Both of my parents were born and raised in the wilderness. I don't mean that they were born in a modern hospital and later raised in the bush. They were born in the 40s in a teepee with the help of traditional midwives.
Dad was a great hunter and trapper and did all the things you could imagine a hunter and gatherer could do.
Mom did the same as well, not as much or as well as dad but good enough to survive on her own or with children. She hunted birds, fished and could bring down gut clean prepare butcher moose, caribou, bear, wolf, lynx and any other large animal if she had to .... when she was a young woman that is. She could also travel, walk, snowshoe, use dog team, paddle a canoe, portage, sail, and survive alone in the bush for weeks or months on her own. In her prime, she was a far better hunter and gatherer than most men I know now including myself.
It only makes sense .... prehistoric hunters and gatherers didn't sit around and relegate women to only do certain things. Everyone no matter what gender had to be capable of doing everything in order to ensure and secure the survival of everyone.
Early enough in human history we weren't even relying on weapons to hunt as much as the fact that despite not having as high of a top speed as our prey, we could literally chase them until they died of exhaustion, that doesn't seem like gender would make too much of a difference in it. We all get out ran by prey in the short term, and we all have the stamina and speed to catch up.
Literally just walk down animals and eat them, like a paleolithic terminator. We could carry water and possibly some jerry/nuts, so could literally go for days without stopping.
Horses can gallop for like a mile or two and maybe go for like 20 without stopping.
And we have tracking abilities. There was some meme about that paleolithic terminator thing. Like an animal would see these weird naked apes in the distance and that's it, they're done. Doesn't matter if they run or not, death is coming.
And we definitely still have that ability, physically.
Albert Ernest Clifford Young OAM (8 February 1922[1] – 2 November 2003[2]) was an Australian[2] athlete from Beech Forest, Victoria. A farmer, he became notable for his unexpected win of the inaugural Sydney to Melbourne Ultramarathon in 1983 at 61 years of age.[3][4]
In 1983, now aged 61 years old, Young won the inaugural Westfield Sydney to Melbourne Ultramarathon, a distance of 875 kilometres (544 mi). The race was run between what were then Australia's two largest Westfield shopping centres: Westfield Parramatta in Sydney and Westfield Doncaster in Melbourne.[8] Young arrived to compete in overalls and work boots, without his dentures (later saying that they rattled when he ran).[9] He ran at a slow and loping pace and trailed the pack by a large margin at the end of the first day. While the other competitors stopped to sleep for six hours, Young kept running. He ran continuously for five days, taking the lead during the first night and eventually winning by 10 hours. Before running the race, he had told the press that he had previously run for two to three days straight rounding up sheep in gumboots.[10] He said afterwards that during the race he imagined he was running after sheep trying to outrun a storm. The Westfield run took him five days, fifteen hours and four minutes,[1] almost two days faster than the previous record for any run between Sydney and Melbourne, at an average speed of 6.5 kilometres per hour (4.0 mph).
And what a sportsman:
All six competitors who finished the race broke the old record. Upon being awarded the prize of A$10,000 (equivalent to $36,011 in 2022), Young said that he did not know there was a prize and that he felt bad accepting it, as each of the other five runners who finished had worked as hard as he did—so he split the money equally between them, keeping none.[11] Despite attempting the event again in later years, Young was unable to repeat this performance or claim victory again.
Huh. Can't help but wonder if this is connected to why a significant amount of people find asses sexually attractive across gender lines - something about signs of a good persistance hunter (likely quite overstated by base monkey brain), and therefore ability to provide for spawn.
Probably not, but makes ya think. I also accept that I'm thinking about it from a heteronormative, sex as biological imperative for spreading genes POV - so limited and overall probably wrong.
Absolutely badass. Crazy to think that folks just a coupla generations up from us had lives without modern medicine and stuff (eg birth in a teepee!) Incredible. I guess sometimes it feels like modern medicine has been around longer than it has.
I think this is just whitewashing history... Even if you look to the ancient Western world, they had goddesses like Artemis
Generally, men fought wars. Like a lion pride - the males are the defenders because they're bigger and stronger. Hunting doesn't require raw strength - it requires diligence, patience, and/or endurance
But they all hunt. Lionesses are known for it, but lions do it too. Complete division of responsibilities is an insect thing
I remember reading this simply terrible article in Scientific American; the entire article was based on this research paper referred to the meme above.
The paper was a complete fraud, and people just guzzled the cool-aid. He'll they still do, looking at this thread.
A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:
Venkataraman et al. find that the paper commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper: leaving out important papers, including irrelevant papers, using duplicate papers, mis-coding their societies, getting the wrong values for “big” versus “small” game, and many others.
"commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper," and, "completely incorrect," aren't very different.
I urge everyone to look up the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. The cultural patriarchy is crazy.
Nobody questions how archeology is influenced by contemporary culture. When archeologists find a grave and goes "the body is buried with weapons and a shield, therefore it must be a warrior and thus a man. And they still fucking note how it's weird that this definitely-a-man is smaller than other men from this culture, and his hips are wide, almost like a woman... But he's a dude, he's got weapons after all!" smh
Do you have a link to that evidence? I remember reading a while back about a find in South America that had female hunters but would be interested in reading more evidence about it being widespread.
I thought everyone knew this. Tasks based on sex were not so prevalent until high cultures formed and people started settling down instead of being nomadic.
Men are faster and stronger. Men don't spend a good portion of their lives growing children and breastfeeding them. So more free time to hunt. Men's eyesight is literally better at picking up motion than woman's and men have better reflex's and hand eye coordination. Men outperform woman in almost all aspents of what it takes to be a great hunter back in the early human days.
You really like that therapy line huh. Look there is a reason we have womans and men's divisions in sports. Men would destroy the woman at almost all sports. If your fragile femininity cannot handle that, I recommend therapy. This has nothing to do with my masculinity and everything to with science and results. Sorry it doesn't work out the way you want it to. Again. Therapy.
Actually, the history of why women divisions arose in sports is far more nuanced than you seem to believe. The main reasons for doing so were primarily rooted in sexism. Historical records show that women were able to compete with, and win against, men in sporting events during the early middle ages.
Anyways, I see there’s no reasoning with you, so I hope you have a pleasant evening
What are you even looking at records from the middle ages for? Humans haven't changed that much since then lmao. All we have to do is look at records from today. And guess what? Across the board men perform at a way higher level in almost all sports and physical activities. What makes you think the reason for different divisions was sexism? if the woman could compete with the men society would let them. Especially nowadays, why don't you see men's vs woman's hockey on TV? Because it would be boring, the men would beat the woman everytime it wouldn't even be fair. This is a really hard pill for you to swallow isn't it?
And looking at you comment history it doesn't look like you have any personal experience being athletic in the slightest, let alone being near the top in a given sport. You are disabled and can't stand without sever pain. I have been an athlete my entire life and so have my sisters. Guess what? I can destroy every one of my sisters at every sport and it's not even close. And they aren't couch slobs, they play sports at a very high level, they just play against other woman. They know they don't stand a chance against the men. We're two very different things when it comes to physical ability.
In any way all of those are just speculations, it's very hard to be sure about anything when you go more than 10000 years back in time, all I know is that in school they teach mostly lies
Personally I find it weird that we do generalities about a this population as it is very likely that they had all different cultures on the tribe level.
You're right in some regard though I still believe taking note of trends is important, don't you? If most pre-record civilizations we find have behaved and lived in a certain way it could tell us something notable about our past.
First of all it's not even sure that thousands of years ago there was only primitive tribes around the globe, many finds indicate that on this planet existed civilisations different and more advanced even than are own, check Velikovsky and Graham Hancock he wrote many books about the subject.
Don't spread it around. It's a complete fraud of a paper for all we know. Just the fact that it has convincing rebuttals is enough to make you consider it irrelevant.
It's not a fraud. Science isn't black and white. Discussing things is a good thing. It's still peer reviewed and not retracted in a decent journal. Not everyone dismisses it. The authors have responded to some of the criticisms by publishing additional information in the linked "correction" (functions like an attachment added later). Science is a conversation.
No, you're thinking of philosophy. Philosophy is a discussion. Science is a process. Just the fact that they are being accused of being misleading and outright falsyfyiing evidence is enough to simply ignore their purported results until they can produce a paper that fixes all those problems.
It's not a discussion whether we can agree on something. The evidence should do the only talking.
This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I'll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I'm pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.
Yeah it's a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I'm like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it's just as academic as "Debt" was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it's a way for critics to get their name out there.
What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn't quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It's transparently personal.
The only thing that might predispose women is when they get pregnant. Most forms of hunting don't require excessive strength. This is not speculation, prehistoric people do not give a shit about your value system or how it imposes itself on science. Animals in animal world be animals.
That's why when you see documentaries about tribes that had little to no contact to the outside world, women are often hunting and do the heavy lifting and men are at home raising kids and taking care of the village while the women are out there. I mean i haven't seen it, but according to this one weird paper they must exist.
Not really, as I don't think any currently remaining hunter-gatherers practice persistence hunting? But in the very loose sense that a lot of anthropology does indeed rely on studying some modern hunter-gatherers.
Isn't it wild to think there are still a few uncontacted tribes which are classified as hunter-gatherers (although they're partly pastoral and horticultural)?
My SO has a theory that if the group of people lived in a harsh environment, ie. having to work for what you had with no guarantee of food or safety, etc, it was common for women to work just as much as men. Such a society needed all hands on deck, so to speak. But, when we start becoming "civilized", and things started getting made for us, (as opposed to an individual making it themselves.) Women and men start having diverging roles. Essentially, there's just not enough work, so womens role turns into raising the babies, to fill the time. Eventually, for whatever reason, "civilized" society just forgot about the hard times and assumes women have always been there just to raise babies.
Disclaimer: This is based on absolutely nothing. Maybe some random information that explain that women did "men" jobs too, once. Idk.
I promise you that there remains 'enough work' in early sedentary societies. The work, in fact, is endless - moreso than in a hunter-gatherer society, which is more reliant on circumstance than labor.
Divergence of roles seems to be connected to control of social power. As men come to dominate one sphere (typically warfare, since the average woman in the pre-modern period is intermittently disadvantaged in that by several months of pregnancy numerous times throughout her life), that power imbalance is used to strip power from women in other spheres (social, economic, sexual, etc).
This was more my take. I mean, like women just sat there and said, "Whelp, there's nothing to do. Let's just take care of the kids." It's not some natural evolution. And, for all the people studying the past (in the past) to just be like, "Men hunt, women gather," is ignoring how women ended up in those roles in the first place. The fact that they needed "evidence" of this is, before comming to that conclusion is...disappointing, but not surprising.
Eıŋtcint Siþıėnz a-ſ hæd ƿimin æz worıyṙz. T inu̇f v æn ekſtent ðæt ðı muıt bı ð beıſiſ f ð Æmėzȯn worıyṙz v ledjend.
::: spoiler spoiler
Ancient Scythians also had women as warriors. To enough of an extent that they might be the basis for the Amazon warriors of legend.
:::
Self-love is needed if you're going to uplift others. Your intentions seem to be in the right place. Meet that with humility, humanity and accountabilty to learn and grow from mistakes and you'll do fine.
One more thing that feels relevant, a sentiment from a friend:
I think that a lot of people on the left are focused on the idea of forgiveness coming from the people who were wronged, but I think that's a misguided notion. It's not my place to seek forgiveness from those I have wronged, and I don't have any obligation to forgive those who have wronged me. I think that the harsh reality is that we live in an unjust world, where justice only exists if we fight tooth and nail for it, and will it into existence with our choices and actions.
So then if you believe what you're saying, be a part of the fight to make our grass the greener
Well for starters the meme is BS, check the other comments. Or just use common sense; there are plenty of traditional tribal societies around today, many of which are well documented. Have you EVER seen a woman from one of those communities hunting big game? I've been trying to think of one for the last 5 minutes and I can't. I'm sure it happens but not a single example comes to mind.
As an indigenous Canadian I can confirm this.
Both of my parents were born and raised in the wilderness. I don't mean that they were born in a modern hospital and later raised in the bush. They were born in the 40s in a teepee with the help of traditional midwives.
Dad was a great hunter and trapper and did all the things you could imagine a hunter and gatherer could do.
Mom did the same as well, not as much or as well as dad but good enough to survive on her own or with children. She hunted birds, fished and could bring down gut clean prepare butcher moose, caribou, bear, wolf, lynx and any other large animal if she had to .... when she was a young woman that is. She could also travel, walk, snowshoe, use dog team, paddle a canoe, portage, sail, and survive alone in the bush for weeks or months on her own. In her prime, she was a far better hunter and gatherer than most men I know now including myself.
It only makes sense .... prehistoric hunters and gatherers didn't sit around and relegate women to only do certain things. Everyone no matter what gender had to be capable of doing everything in order to ensure and secure the survival of everyone.
Early enough in human history we weren't even relying on weapons to hunt as much as the fact that despite not having as high of a top speed as our prey, we could literally chase them until they died of exhaustion, that doesn't seem like gender would make too much of a difference in it. We all get out ran by prey in the short term, and we all have the stamina and speed to catch up.
Stamina and precision are universal human traits, yep. Nobody can toss a rock and then run a marathon like an angry hairless ape
Whether that hairless ape was a man or woman also didn't matter.
Aerodynamics change very little, yep
Literally just walk down animals and eat them, like a paleolithic terminator. We could carry water and possibly some jerry/nuts, so could literally go for days without stopping.
Horses can gallop for like a mile or two and maybe go for like 20 without stopping.
And we have tracking abilities. There was some meme about that paleolithic terminator thing. Like an animal would see these weird naked apes in the distance and that's it, they're done. Doesn't matter if they run or not, death is coming.
And we definitely still have that ability, physically.
Check this out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Young_(athlete)
And what a sportsman:
All thanks to the wonderful muscles of the human ass. I can't help but laugh sometimes.
All at the cost of having to wipe those cheeks
Huh. Can't help but wonder if this is connected to why a significant amount of people find asses sexually attractive across gender lines - something about signs of a good persistance hunter (likely quite overstated by base monkey brain), and therefore ability to provide for spawn.
Probably not, but makes ya think. I also accept that I'm thinking about it from a heteronormative, sex as biological imperative for spreading genes POV - so limited and overall probably wrong.
It's probably because the sexual organs are located there
Dude very literally had ass for days
Ayo fellow Canadians here though not indigenous. Thanks for sharing your story!
It makes me sad how overlooked the stories and lessons of the indigenous people are in Canada and the discrimination still present to this day.
Best comment on this thread
Also, amazing life
Absolutely badass. Crazy to think that folks just a coupla generations up from us had lives without modern medicine and stuff (eg birth in a teepee!) Incredible. I guess sometimes it feels like modern medicine has been around longer than it has.
I think this is just whitewashing history... Even if you look to the ancient Western world, they had goddesses like Artemis
Generally, men fought wars. Like a lion pride - the males are the defenders because they're bigger and stronger. Hunting doesn't require raw strength - it requires diligence, patience, and/or endurance
But they all hunt. Lionesses are known for it, but lions do it too. Complete division of responsibilities is an insect thing
I'll bet she couldn't carry as much meat as a man tho.
I'll bet she could carry more meat than you.
Don't be so sure, I can carry a lot of meat.
This study this meme is based on is completely incorrect and should be retracted. Here's a lay summary of its issues:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/04/new-paper-debunks-the-prevalence-of-women-hunting-in-early-societies/
And the published article detailing the problems with that study's issues:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497
I remember reading this simply terrible article in Scientific American; the entire article was based on this research paper referred to the meme above.
The paper was a complete fraud, and people just guzzled the cool-aid. He'll they still do, looking at this thread.
To say it's "completely incorrect" is an exaggeration at best. The paper you cited is far more nuanced than that.
A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:
"commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper," and, "completely incorrect," aren't very different.
So you're saying women are capable of taking out the garbage and recycling?
I should tell my girlfriend this news!
I hate to break it to you, but She-Ra is less about hunter gatherers and more about interstellar empires with magitech
don't forget evil wizards
I'm gonna use that saying, lol
I urge everyone to look up the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. The cultural patriarchy is crazy.
Nobody questions how archeology is influenced by contemporary culture. When archeologists find a grave and goes "the body is buried with weapons and a shield, therefore it must be a warrior and thus a man. And they still fucking note how it's weird that this definitely-a-man is smaller than other men from this culture, and his hips are wide, almost like a woman... But he's a dude, he's got weapons after all!" smh
I got the audiobook and I couldn’t finish it. I just couldn’t. I felt so much anger.
But what I managed to get through was fantastic. The part about public transport during winter was so eye opening.
Do you have a link to that evidence? I remember reading a while back about a find in South America that had female hunters but would be interested in reading more evidence about it being widespread.
I thought everyone knew this. Tasks based on sex were not so prevalent until high cultures formed and people started settling down instead of being nomadic.
Not just nomadic. Many sedentary societies lack strong gender divisions in labor as well.
Men definitely did more hunting then woman in most of human history lmao you are insane
prove it
Men are faster and stronger. Men don't spend a good portion of their lives growing children and breastfeeding them. So more free time to hunt. Men's eyesight is literally better at picking up motion than woman's and men have better reflex's and hand eye coordination. Men outperform woman in almost all aspents of what it takes to be a great hunter back in the early human days.
Insert pic of Arnie giving birth
You really like that therapy line huh. Look there is a reason we have womans and men's divisions in sports. Men would destroy the woman at almost all sports. If your fragile femininity cannot handle that, I recommend therapy. This has nothing to do with my masculinity and everything to with science and results. Sorry it doesn't work out the way you want it to. Again. Therapy.
Edit: word
Actually, the history of why women divisions arose in sports is far more nuanced than you seem to believe. The main reasons for doing so were primarily rooted in sexism. Historical records show that women were able to compete with, and win against, men in sporting events during the early middle ages.
Anyways, I see there’s no reasoning with you, so I hope you have a pleasant evening
What are you even looking at records from the middle ages for? Humans haven't changed that much since then lmao. All we have to do is look at records from today. And guess what? Across the board men perform at a way higher level in almost all sports and physical activities. What makes you think the reason for different divisions was sexism? if the woman could compete with the men society would let them. Especially nowadays, why don't you see men's vs woman's hockey on TV? Because it would be boring, the men would beat the woman everytime it wouldn't even be fair. This is a really hard pill for you to swallow isn't it?
And looking at you comment history it doesn't look like you have any personal experience being athletic in the slightest, let alone being near the top in a given sport. You are disabled and can't stand without sever pain. I have been an athlete my entire life and so have my sisters. Guess what? I can destroy every one of my sisters at every sport and it's not even close. And they aren't couch slobs, they play sports at a very high level, they just play against other woman. They know they don't stand a chance against the men. We're two very different things when it comes to physical ability.
Its almost as if people need to be flexible to stay alive
No, you don't understand, this is all communist propaganda! /j
Yes, octomom has a baby.
My mom would puke at these, even I feel some nausea. It just was such a horrible time to be alive. I wouldn’t wish these times on my worst enemy
In any way all of those are just speculations, it's very hard to be sure about anything when you go more than 10000 years back in time, all I know is that in school they teach mostly lies
Personally I find it weird that we do generalities about a this population as it is very likely that they had all different cultures on the tribe level.
You're right in some regard though I still believe taking note of trends is important, don't you? If most pre-record civilizations we find have behaved and lived in a certain way it could tell us something notable about our past.
First of all it's not even sure that thousands of years ago there was only primitive tribes around the globe, many finds indicate that on this planet existed civilisations different and more advanced even than are own, check Velikovsky and Graham Hancock he wrote many books about the subject.
Oh lord.
🤭
A fine argument right there!
Uh, the Hollow Earth society completely disproved all your points with the help of the ancient aliens, fam, it came to me in a dream.
Wow you are very clever
Thank you, I sourced it as seriously as the conversation demanded.
Please don't feed Graham Hancock's delulus.
What? It seems that lemmy is already full of trolls
Would be a nice plot twist, but do you habe any sources for your claim? If this is real I would like to know more
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10306201/
This paper has a lot of back and forth. Another commenter posted a rebuttal.
Don't spread it around. It's a complete fraud of a paper for all we know. Just the fact that it has convincing rebuttals is enough to make you consider it irrelevant.
It's not a fraud. Science isn't black and white. Discussing things is a good thing. It's still peer reviewed and not retracted in a decent journal. Not everyone dismisses it. The authors have responded to some of the criticisms by publishing additional information in the linked "correction" (functions like an attachment added later). Science is a conversation.
No, you're thinking of philosophy. Philosophy is a discussion. Science is a process. Just the fact that they are being accused of being misleading and outright falsyfyiing evidence is enough to simply ignore their purported results until they can produce a paper that fixes all those problems.
It's not a discussion whether we can agree on something. The evidence should do the only talking.
Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by Wengrow and Graeber
Different point of view on your “source”, which is a mass market paperback made to sell and be consumed, not for serious scientific inquiry.
https://libcom.org/article/wrong-about-almost-everything-review-dawn-everything-david-graeber-david-wengrow
This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I'll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I'm pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.
Yeah it's a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I'm like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it's just as academic as "Debt" was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it's a way for critics to get their name out there.
Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.
What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn't quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It's transparently personal.
Academics write books. Get over it.
THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT, PEOPLE!
Oh yeah? Then why am I always angry at everyone all the time?!
Boom. Scienced!
\s
The only thing that might predispose women is when they get pregnant. Most forms of hunting don't require excessive strength. This is not speculation, prehistoric people do not give a shit about your value system or how it imposes itself on science. Animals in animal world be animals.
I grew up in Da Yoop. In my high school, our head cheer leader was an expert bow hunter. This "discovery" is not in any way a surprise to me.
That's why when you see documentaries about tribes that had little to no contact to the outside world, women are often hunting and do the heavy lifting and men are at home raising kids and taking care of the village while the women are out there. I mean i haven't seen it, but according to this one weird paper they must exist.
Sources?
Which tribes?
they're being sarcastic, since they find it preposterous that women are people
I used to believe in Social Darwinism, I got better info and no longer believe that crap.
What about Darwin Socialism?
I was actually just making a joke by switching the terms around thinking it wasn't a real thing. There's a Darwin Socialism??
Nah im dumb and my brain just didnt realise that the words are in wrong order
We can, sort of.
Not really, as I don't think any currently remaining hunter-gatherers practice persistence hunting? But in the very loose sense that a lot of anthropology does indeed rely on studying some modern hunter-gatherers.
Isn't it wild to think there are still a few uncontacted tribes which are classified as hunter-gatherers (although they're partly pastoral and horticultural)?
My SO has a theory that if the group of people lived in a harsh environment, ie. having to work for what you had with no guarantee of food or safety, etc, it was common for women to work just as much as men. Such a society needed all hands on deck, so to speak. But, when we start becoming "civilized", and things started getting made for us, (as opposed to an individual making it themselves.) Women and men start having diverging roles. Essentially, there's just not enough work, so womens role turns into raising the babies, to fill the time. Eventually, for whatever reason, "civilized" society just forgot about the hard times and assumes women have always been there just to raise babies.
Disclaimer: This is based on absolutely nothing. Maybe some random information that explain that women did "men" jobs too, once. Idk.
I promise you that there remains 'enough work' in early sedentary societies. The work, in fact, is endless - moreso than in a hunter-gatherer society, which is more reliant on circumstance than labor.
Divergence of roles seems to be connected to control of social power. As men come to dominate one sphere (typically warfare, since the average woman in the pre-modern period is intermittently disadvantaged in that by several months of pregnancy numerous times throughout her life), that power imbalance is used to strip power from women in other spheres (social, economic, sexual, etc).
This was more my take. I mean, like women just sat there and said, "Whelp, there's nothing to do. Let's just take care of the kids." It's not some natural evolution. And, for all the people studying the past (in the past) to just be like, "Men hunt, women gather," is ignoring how women ended up in those roles in the first place. The fact that they needed "evidence" of this is, before comming to that conclusion is...disappointing, but not surprising.
It's called the neolithic revolution.
Crap. They just took it from somewhere else and passed it off as their own. Jerk.
Edit: But then why is this even being debated?
*more than
a feeling
Eıŋtcint Siþıėnz a-ſ hæd ƿimin æz worıyṙz. T inu̇f v æn ekſtent ðæt ðı muıt bı ð beıſiſ f ð Æmėzȯn worıyṙz v ledjend.
::: spoiler spoiler Ancient Scythians also had women as warriors. To enough of an extent that they might be the basis for the Amazon warriors of legend. :::
Minecraft enchanting table lookin ass
So what do men have to offer besides being dumber more violent women? I hate my gender so fucking much.
I would really like it if yhe people down voting Mr would offer a counter argument because I wish I could go a day with out hating myself
You might need to get off the internet for a minute
dont tell me what to do
If you can afford it, you should try to find a therapist. Therapy helps.
I am American so that's not an option
Didnt downvote but ill bite.
Dont self-hate. There's so many self-proclaimed misogynistic chauvanists to hate.
You offer your humanity. That is unique and not about the gender binary.
Your intrinsic traits mean people are more likely to listen to you.
If you're into a long form video essay, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBn5VF_On2k
If your up for a punk song https://propagandhi.bandcamp.com/track/refusing-to-be-a-man
Gender is made up. A social construct used to divide, for the purpose of economic imperialism. If youre up for a book:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781557100238
Self-love is needed if you're going to uplift others. Your intentions seem to be in the right place. Meet that with humility, humanity and accountabilty to learn and grow from mistakes and you'll do fine.
One more thing that feels relevant, a sentiment from a friend:
So then if you believe what you're saying, be a part of the fight to make our grass the greener
You're living up to your user name.
Well for starters the meme is BS, check the other comments. Or just use common sense; there are plenty of traditional tribal societies around today, many of which are well documented. Have you EVER seen a woman from one of those communities hunting big game? I've been trying to think of one for the last 5 minutes and I can't. I'm sure it happens but not a single example comes to mind.
🥚