assumed evolution was acting primarily on men, and women were merely passive beneficiaries of both the meat supply and evolutionary progress.
He was superimposing the idea of male superiority through hunting onto the Ainu and into the past.
This fixation on male superiority was a sign of the times not just in academia but in society at large.‘’
At that time, the conventional wisdom was that women were incapable of completing such a physically demanding task
Scholars following Man the Hunter dogma relied on this belief in women’s limited physical capacities
Today these biased assumptions persist in both the scientific literature and the public consciousness.
“Powers of Estrogen” infographic.
This is quite the charged language and I’m not even halfway through. Throw in a bunch of other stuff about the Boston marathon and gender presentation in movies, yeah this isn’t that good of an article.
Before I’m downvoted into oblivion, we probably all took part in hunting. They’ve found the speed differences in running between ages and gender are not extreme, so we likely all went out running and hunting together. But men probably took on the more dangerous and physical aspects, but everyone with a spear is a more capable unit.
I read most of it, not bothering with full paragraphs when I could see the idea at the beginning, and from what I saw it doesn’t get any better.
It points out that the only physical sport activity they women excel at is ultra marathons. it then goes on to day that flexibility when it comes to family roles was important for survival. And this I absolutely agree with and it is certainly the case that women can hunt too.
But the author just seemingly completely ignores the argument that women can still fill the role, even if there is some kind of specialization that makes one sex generally better at one task then the other. The fact that we are different almost certainly means this is the case.
How can you comment and criticise an article that you haven’t read thoroughly?
I admitted to the amount of effort I put in, then made an actual argument against what they said. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe not.
What did you do? Nothing but an empty criticism. Bet ya felt real smart doing so too.
The idea that ‘males hunted because they were stronger, etc’ was cope to rationalize the fact they are less reproductively valuable than females. Four males don’t come back from a hunt, village mourns- Four females don’t come the village dies.
I’m willing to believe that men hunted more frequently for this reason alone. Women are simply too valuable. I wonder if this is the origin of a dowry as well. Compensation for the tribe or family losing the ability to expand.
I think you mean bride price. A dowry is something the woman’s family gives to the husband’s family.
Yep thx for the correction.
Not always. In Islamic tradition, the man pays the dowry (know in Arabic as mahr مهر) to the bride, who would then own the money herseöf (so not her family or tribe). It can be anything with monetary value, including lifestock or gold.
Men were more expendable but the more important issue at hand was continued survival of the tribe. If we don’t have children we die out in 20-40 years. If we don’t have food, we die out in 2-4 weeks. If a woman was physically capable, she was likely going to be sent out on a hunt, more so if her family were hunters too.
You’re willing to believe that despite complete lack of any evidence for that?
I would never quote it as scientific fact without scientific evidence, but it does withstand some scrutiny. Hunting is dangerous.
10 alive men + 5 alive women + 5 dead women = 0-5 babies
10 alive women + 5 alive men + 5 dead men = 0-10 babies
If that isn’t evolutionary pressure, I don’t know what is
Why would anyone need to cope with the value of individuals in pre-civilization society? These things are not relevant anymore, an individual’s value to society is mostly determined through productivity and wealth now.
Never met an incel huh? If you aren’t wealthy or productive then you need to make up a reason for why you have value to society, assuming you buy into the idea of assigning value to life in the first place - which lots of people do.
Never met an incel huh?
Not in real life, at least
Yeah to the point I’m not even sure incels exist irl
If this village is made up of 8 people, then 4 male hunters not returning also means the village dies.
You need…err…two to tango.
The tribe was certainly larger than 8 people, but the tribe would also require regular births to growing. And in prehistoric times there was a very high mortality rate for children. And the only two ways to combat that is a)provide safer environments for the children or b)have more kids.
A) wasn’t an option since they didnt have the means to, but b) was so long as you had enough fertile women. So losing 4 men is a serious blow into the productivity of the tribe, losing 4 women to a tribe struggling already means 4 less potential births next year. You have 20 men and 1 woman, you only have 1 potential birth in the next 9 months. 20 women and 1 man, you have 20 potential births over.
Child rearing was the only thing women could do, but it was easily the most important thing to the future of the tribe. All other things being equal, the men were more expendable than the women.
Impregnable the women, THEN get eaten by a saber tooth tiger.
Yeah. If even only one comes back, he might be the strongest or whatever, but he might also be weak. You’d probably also want to keep weaker men back at the village rather than on the hunt because they have the lowest chances of survival (thought I think that might be kind of overstated, I think it’s kind of unlikely that everyone randomly dying on a hunt was some sort of common enough occurrence, I think individual instances of tragedies or freak accidents are more likely). If you’re keeping back the weakest men, you’re also going to have weaker men going forward, which then leads to the village dying out in the long term. You also see less genetic variance if all the strong men die and the weak men are left reproducing, which is also bad, yadda yadda.
So I’m not sure I buy the whole like, men are expendable, which is why they’re stronger, or why they’re hunters more commonly, or both. That kind of at face value reads as a kind of macho posturing sort of idealism.
Yeah but it could just be that the weaker men don’t have “weaker genes” but simply got injured beyond what medicine could do, in this example. It wouldn’t necessarily mean the whole village becomes made up of weaker men. After all, the weaker ones are less likely to survive to start with.
So I’m not sure I buy the whole like, men are expendable, which is why they’re stronger, or why they’re hunters more commonly, or both.
Eh, putting aside that parts of the article were not supported by citations, I would say the view in it for me is much more balanced. It would also fit better in the idea of brains evolving (to hunt, we would need more than just physical power, like focus, agility, being smart enough to trap animals, etc). I would be surprised if women, who are still capable of hunting, and maybe hunting some types of animals more efficiently than others, were just kept in the village when the reality is that they all live “in the wild”, and where starvation is a big threat. That would be mismanagement. If you want a good survival rate for a village, you would probably need to send a mixed group to hunt.
Women didn’t just “sit there and evolve alongside the men”, I don’t think we’d have the same intellectual abilities if this was the case. Reminds me of a good book that I need to finish called The Mating Mind, which goes through the evolution of the human brain as a sexual trait.
Yeah. I think the only way someone would sway my mind one way or the other would be on the basis of serious historical evidence, which is somewhat unlikely to come up, since you can sort of speculate any direction as being the correct one. I think it’s also kind of stupid how people like, use this sort of historical anecdote as evidence for structuring society in one way or another, which is kind of some 1800’s style bullshit. We’d be much better off just using modern medicine to make the distinctions, if that was the case, but the vote’s still pretty split as far as that goes and it’s pretty hard to structure those studies in a way where they actually prove anything comprehensively, so I think it’s probably just in the best interest to occupy whichever position is the least dickish.
If this is true wouldn’t that be a reason for a village to send only the men on hunts?
You have to eat, so if a woman was your best hunter you’re sending her out. Young men were almost certainly encouraged if not pushed into being hunters if they showed any aptitude for it, but before agriculture became common, most of the tribe had to dedicate a lot of time to gathering food.
My problem with these comments is that while it’s rational, it’s also just speculation. We have no actual idea beyond best guesses around found artifacts.
This explains why my legs get tired when my wife drags me out shopping…
“Man the Hunter has dominated the study of human evolution for nearly half a century & pervaded popular culture. [But] it was the arrival of agriculture that led to rigid gendered roles & economic inequality. Hunting belonged to everyone.”
That was a theory? I was under the impression Male/Female size differentiation was from men fighting men.
Where’s that damn summary bot
Here’s a summary:
The article “The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong” challenges the long-held assumption that men were the primary hunters and women were the primary gatherers in our evolutionary past. This assumption, often referred to as the “Man the Hunter” hypothesis, has been deeply ingrained in popular culture and scientific discourse.
However, mounting evidence from various fields, including anthropology, archaeology, and exercise physiology, suggests that this simplistic division of labor is inaccurate. The article highlights several key points that contradict the traditional view:
-
Women are physiologically well-suited for endurance activities, including hunting, due to their higher aerobic capacity and fat utilization efficiency.
-
There is a growing body of evidence from archaeological sites and ethnographic studies that indicates women actively participated in hunting in various societies across different time periods and cultural contexts.
-
The assumption that women’s childcare responsibilities limited their hunting activities is challenged by observations of women hunting with their children in present-day hunter-gatherer communities.
In conclusion, the article argues that the “Man the Hunter” hypothesis is no longer supported by the available evidence and that a more nuanced understanding of gender roles in human evolution is necessary. Women played a more significant role in hunting than previously thought, and their contributions were essential for the survival and success of our ancestral populations.
Yeah also I’m really good at gathering
I’m good at gathering mass
You need to start harvesting soon you jabroni
Ty 💖
-
So… What’s the evidence supporting this? It sure seems like men dominate running and are way more interested in hunting sports today.
There is no evidence, it’s simply an opinion piece. Good lord the article does not even list sources, so even if it claims to have supporting evidence, you cannot follow up on it. This just stinks…
And Scientific American, really?
I grew up in the rural southern US. I can confirm that women like to hunt. Maybe not as much as the dudes, but enough that I wouldn’t call it niche. I could totally see a society which relied on subsistence hunting have a lot of women in hunter role.
I live in New York and even here it’s not uncommon for women to also hunt lol. I’d say it’s mostly men but it’s not taboo at all for women
I’ll wait until there’s greater consensus in the field. These papers reek of scientists who have strong political motivations to find the answers they seek, and I’m not expert enough to critique their work.
Really should not be a surprise to anyone. The patriarchy has done serious damage over the many many past and present generations
To anyone who studied anthropology in even an amateur manner, this male/female division of labor never made any damn sense. It’s echoed in so many hominid and pre-hominid species, and it’s even seen an echoes in society today. Men and women, males and females, and all monkey and ape-descendant species share these tasks.
I’m not an expert on anything but I’m reading about how in early human history families lived near each other in groups. If too many males were born and not enough females were born, the group would suffer population collapse and die. When there are 30 or more females in a group this will not happen statistically. At that time the family groups were both matriarchal and patriarchal, it just depended on who stayed in the parent’s home when they matured. Sometimes the matriarchy (or patriarchy) would realize that not enough females had been born and in order to survive they would either steal or trade young women from nearby groups- Those women would grow up in the new group where their bonds were not as strong which led to a weakening of their role of the group. Young women living with their husband in the husband’s mother’s house did not have the power that the husband had. Hunting parties that stole women from other groups also helped with male dominance within the group. Planned marriages today are a way that society balances who lives where, in order to allow production of more people.
TLDR: In matriarchal (and patriarchal) families the urge to prevent population collapse led to a weakening of women’s roles in society because women were moved between groups where they had fewer and weaker bonds within that group.
Okay, but it’s not just size and strength. Women have better color discrimination, better landmark sense. Men have better time/speed sense. While pregnant the long gestational period makes the woman more at risk.
Women certainly can hunt, men can certainly harvest berries, but these other traits came about for reasons. If we were wrong as to why, that doesn’t change the differences.
Colour discrimination sounds super important to finding camouflaged prey animals and landmark sense sounds super important to wide ranging and unpredictable hunts. I dunno dude, unless you can cite experts in exolutionary biology supporting that inference, I’m going to say you’re taking out of your arse.
Landmark sense sounds just as important to hunting as gathering too lol. What even is landmark sense, anyway? Is it a real thing separate from just, like, short-term memory or whatever?
Women are equipped with a stowable over the horizon radar which is used for locating tall landmarks at long distances to triangulate a location.
No way, I’m so jealous rn
They can calculate angles and do trigonometry in their heads.
Are you the real Sprog, btw? I want to believe.
I’m remembering that color blindness is actually really good at bypassing certain kinds of camouflage too. Which sounds like the two would pair well together in hunting parties.
The extra color differation really only includes shades of red.
Landmark Sense
Lol…phew…lol.
I’m not sure how useful that information is, true or not.
There is definitely a subtle “moral-primitivism” that circulates society: women need to do womanly duties, and men need to bring the “meat”. Its a mythos that tries to rationalize itself based on an idea on how prehistoric humans lived (which is also assumed to be the more “authentic” way humans involved to live).
Removed by mod
bruh
feel free to go back to reddit lmao
Read The Indifferent Stars Above and Island of Sea Women and try saying that ignorant shit.
Removed by mod
