• BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • Fleur_@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Can’t we just, you know, ask hunter gatherers how they do it?

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      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)?

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

        • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

          • ZMoney@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.

        • ZMoney@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    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

    • wildflowertea@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      One of the original supporting data sources was a myth of the Ainu people containing a woman who hunted.

      If you want biased and unscientific sources keep digging into their claims.

  • Pistcow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    So you’re saying women are capable of taking out the garbage and recycling?

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No, you don’t understand, this is all communist propaganda! /j

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    173
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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.

    • cybermass@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

    • xttweaponttx@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        3 days ago

        Stamina and precision are universal human traits, yep. Nobody can toss a rock and then run a marathon like an angry hairless ape

          • Smith6826@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Whether that hairless ape was a man or woman also didn’t matter.

            Yep, and we can all look at verifiable evidence like professional sports and Olympic records to show…oh, wait a second…

            Ok let’s forget that indisputable evidence for a sec…We can look at scientific analysis of dug up remains to see what their body types and structures were like an…d…uh… Huh.

            Ok denying all that open-shut evidence, let’s study endocrinology and loo…fuck.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 days ago

        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)

        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.

          • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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

  • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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

    • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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

      You get to be inclusivity batman

      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:

      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

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I refuted this article when it was published based on their incredibly biased and cherry picked data sources which were entirely baseless.

        I wish more people were willing to apply critical thinking and analysis to such claims. All falsified claims are a setback and detriment to humankind’s comprehension of the universe.

    • kersplomp@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      To say it’s “completely incorrect” is an exaggeration at best. The paper you cited is far more nuanced than that.

      • canihasaccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.