Egalitarians are incapable of arguing against the obvious statistical facts that eviscerate their worldview, so their only last resort is the NAXALT argument; not all X are like that! Deboonked! There is evidence of 1 woman involved in a mammoth hunt in human history, some women fishing and hunting small animals, therefore egalitarians are right about everything!
I enjoyed your analysis of the published papers. Too often journalists seem to take for granted that a peer-review in an academic journal is de facto axiomatic. However, it's all very strange that anyone would presume that there were never any female hunters. We have a constellation named after Artimes - goddess of the hunt - after all.
The myth of "male hunter" started in Lee & DeVore's book "Man: The hunter", from 1968. That book (specially, the introductory essay) claimed that hunting was exclusively a male task. If women participate, it was an exceptional and isolated event. Of course, real specialists always knew this was not the case, but most researchers and general public had no clarity.
Now, thanks to this new study, we know for sure that female hunting was not exceptional (there is no universal rule about male hunting) nor isolated (because it is expected by the culture of those 50 societies; and could be more than 50).
Yep, we always knew that male hunters are majority and that they hunt more than women, but these are weird statements to bring here, because this is not a quantitative debate, but a qualitative one: do women share the same capabilities (qualifications) for hunting? The answer is yes.
In those societies where women don't hunt, it is not because of "biology", but because of the culture of those societies plus some environmental factors (type of prey, geography, etc.).
So, yes, the myth of the "male hunter", and of the "women gatherer", has finally been debunked.
Women lack severely in cardiovascular and muscular systems compared to men, they're also much less aggressive due to lack of testosterone. How is that not biological?
How about my 2nd sentence: "If women participate, it was an exceptional and isolated event."
The book was not entirely clair about it. First, it said that there was a division of labor (men hunt, women gather), but then it says that women hunting is not an "rare phenomenon" because some societies allow female hunters. The conclusion of the book shouldn't ve been "men hunt and women gather, but some women hunt", but "men hunt and women gather, but in lots of societies women hunt too, so the division of labor is flexible". This last statement is what the new study has shown. Or are you gonna tell me that you knew that there are female hunters in 50 societies around the world? FIFTY. I knew there are some female hunters (the traditional paradigm), but I had no idea they were present in 50 societies (and could be more).
I read the review: there is no prejudice. We all know there are more male hunters than female hunters. But most people in academia and outside academia believe only men hunt and only women gather. Evolutionary psychology made a full time career claiming that the division of labor was so fixed that could explain Western gender differences in career choice, serial killings, among other behaviors.
So yes, there was a myth about it. This explain why there is so much debate around the hew study. There was a myth and anthropologists were happy with the "some women hunt" thesis and didn't bother in being more accurate. Now that the thing has exploded in their faces, they claim "oh, but we never said only men hunt", yes, sure, but they never said otherwise with the proper words either.
On what the conclusion of Man the Hunter should have been, I'm sorry, but the fact that in many societies women also hunt does not at all show that the division of labor is "flexible". Because behind the generality “women hunt too”, we need to see a little more precisely what we are talking about. Do they hunt the same animals as humans? If so, and in the case of large animals, do they perform the same tasks or do they perform specific tasks such as felling? Are they excluded from other tasks, such as killing? Can they use the same tools? This is all that we must look at before talking about a “flexible” division of labor.
As for believing that if the study has been talked about, it is necessarily because it is of good quality and that it provides a new and more penetrating perspective, this is again a very hasty deduction. How do you explain that a study of this supposed quality classifies cultivating peoples as well known as the Iroquois as hunter-gatherers?
Finally, when you explain that “the anthropologists” received their ignorance in the face, consider for a few moments the hypothesis that it was you who was ignorant of what the anthropologists wrote. I recommend, for example, The essay on the sexual division of labor among hunter-gatherers by Alain Testart, a text which is almost 40 years old, and which obviously has some surprises in store for you.
Have you read the article? At no point does he discuss the biological aptitudes of men and women for hunting, but only the sexual division of hunting labor as it was respected and which would have been largely an optical illusion.
Afterwards (but that's another aspect), if the sexual division of labor had no relation to the biology of the two sexes as you seem to suggest, I don't see how the type of prey, geography or culture could suffice to explain it, and to explain the universality of its main features.
~Referring to that One Rabbit and/or other "small game" animal hunted by that one girl whilst the men hauled back a Mammoth to the camp after several days of tracking.
Equivocation is alive and well in Academia! "Hunting" now can be used as a descriptor when some small game gets hunted on the side to complement *actual* food coming in.
Egalitarians are incapable of arguing against the obvious statistical facts that eviscerate their worldview, so their only last resort is the NAXALT argument; not all X are like that! Deboonked! There is evidence of 1 woman involved in a mammoth hunt in human history, some women fishing and hunting small animals, therefore egalitarians are right about everything!
They are not Egalitarians, they are feminist manhaters.
Egalitarianism + Intersectionality = Misandry.
They are not egalitarians though, using that label helps validate their lies.
They lie about being egalitarians to gain political power and marginalize men. They fight for female privilege.
Also a lot of feminists have stopped even pretending to be egalitarians. "Equality is not enough"
To me, egalitarianism is a good starting insult since I consider it to be one of the wrongest ideas ever, but you're right.
It's also worth remembering that egalitarians are not really egalitarians either.... just virtue signallers
I enjoyed your analysis of the published papers. Too often journalists seem to take for granted that a peer-review in an academic journal is de facto axiomatic. However, it's all very strange that anyone would presume that there were never any female hunters. We have a constellation named after Artimes - goddess of the hunt - after all.
So are the people that wrote that stupid? Deluded? Or just plain dishonest?
The myth of "male hunter" started in Lee & DeVore's book "Man: The hunter", from 1968. That book (specially, the introductory essay) claimed that hunting was exclusively a male task. If women participate, it was an exceptional and isolated event. Of course, real specialists always knew this was not the case, but most researchers and general public had no clarity.
Now, thanks to this new study, we know for sure that female hunting was not exceptional (there is no universal rule about male hunting) nor isolated (because it is expected by the culture of those 50 societies; and could be more than 50).
Yep, we always knew that male hunters are majority and that they hunt more than women, but these are weird statements to bring here, because this is not a quantitative debate, but a qualitative one: do women share the same capabilities (qualifications) for hunting? The answer is yes.
In those societies where women don't hunt, it is not because of "biology", but because of the culture of those societies plus some environmental factors (type of prey, geography, etc.).
So, yes, the myth of the "male hunter", and of the "women gatherer", has finally been debunked.
Women lack severely in cardiovascular and muscular systems compared to men, they're also much less aggressive due to lack of testosterone. How is that not biological?
Because you don't need to be Captain America on roid rage to became a hunter. Human hunting depends on cooperation, not on brute strenght.
Men outpace women at both brute strength and cooperation during the hunt.
You are not going to cooperate your way into a deer dinner with no strength or endurance.
Of course there would be instances where women hunt...but it's no where compared to what the men do.
Your 1st sentence is just plain wrong.
Man the hunter, page 74:
"women hunting small animals isn't a rare phenomenon"
Full length citation in this other bit about that study who mostly shows the prejudice of its authors.
(in French)
http://www.lahuttedesclasses.net/2023/07/les-femmes-la-chasse-et-le-cherry.html?m=1
How about my 2nd sentence: "If women participate, it was an exceptional and isolated event."
The book was not entirely clair about it. First, it said that there was a division of labor (men hunt, women gather), but then it says that women hunting is not an "rare phenomenon" because some societies allow female hunters. The conclusion of the book shouldn't ve been "men hunt and women gather, but some women hunt", but "men hunt and women gather, but in lots of societies women hunt too, so the division of labor is flexible". This last statement is what the new study has shown. Or are you gonna tell me that you knew that there are female hunters in 50 societies around the world? FIFTY. I knew there are some female hunters (the traditional paradigm), but I had no idea they were present in 50 societies (and could be more).
I read the review: there is no prejudice. We all know there are more male hunters than female hunters. But most people in academia and outside academia believe only men hunt and only women gather. Evolutionary psychology made a full time career claiming that the division of labor was so fixed that could explain Western gender differences in career choice, serial killings, among other behaviors.
So yes, there was a myth about it. This explain why there is so much debate around the hew study. There was a myth and anthropologists were happy with the "some women hunt" thesis and didn't bother in being more accurate. Now that the thing has exploded in their faces, they claim "oh, but we never said only men hunt", yes, sure, but they never said otherwise with the proper words either.
On what the conclusion of Man the Hunter should have been, I'm sorry, but the fact that in many societies women also hunt does not at all show that the division of labor is "flexible". Because behind the generality “women hunt too”, we need to see a little more precisely what we are talking about. Do they hunt the same animals as humans? If so, and in the case of large animals, do they perform the same tasks or do they perform specific tasks such as felling? Are they excluded from other tasks, such as killing? Can they use the same tools? This is all that we must look at before talking about a “flexible” division of labor.
As for believing that if the study has been talked about, it is necessarily because it is of good quality and that it provides a new and more penetrating perspective, this is again a very hasty deduction. How do you explain that a study of this supposed quality classifies cultivating peoples as well known as the Iroquois as hunter-gatherers?
Finally, when you explain that “the anthropologists” received their ignorance in the face, consider for a few moments the hypothesis that it was you who was ignorant of what the anthropologists wrote. I recommend, for example, The essay on the sexual division of labor among hunter-gatherers by Alain Testart, a text which is almost 40 years old, and which obviously has some surprises in store for you.
Have you read the article? At no point does he discuss the biological aptitudes of men and women for hunting, but only the sexual division of hunting labor as it was respected and which would have been largely an optical illusion.
Afterwards (but that's another aspect), if the sexual division of labor had no relation to the biology of the two sexes as you seem to suggest, I don't see how the type of prey, geography or culture could suffice to explain it, and to explain the universality of its main features.
No. "The male hunter" is not a "myth."
Yes. This comes out of biology, for both sexes.
This is obvious fact. You don't like these facts, not one bit. But they are facts.
"Akteally Guise, We-myn Hunt!"
~Referring to that One Rabbit and/or other "small game" animal hunted by that one girl whilst the men hauled back a Mammoth to the camp after several days of tracking.
Equivocation is alive and well in Academia! "Hunting" now can be used as a descriptor when some small game gets hunted on the side to complement *actual* food coming in.