I’m not sure this is generally true but if there was a difference it’d likely be due to social conditioning.
I’m not sure this is generally true but if there was a difference it’d likely be due to social conditioning.
I just don’t think the evidence that supports this idea is very strong at all. Like maybe men on average did more hunting than women, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this framing that women only hunted in times of need.
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to know much for certain about the culture of prehistoric humans. But there is strong circumstantial evidence, like women buried with hunting implements, etc. which suggests that female hunters were prominent in at least some cultures.
I wouldn’t consider 9% to be that large in this context. Certainly a difference that would be overshadowed by individual variation.
Even if we assume women are physiologically 9% slower at persistence hunting (which that statistic is far from proving) it still suggests they could and likely were successful at it, albeit maybe not the very best.
I can’t believe so many people upvoted this comment. Do they just assume because there are lots of words and you referenced the original paper that this is a good critique? But I guess a lot of people just turn off their brain when they feel cognitive dissonance.
Do you know what a survey is? It’s not meant to be comprehensive, it’s supposed to be representative. Furthermore, it is based on existing ethnographic data, so it’s obviously not going to include data on tribes that are currently uncontacted, because there is little or none. The reasons why are obvious but since you don’t seem to understand, we can spell it out.
Conducting anthropological research on these tribes typically involves going to the tribe and living with, observing, and interviewing them for an extended period to fully understand their culture and way of life. This is not advisable with uncontacted tribes because it is dangerous for researchers and dangerous for the tribe which may lack exposure to endemic diseases in the rest of the world. It’s simply not done and I guarantee no ethics board would approve such research today.
Furthermore, it’s hilarious to suggest that the authors deliberately omitted cultures we know little about to reinforce their own agenda. How would they even know which tribes the exclude? And, as others have pointed out, even if all of these uncontacted tribes had only male hunting (a fact which would be highly surprising), it would barely change the conclusion here that in most forager societies, women engage in hunting.
Overall, this seems a very bad-faith critique. It’s good to delve into the science and examine whether a given paper was conducted in a sound way, but you need to approach it with an open mind, not just seek to undermine it with the simplest and most superficial criticism you can conceive of that supports your pre-existing position.
I agree that they overstated their point there. But regardless, I think it’s fair to say that any differences between men and women in these sports are fairly small, so I don’t think it changes the overall conclusion.
Certainly a question for the ages. If only there was some way to learn more about this topic… perhaps some kind of article. Maybe one that even addresses this very point. But alas…
Abigail Anderson and Cara Wall-Scheffler, both then at Seattle Pacific University, and their colleagues reported that 79 percent of the 63 foraging societies with clear descriptions of their hunting strategies feature women hunters.
deleted by creator
Well, the theory is that persistence hunting was one of the main hunting strategies during a large portion of human evolution before ranged weapons were invented. So it may well have relevance for distribution of labor between men and women during most of human prehistory, and therefore our evolutionary psychology.
I read the article. But it’s a separate article so it has little bearing on the quality of the one OP posted here. How do you feel it’s relevant?
I think you’re arguing with a person in your imagination more than with me.
What exactly do you think I won’t change my mind on? That the article posted was of poor quality? If so, that’s true. It should have presented the available evidence clearly and indicated its sourcing. I am interested in additional information, but it’s not relevant to my original assessment.
Stupid gotchas have their place in undermining imperialistic narratives about how Taiwan “rightfully” belongs to the PRC.
No territory rightfully belongs to anyone but it’s inhabitants.
Russia is an important geopolitical ally for China. Tension between them is not advantageous at this time.
Also, Americans love dunking on the Russian army, and while it maybe wasn’t as formidable as we thought, it’s still significant. It’s not as if it would be totally free.
A link to it? Lol
Yeah unfortunately they only care when it’s convenient for their geopolitical interests. Pretty much sums up the entire US foreign policy.
Was he? I didn’t think so. I know he lived and worked in the US but many non-citizens do.
There are a lot of ways people can die in a tunnel in war. Friendly fire, suffocation, starvation, disease, tunnel collapse… the list goes on. Execution is a very specific way to die, and it’s extremely convenient to IDF’s narrative about the conflict, and it seems counter to Hamas’s interests to throw away their main bargaining chip. It’s not that I don’t believe that’s what happened, but the minimal details presented here don’t tell a complete story and weren’t even traceable back to a specific source. I’m just looking for a little more detail to fully understand what happened.
And this is assuming the bodies were found where they died. It’s also possible they died elsewhere and were being stored here for use in negotiations. We just don’t know much and unfortunately, will need to depend on untrustworthy sources to find out more.
What a terrible article. What is the source or evidence the hostages were executed? People are saying it’s a claim by the IDF but it’s not even attributed to them. From reading the article I have no idea who is making this claim or how it is supported. That’s not how journalism works.
So much angst about unreliable sources here, but we’re letting this fly?
Edit: Here is a better summary of the available source information. It is coming from the IDF, but they haven’t really said much other than it was obvious to them Hamas was the culprit. We’ll have to see what further information they release.
Oh, you meant the Chinese.
I mean technically all of human behavior is an automatic response of the nervous system. That doesn’t mean it’s not influenced by culture or personal experiences. What constitutes a threat is highly modified by your past experiences, and people can learn to behave differently in stressful environments. We don’t just completely turn off the brain when frightened, that’s nonsense.