Thought Art

@Schizophonia Yes, I think women really gifted at many things compared to men. Though, men and women have the ability to develop skill through investment, education, training and practice. Women can do pretty well any job a man can. But, would they? Depends on the woman. Looking at whole sexes we can see that women are designed to give birth. Men are not. For a species, both are important for survival. It seems natural the sex that gives birth, has breasts, would be more genetically oriented toward mothering as a foundational function. It would make sense the sex without those functions, has more natural strength, agression, is less emotional, is essentially freed up to go hunt, etc. Though both sexes gathered, fished, hunted. They did and do play different roles in ancient and even modern societies. Our sexes do mean differences that should be observed. I’ve worked with brilliant women, and with women who kick ass at tree planting which is one of the hardest manual labour jobs in the world. But, those girls are outliers. I think the men in that industry are also outliers because of how brutal the work is.

@Leo Gura But Mother Auywaska told him to quit so he did.

I used the 3 Tan Tian model and not the chakras. They are real energy centres. The more you do Qigong the more to cultivate them and develop a tangible relationship.

@Leo Gura Graham wrote all those books stoned out of his mind by his own admission.

@Schizophonia Dépends on the man I bet. Pro-cycling those men have more energy than women.

@Jannes A lot of those hunters were intelligent too. They didn’t just run after stuff. They likely conserved their energy and attacked when it made sense, learned to set traps, bait, ambushes. Hunting requires deep intelligence not just strength. It depends on how the tribe developed, geography and its culture too likely. Humans are intelligent survival machines. I disagree that men hunting makes them superior to their female counterparts. Women played crucial roles in many of these ancient societies I am likely sure. Men being physically more powerful doesn’t make them superior. I fact, these men often hunted animals which were physically stronger than man. Though, I see the importance of combatting male bias in our cultural story, in our older foundational social sciences.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Yes, and she’s bringing in a lot of modern social stuff that to me makes it clear there is a strong agenda in her work.

@Jannes Good point. It’s unclear if the woman did a deep study in how those ancient cultures hunted, what they hunted or how. Not all cultures ran down their prey like a tribe would in an open plein…. Mega endurance might not be required if hunting in a group with intelligent well experienced hunters. In fact when hunting large animals strength and explosiveness could be key… It would be interesting also to look at the context for why some women hunted in some tribes but not others.

@Wilhelm44 She is an interesting study. She is obviously well trained, and extremely light.

Im willing to be wrong on this. I’d rather find out what’s true. I’m gonna set this aside. Please give me grace to admit I’m wrong or that more nuance is required to clearly speak about this.

@Wilhelm44 Those are Ultra-marathons and I’ve already stated the best is a woman. But, at marathons men dominate. The article uses marathons as the example. Men also dominate at Iron Man too, and cycling, and most endurance sport. Small women seem best designed for Ultra.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom The thing is, they are making a biological argument and working backward. Looking at the physical trates, hormones, hips, endurance. I know first hand women are very strong and capable physically, even if less so than the strongest men. But, the article doesn’t consider that humans live in a social environment. It’s not just physical ability that leads to task completion. From what I’ve seen, men and women likely both hunted. But, I’m not convinced they were primary hunters, or equal hunters in all tribes, in all or the majority of cultures. The article is full of issues: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/ At one point it says marathoners female, and powerlifters male. The fastest marathoners are men, and biggest lifters are men… wtf. Men and women can do both. She looked at all these biological aspects of women, and worked backwards to say they could be good hunters. I agree they can be and are. That’s not really good science though. It doesn’t prove how overall survival lead most tribes. She does mention as well some archeological clues, and some example of good female hunters today. I don’t doubt women’s capabilities personally and I push back on them not being able to hunt because they were inferior. I’d like to admit not knowing here, and to remain open. I’m sort of hashing out my process and I’ll take it more personally to read and think about this subject.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Looks like the guy was referring to this article here not the actual paper. https://news.nd.edu/news/woman-the-hunter-studies-aim-to-correct-history/ But, even then it’s odd. Women better suited than men? I just don’t buy it.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Thanks for sharing that. I realize I should have looked more closely. I approached the subject more generally than specific to the article.

@Elliott Your time here is limited if you keep acting out.

Not all men are stronger than all women. This is common sense. In tree planting I met women who kick my ass daily. Even a 17 year old girl. But, none of them were as good as the best males not even close.

They say in the article women were found with hunting tools. This doesn’t prove they hunted. In some cultures the women actually made the hunting tools too. As I read through the article it’s not really showing conclusive evidence of anything. It’s just saying how women could be good hunters. Why is women not hunting equating them to being inferior? That’s so wild. Being a mother, is not inferior to hunting. That’s an odd bias in the article. It’s also odd the researcher wants to show women could be better hunters than men. But they should be focused on discovering what was TRUE.

@Elliott Maybe it’s a good time for you to take a break from here. No one wants what your bringing to the table.

@Elliott Well, you’d have to use discernment. I don’t live in Nazi Germany so I can’t compare. Have a good day man! You like to cherry pick and twist things don’t you? How can I talk to someone who does that? What is your goal here? Is it to beat or own me? Really get me good?

What we should be careful not to do, which I did a few times is over generalizing a historical pattern of sex based roles as rigid rules. Human survival is too complex for that. Even if generally men hunted women raised babies of course that’s not a whole picture and can be misleading.

@Elliott Jared Diamond here. AMA No, but I can say it with high level of certainty based on common knowledge, common sense AND the research I just looked at online. We all basically know that already from what we were taught in school and in our cultures. What I am saying is the common rule, while acknowledging it’s not universal. But, of course there is nuances, examples that don’t follow the "rule", etc. We will find conflicting studies in this space too. I’m willing to take in more views, adjust over time and be wrong. But, I think what I’m saying holds up with lots of evidence…

I will say, in most tribes but not all. Men were the primary (note primary) hunters. In fact most have only history or men hunting according to some researchers. You’ll find a variety of roles and shared roles in tribes and some (though the large minority) had female hunters where they were primary hunters. Edit: My current understanding is:

@Elliott Well, I was wrong. What I said is generally true but not universal. Most people would be satisfied to bring a correction to my attention and have me acknowledge it, adjust my views and contributions to the conversation. But, not you. Your clinging onto it as if I was a liar. That is strange behaviour. This is a casual chat board. Part of casual speech includes being a bit sloppy. Part of the reason I share a view is to see how others respond and to improve my understanding. If you wanna hold on the lie thing. I see that and I’ll conclude speaking to you unless you wanna contribute to the thread meaningfully. A liar would typically double down and not acknowledge they were wrong. Note, I did not do that. My universal statement was not true. Only partially true.

This is a pretty sprawling subject, sometimes I make a post from a wider lens, and sometimes I am too myopic, universal and ideological in a given statement though in my more broad understanding and openness to the possibility that humans survival in many unique ways I am unaware of. I am more interested in knowing what’s true than being right. I am humble in this. Human survival is more intelligent than my initial theories or partial perspectives. I will be wrong on many things. But, lying is not what I’m doing when I am wrong. Again, what is COMMON and what is UNIVERSAL, is so important here. Female hunters exist but are they COMMON? Idk. We would need more research.

@Elliott Not how lies work man. You have an attitudinal approach to these things which is distasteful. You should be aware that saying a view of mine is a lie or retarded is an unfriendly, and disingenuous way of relating to me here. You discovered example of female hunters which I didn’t know. Thanks for sharing that! You are misusing the term liar. And when you use it you are creating unnecessary conflicts. Your also accusing me of lying, which isn’t true. And your ignoring my more nuanced posts where I stress my humility and sharing of more nuanced views of the subject. I’m aware of female hunters and I even acknowledged them in prior posts. Forgive me that I made a too universal of a statement in one of my posts.