose (1). A man who chooses (2) would be laughed at by everyone. Yet, what feminists (and women in general) do is choose (2). This is because in the female world, what matters isn't so much as actual physical reality, but rather social status. In the physical world, (1) is the only answer that makes sense. Reality doesn't care about the imaginary stories you tell yourself. But in a world where social status matters more, (2) is justified on the basis that reality isn't that important, rather what matters is what others think as they can then be manipulated into providing actual physical rewards to you.
What happens to a society when it becomes feminized so (2) becomes the dominant modus operandi is left as an exercise for the reader.
This is one of the better arguments for denying women the franchise.
Also, what exactly are women legitimately inherently “better at” than men? What tasks, if set upon by both sexes with equal effort, are better left to women? Birthing children and being submissive/feminine?
You could say raising children, but the stats suggest otherwise; single moms generate far worse outcomes than single dads.
Cooking? Virtually all of the best chefs are men.
Cleaning? A purely physical task. Men are literally faster, stronger, bigger.
Perhaps social games, but these ultimately boil down to alpha male dominance.
So even if women were to embrace their traditional roles, their “dominance” in those roles is only permitted by men’s disinterest in performing them.
A truly great woman embraces the one function that no man can ever hope to perform.
I don't there are any things (that both men and women can do) that women are inherently better at than men. Why? It boils down to my previous point. Men are ultimately better at simply focusing on getting better at something, and this can be applied to any learnable skill. The are many male traits that contribute to this:
Being able to be honest with yourself, including accepting that you (currently) suck at something, a key step in starting the cycle of self improvement (whereas a female trait is to tell herself that she is actually better than she thinks)
Male competitiveness, which drives men to continuously outcompete their peers and outcompete themselves (whereas a female trait is to not compete at skill-based tasks, for fear of upsetting her social networks)
Being a bit autistic about something and focusing on it blindly at the expense of all else, necessary to actually find the motivation to spend hours of repetition getting better at something (females do not seem to have the same ability to focus on one thing).
Add to that the inherent skills that men are better at than women, which they leverage to any problem they face, and you can easily see why men dominate everything.
But going back to your original point, I think that "being better at something" is a masculine way of thinking in itself. That's the first thing you think about (I'm assuming your male) because that's what matters in the male world. Being the best you can be at a certain thing.
Feminists and modern women have adopted a "near enemy" of "being better at something" in their desire to take on male roles (a near enemy being an poor approximation of the trait that is actually detrimental), and have decided the only reason they suck at things is discrimination and thus if they tell themselves they are good at something everything will be magically solved. Exhibit 1 for why women shouldn't try to be men, they just can't be because they aren't men and end up doing a half-assed job at it.
So then what at women good at? Well, the answer is staring right at your face. The first thing you thought about - who is the best at something - was a male way of thinking. That's why you'd suck at being a woman - because you think like a man instead of a woman. And so, the things that women are better are related to thinking like a woman. Being feminine.
Actual feminine roles don't involve being the best at something. Do you really need someone who is the 'best' mom? Or 'best' wife? You simply need someone who is a 'good' mom and 'good' wife. The feminine traits that contribute to these feminine roles aren't ones the fit on a simple measurable scale. Instead, being 'good' at these roles is highly subjective and highly situation-dependent. Thus, the female trait she should be excelling at is being able to devote her feminine brain into judging what she needs to do to support, nurture and care for her loved ones. Men are able to do these things, they are able to care for their children, they are able to support their wives but they do so in a different way. Men are capable of being good parents, and good husbands, but the role of a father is distinct from that of a mother, and the role of a husband is distinct of that of a wife, or at least is meant to be. Women are meant to bring things to the table that men aren't able to simply because men aren't women.
There is great value in these feminine traits, not just for raising children, but also in producing good relationships between men and women. Unfortunately, feminists have destroyed this by destroying the delineation between male and female roles. Thus, you have women doing a half-assed job at being men, and men doing a half-assed job at being women. Close relationships between men and women suffer tremendously from this because without the proper balance of masculinity and femininity brought skilfully the relationship, the relationship is shitty.
"scientists" doesn't mean shit. nowadays, it's just opinion articles, often data free, getting passed off as fact.
Previous studies have shown that women are better suited physiologically to endurance activities and sports, which would provide an advantage as primitive hunters.
this is pure bullshit. the top woman marathon running in history would tie for 2454 in the men's bracket with 13 other men. this is just anti-fact, anti-science, femtarded hysteria.
stanford president, harvard president, even fucking dan ariely, all went down for scientific fraud.
Absolutely none of our snark will make a difference in the long run. They'll publish this study as fact, the cultists will repeat it as the gospel truth from muh experts, normies will be browbeaten into accepting it (and some, if not most, will internalize it) and anyone speaking against it will be considered a deranged white supremacist extremist.
And if their delusional clown world ever fully collapses in their lifetime, someone will have to actually go hunting. And he’s gonna share his kills with the “feminist” who has the best body and the prettiest face.
scientists suggests gullible dimwits will believe anything you say if you proceeded with "scientists suggest", especially if they're the kind of people that read trashy news articles.
If we lived in a good and just world, media literacy programs would teach people to recognize these manipulative tactics. Instead, we only teach people how to become more easily indoctrinated.
Scientists suggest the credibility of scientists is crashing faster than global temperatures.
Also lol @ the picture they used for this article. Very feminist.
Meet Cara Ocobock, the author of those absurdly stupid claims. And also a closer example of neolithic bioaesthetics than that header photo.
But scientists don’t even know what a woman is anymore, so what does this even mean?
I remember another "study" a while back claiming a similar thing, so this is really nothing new, just the usual 1984esque rewriting of history (and reality itself).
I felt like having a chuckle so I read the "article". They state that women have better physical endurance (due to the action of estrogen), and since pre historic hunting was all about exhausting your prey women had an advantage. They even claim that women have longer strides because birthing hips allow their legs to rotate more.
First thing I have to point out is that to illustrate the piece they used a picture of big titted bimbo Raquel Welch in a movie where she was cast simply to be displayed in loincloths for hungry male eyeballs.
The people who believe this kind of shit really look at a pimped out harlot in some shitty movie as an example of their imagined stronk independent cave woman.
But OK, I'll indulge them. Let's say this was the case. Why are women marathoners slower than men? Why every job that requires physical endurance is dominates by men?
What happened to those neolithic queefing rockets? Did they have their magical vagina turbo sabotaged by oppressive (yet inferior) men?
The goddamn patriarchy can't keep getting away with this...
They leave out that any animal that required a spear to kill, would either kill the woman, or be out of deadly range.. always. Even cave chicks can't throw.
And the fact that there are still hunter/gatherer societies that exists today, and guess what, the men hunt while the women gather and do other shit.
Yet if you say women were more fit to be gatherers because of said stamina and being able to discriminate objects better than men you are sexist. Women don't have self-respect, they want to be men
They really are insecure as fuck
How dare you, how absolutely dare you. I want to speak to your manager right now.
Lookat dis pasty ass cracka comin up in my house and gettin all Karen up in my face like she deserve special treatment and shit y'all dont understand what black ppl have to go thru on the day to day all cuz yt jealous we got dat nubian melanin what make us kangz. sheeeit.
I simply cannot believe that blackface is happening here. Will no one think about the peeohseas...
“Yes officer, he’s guilty of linguistic blackface!”
It's a certain tribe pushing the idea hard. Women just follow whatever is "trending".
I think men's longer legs would add a better advantage for stride length than women's wide hips. I bet 5 seconds of rudimentary testing would prove me right.
Strange that the marathon record is held by a man considering women have so much better endurance... Very strange...
Yeah, the fact that with longer legs men will have larger strides is completely forgotten here. Just like the hand eye coordination that TheMerleOfHaggard mentioned.
And even with any possible benefit that a female hormonal composition might have on endurance, it's completely overshadowed by the even greater benefits that high levels of testosterone give you.
Discrimination!
Discrimination!
(feminist cope)
It's funny that meaningful biological differences suddenly exist when it's time to throw out some anti-male pseudoscience.
These people stand for nothing. Concepts will be embraced or abandoned entirely based on what bolsters their position in the moment.
I can’t remember where I read it, but a feminist academic once openly proposed that the field of feminist studies should not concern itself with facts or truth but instead should always focus on advancing the feminist cause by any means necessary. As if abandoning truth is not a complete indictment of their ideology as corrupt and insidious. Judging by their academic output, I think it’s very safe to say that their adherents adopted these power games as sole guiding principle.
Have you seen the Hunger Games movie?
The rules change 5 times in the last 5 minutes of the game. It's the perfect encapsulation of the female mindset.
Now that I think about it, if the first movie ended with a Romeo and Juliet style double suicide (the original rules remaining firm), the others movies would be set up for a perfect case of revolution.
That's not even remotely solid evidence at all. Just because there's evidence of women carrying hunting equipment and had indications of hunting related injuries does not prove they were actually successful at it.
It's also funny, they claim that the (slower) metabolic differences are going to be more advantageous for women, yet that same metabolic difference is what makes women more susceptible to cold temperatures, store more fat, etc.
Isn’t it amazing how science confirms with whatever trendy left wing message is pushed. Bill Nye all of a sudden acting like gender can only be determined by what the person says after giving the scientific explanation back in the 90s is another example
You don't even need to wait for them to turn to bones. Line up a bunch of albinos and every honest person can tell you mongoloid, negroid, or caucasoid at a glance despite the "color" now being uniformed.
Same with every girl with baggy clothes and a short haircut, but we still know its a girl instantly.
You can definitely tell race and gender from bones. However the data becomes less reliable the less skeleton is actually available which is why we rely on DNA as well. Leftards abuse this fact by creating articles using incomplete or manipulated data and present that as fact while the MSM just repeats it without checking it
Of course
No they weren't.
Sounds like an objective scientist who simply follows the data. /s
Men are physically inferior to women in only one way, and it is the most important physical function that any animal can perform. But modern western women have been programmed to deny and reject that function rather than embrace it, and now we’re dying out.
I want to run an experiment of how she reacts to all those Men vs Women survival shows.
Especially the parts when the women come begging for supplies in a way that highlights extreme submissiveness and accentuates their attractiveness.
If nothing else, watching her spin all that cope would be entertaining.
Laughs in Kenyan hunters
This is such hilarious made up bullshit that they can’t even explain how a bunch of female hunters carried back the kill of larger prey.
The sprinting after animals thing also isn't how every human hunted, trapping and fishing were also common
Bears can smell periods. How are you going to hunt if you keep being chased by bears?
Tell the bear she doesn't consent to being mauled.
soyentists
Trust the soy-ence, you bigot! REEE
One of the funniest things about (female) feminists is their inferiority complex. They know they are not as good at men at men's roles. So to make themselves "feel better" they invent fictional stories to reassure themselves that yes, they are actually as good at men in men's roles.
This argument is more revealing when one maps it on to male behavior. Let's say there's a man who sucks at something and feels bad about this because he wants to be good at it. What does he do:
Most men would choose (1). A man who chooses (2) would be laughed at by everyone. Yet, what feminists (and women in general) do is choose (2). This is because in the female world, what matters isn't so much as actual physical reality, but rather social status. In the physical world, (1) is the only answer that makes sense. Reality doesn't care about the imaginary stories you tell yourself. But in a world where social status matters more, (2) is justified on the basis that reality isn't that important, rather what matters is what others think as they can then be manipulated into providing actual physical rewards to you.
What happens to a society when it becomes feminized so (2) becomes the dominant modus operandi is left as an exercise for the reader.
This is one of the better arguments for denying women the franchise.
Also, what exactly are women legitimately inherently “better at” than men? What tasks, if set upon by both sexes with equal effort, are better left to women? Birthing children and being submissive/feminine?
You could say raising children, but the stats suggest otherwise; single moms generate far worse outcomes than single dads.
Cooking? Virtually all of the best chefs are men.
Cleaning? A purely physical task. Men are literally faster, stronger, bigger.
Perhaps social games, but these ultimately boil down to alpha male dominance.
So even if women were to embrace their traditional roles, their “dominance” in those roles is only permitted by men’s disinterest in performing them.
A truly great woman embraces the one function that no man can ever hope to perform.
I don't there are any things (that both men and women can do) that women are inherently better at than men. Why? It boils down to my previous point. Men are ultimately better at simply focusing on getting better at something, and this can be applied to any learnable skill. The are many male traits that contribute to this:
Add to that the inherent skills that men are better at than women, which they leverage to any problem they face, and you can easily see why men dominate everything.
But going back to your original point, I think that "being better at something" is a masculine way of thinking in itself. That's the first thing you think about (I'm assuming your male) because that's what matters in the male world. Being the best you can be at a certain thing.
Feminists and modern women have adopted a "near enemy" of "being better at something" in their desire to take on male roles (a near enemy being an poor approximation of the trait that is actually detrimental), and have decided the only reason they suck at things is discrimination and thus if they tell themselves they are good at something everything will be magically solved. Exhibit 1 for why women shouldn't try to be men, they just can't be because they aren't men and end up doing a half-assed job at it.
So then what at women good at? Well, the answer is staring right at your face. The first thing you thought about - who is the best at something - was a male way of thinking. That's why you'd suck at being a woman - because you think like a man instead of a woman. And so, the things that women are better are related to thinking like a woman. Being feminine.
Actual feminine roles don't involve being the best at something. Do you really need someone who is the 'best' mom? Or 'best' wife? You simply need someone who is a 'good' mom and 'good' wife. The feminine traits that contribute to these feminine roles aren't ones the fit on a simple measurable scale. Instead, being 'good' at these roles is highly subjective and highly situation-dependent. Thus, the female trait she should be excelling at is being able to devote her feminine brain into judging what she needs to do to support, nurture and care for her loved ones. Men are able to do these things, they are able to care for their children, they are able to support their wives but they do so in a different way. Men are capable of being good parents, and good husbands, but the role of a father is distinct from that of a mother, and the role of a husband is distinct of that of a wife, or at least is meant to be. Women are meant to bring things to the table that men aren't able to simply because men aren't women.
There is great value in these feminine traits, not just for raising children, but also in producing good relationships between men and women. Unfortunately, feminists have destroyed this by destroying the delineation between male and female roles. Thus, you have women doing a half-assed job at being men, and men doing a half-assed job at being women. Close relationships between men and women suffer tremendously from this because without the proper balance of masculinity and femininity brought skilfully the relationship, the relationship is shitty.
"scientists" doesn't mean shit. nowadays, it's just opinion articles, often data free, getting passed off as fact.
this is pure bullshit. the top woman marathon running in history would tie for 2454 in the men's bracket with 13 other men. this is just anti-fact, anti-science, femtarded hysteria.
stanford president, harvard president, even fucking dan ariely, all went down for scientific fraud.
Absolutely none of our snark will make a difference in the long run. They'll publish this study as fact, the cultists will repeat it as the gospel truth from muh experts, normies will be browbeaten into accepting it (and some, if not most, will internalize it) and anyone speaking against it will be considered a deranged white supremacist extremist.
And if their delusional clown world ever fully collapses in their lifetime, someone will have to actually go hunting. And he’s gonna share his kills with the “feminist” who has the best body and the prettiest face.
scientists suggests gullible dimwits will believe anything you say if you proceeded with "scientists suggest", especially if they're the kind of people that read trashy news articles.
It's like "experts agree" or "A judge has ruled..."
If we lived in a good and just world, media literacy programs would teach people to recognize these manipulative tactics. Instead, we only teach people how to become more easily indoctrinated.
If this was true you would expect to see matriarchal societies with low sexual dimorphism, which is only seen in certain african tribes.
Another outstanding standard of research from feminist science. As good as Femistry, Galgebra and of course Feminist Biology.
In ten years, scientists will say prehistoric trans women were better hunters than women.
The height of martial fighting prowess was the skinny short white girl. Behold, my historical artifact, the video recording of a woman named “Buffy”.
And Shakespeare never existed!
Hunting shoes and handbags
Science is dead. Demon worship propaganda has replaced it.
Something something woke pseudoscience pushed as propaganda.
if they say a pterodactyl isn't a woman they would get cancelled.