Tell me about hunter gatherers /his/. My history professor claimed that men doing mostly hunting and women doing the gathering is a myth and that they did both in equal numbers. Is there any truth to this?
>My history professor claimed that men doing mostly hunting and women doing the gathering is a myth and that they did both in equal numbers
Then you'd better ask her why they stopped, since that's exactly what the modern ones do.
>She further elaborated that even mammoths were also hunted by both genders and the only animals that were not were aquatic ones.
but there was sexism towards mammoths, or both sexes of mammoth were hunted ?
there are hunter gather societies alive today and 200 years ago there were more. All of them had the men doing the hunting. The only thing close to female hunters I can think of are some Australian abo tribes that made the women hunt snakes while gathering
Have a review: http://www.paleoanthro.org/static/journal/content/PA20080091.pdf
Distorting the Past. Gender and the Division of Labor in the European Upper Paleolithic
Tübingen: Kerns Verlag, 2005, 235 pp. (hardback), €39.95.
Reviewed by MARTA CAMPS
Are you basing it off the baby incubator meme?
Do you think the overall hunt being successful was valued over the protection of women (also the lack of food no matter the source would be week to week a more important factor), if more people are there then the risk to the individual would be less for a mammoth hunt in particular.
No, it isn't as simple as that, religion is deeply imbedded in these vocations. Boys would be taken at an appropriate age and undergo gruelling psychological tortures and trials, closely associated with the symbols embedded in their folk mythology, afterwhich they would emerge "reborn" as a man and "hunter/warrior".
Hunter gatherer societies are more egalitarian than agricultural ones. If you were a woman who could do something like hunt no one would stop you based on some contrived social standard that chains your pussy to the stove.
I'd imagine those type of females were however exceedingly rare.
Men are sociologically expendable, this has always been the case. Consider the implications of how its been genetically tested that the average person has far more female ancestors than male.
>Do you think the overall hunt being successful was valued over the protection of women
was actually a pretty bad typo, I meant the a successful hunt was more valued than the protection of women.
>that the average person has far more female ancestors than male
this doesn't show value, only the most likely result, if every man and women only had two children then it would be the same, but if only a few men end up having say 20 children to different women, the closest a woman could come to shifting the balance close to equal would be to have as many children with one man, and the potential number of children a person can have in there lifetime is also weighted towards a smaller number of men having a greater proportional effect.
Yes, gender roles did not come really into their own until the Agricultural Revolution around 10,000 B.C.
Even then many ancient societies didn't really observe gender roles.
Hilariously Sumerian was one of these societies until Sargon of Akkads conquering which enforced strict patriarchal gender roles around the 23rd century BC
(What makes this funny is Sargon of Akkad is also a "totally not sexist" youtube critic MRA who constantly cries about women and "SJWs")
Patriarchy has existed since we were reptiles, males always call the shots and lead the pack no matter what while female kept quiet and made babies. I know some species are matriachal and those species are shit.
Yes, but obviously all existing religious and cultural traditions would be widely different variations from the ones possessed by the populations responsible for the oldest recorded burials.
Bug game hunting was a prestige task but 4 the reality is most non-ag societies got the bulk of their calories from plants and small game.
While we do have evidence in the early modern period of women hunting big game we have to see bug game hunting as men proving to themselves they can get a landfall of meat but again it wasn't necessary for their daily caloric needs
>Welcome to a shit species m80
Hominids are patriachal princess dont get confused because men have a instinct to control women like property and we are praised for doing so as that is the way it should be, these men are called studs or playas.
Yes, because we were all placated bonobos before those evil Akkadians came along
In hunter gatherer times women couldnt fuck around so men forced them to get food or die just as how male lions force lionesses to get food for the pride or die. The male lions are very competent and get their own food just fine but prefer to have the slave gender do its job.
Seems like bullshit to me, given the fact that why on Earth would the male in a sexual dimorphous species evolve 60% more upper body strength, if it wasn't for some external purpose, such as hunting dangerous animals, or defending women against dangers?
The idea that women hunted mammoths along with men, seems like a bad case of historical revisionism.
Anon, it makes sense to send men to hunt dangerous prey. Women are the baby factories so men are the expendable ones. The stronger male who doesn't die can knock up multiple women all the same.
Why does it seem like historical revisionism? IIRC correctly there was a site were a herd of horses was stampeded off a cliff and butchered at the bottom. Would it seem likely that using the most number of people with flaming torches or whatever to stampede and direct a herd to be the most effective strategy?
Sure it would, but you are underestimating the evolutionary value of a female.
Does it really make sense to you, to bring the sex that is literally the caretaker of future generations on a mission where they could likely be killed? I don't think so.
A man literally never gets barren, and can keep having sex until he dies of old age, whereas a woman will inevitably have menopause and stop being able to produce babies, therefore especially young women would be more valuable, and for hunting you would bring young able-bodied people; which would be young men.
It's historical revisionism because of modern day feminism trying to paint women as equal players in everything in history. They weren't. Men are less important to the tribe and therefore get more dangerous jobs. As the other anon said, it's why men are physically stronger.
Not him, but it could be argued that it has elements of both, but it's more likely that it served as an adaptation for survival in the immediate world, than merely sexual selection, because strength isn't always something that can be seen on the body of a human. There are many men who have a lot of upper body strength, who do not have corresponding aesthetic.
>wouldn't it be both
Yeah, if you are sexually attracted to traits that have practical purpose. So using that definition everything is for sexual display.
The anon who brought up sexual display was being an idiot.
I think, given humankind's propensity for cultural innovation, creating symbols, culture and gender and labor roles, that it's far more likely that men were viewed as more disposable than women.
>Nah it's more the people claiming that women would never have been involved in big game hunter ever.
Thinking it is highly unlikely is not the same as saying it never happened ever.
In most countries in the world today, you will invariably see almost exclusively males in engineering, and women in nursing.
But this doesn't mean that historians in 2000 years will say that "no woman was an engineer in the year 2016"; what is more likely however, is that they will say what we said now, that in a sexually dimorphous species, the sexes will gravitate towards doing some kind of work that is related to their gender.
>using absolutes like "never"
It's very clear that you are initiating damage control. You WANT women to have plaid a large part in hunting so you are contesting everyone who gives you the correct answer, relying entirely on semantics if necessary.
The answer to the OP is that no, women did not generally play an equal part in hunting large game, for obvious reasons that have nonetheless been listed throughout this thread.
>implying they wont cook the food the tribe gathers
Women were relegated to house hold labor because they are shit at other forms of labor mainly its their emotional minds that make them a cancer to deal with a work environnment not to mention they are weak as piss compared to men.
Yea I was never arguing exactly OP's point, and I don't 'WANT women to have played a large part in hunting', I just see it as a more likely description of the actual situation back then.
and sorry for the never, accidental strawman
>I just see it as a more likely description of the actual situation back then.
And this is because you think that patriarchy only a modern invention of industrialized societies.
I would argue that it isn't. I am not a particular fan of very cruel patriarchies, but I would argue that patriarchy came into being for the specific purpose of the survival of the species.
It is way more useful for the propagation of a species, to have women sit around getting fat, and have plenty of kids, while the men go off and die fighting for food and game, than it is any other way.
Ask her to provide some evidence. I'd love to know how she got this information on shit that happened during the fucking ice age.
Anyway, judging by what we know about HGs that have persisted into more recent times, that is almost certainly bullshit. She probably made it up or heard it from a dubious source and just decided she wouldn't bother doing any fact checking.
No I haven't mentioned anything about patriarchy, haven't been interested to read anything on it. Other than humans having a moderate degree of sexual dimorphism. Yo do realise that all hunting isn't chasing things with a spear yea? like being involved in the preparation and directing of a herd is a thing, creating pit traps and channelling a herd into an ambush etc.
It's hard to call hunter gatherer societies patriarchal or matriarchal because there was little power to structure. Generally it was rather egalitarian.
It was only due to agriculture freeing up labor for the accumulation of wealth did "patriarchy" become a thing. Even then there was a historical bias for representing societies as patriarchal. Generally women have more control over household and domestic issues and men have more control over external affairs and external affairs are what end up in history books.
but that doesn't really happen in tribes. in the new guinea highlands for example women do the bulk of carrying and building while men stand around in order to protect the village from other men. raising children is for the older children and the elderly. work is for all able-bodied adults
The fact that humans tried to minimize risks doesn't negate the fact that it was still the more dangerous job and therefore it made sense to send men. Women have enough danger in their lives simply surviving child birth.
I never said women didn't do nothing.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was more useful for women to sit around getting fat and produce babies.
Eating a lot of food, and producing babies is not "nothing".
No I don't.
Do you have a source that challenges my intuition?
An animal doesn't evolve vastly higher upper body strength, bigger hearts, bigger lungs, and the ability to run for far longer than their female counterpart, for no evolutionary reason whatsoever.
>it was more useful for women to contribute to maintaining the village
Even with 9 months of pregnancy, and several years of weaning + nursing of young?
I doubt it. But I am willing to change my mind if you have any evidence.
Yes typical for a woman to be delusional about how the real world works always invested in her feelings like a stupid child.
Take a nice look at how women in modern tribes are treated, oh right they are raped daily and forced to get food for the tribe because on their own accord they wouldnt do jackshit.
The males are always stronger in animal life thats just the way it has always been. No surprise the male gender is the one that created all human civilization as well.
>The males are always stronger in animal life
often a hive will have 0 males in it because they're only useful for breeding with the queen at only one particular time. female bees are the ones that work and fight
No, and I am quite aware that women did do something around the village, such as gathering, and domestic laboring in general.
But that's not big game hunting, and neither is it defending the tribe from threats.
The low population carrying capacity of pre-agricultural society and the lay down misere which agricultural and herding people had on pre-agricultural societies.
Your "intuition" is shit.
expendable. Pre-agricultural societies didn't have an oikonomic consciousness of expendability: to expend something society needs to comprehend itself.
>women were sometimes the target of raids.
Do you have a source for that, or is this an "intuition."
>expendable. Pre-agricultural societies didn't have an oikonomic consciousness of expendability: to expend something society needs to comprehend itself.
No it doesn't. Humans react to reality without taking a class. Women don't want to die and men don't want to risk the women who may one day bear their kids or the kids of family members. It's not some horribly abstract concept.
And here is one source. There are others. Conflict between tribes was rarely very bloody and either took the form of a bunch of men showing up somewhere, shouting, and chucking rocks and spears until one side was scared off or the form of a raid for food, tools, or women.
Pregnancy didnt stop women from working, this is a personal example, but, my coworker is 8 months pregnant and still goes to work, she is on her feet and lifting and carrying heavy stuff. Being pregnant doesnt make you incapable of work
She always lives in the 21st century, and in a 1st world country(most likely), not in a sub-Saharan tribe.
But yes, I agree it doesn't make you "incapable", but given that women have the evolutionary value of propagating the species, doing anything other than menial domestic labor would be a bad idea.
Hence why I don't think women hunted game.
>and men don't want to risk the women who may one day bear their kids or the kids of family members
Do you have a source for an awareness of male's reproductive role?
>>your source, page 19, second paragraph, second sentence
>Although it is now assumed that warfare is not necessarily endemic to the human condition (Ferguson 1998)
>humans didn't know how reproduction works until they invented sex ed
And what about the source?
The point I'm trying to make is that if you think it is a new thing that women go first on the life rafts when a ship goes down, you're wrong.
Almost every man I know of, has an instinctive urge to defend women regardless of the circumstances, and sometimes it takes a really retarded form, like the modern white knight.
This type of behavior clearly wouldn't exist if men and women were equals, either by nature, or by societal enforcement.
Most of them have sexual characteristics that are a part of their aesthetics, not behavior.
A rhino has a horn for example, whereas a human male simply looks like an ape with no sexual characteristics other than his penis.
Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness
>Here we report the results of asking subjects to choose the most attractive faces from continua that enhanced or diminished differences between the average shape of female and male faces. As predicted, subjects preferred feminized to average shapes of a female face. This preference applied across UK and Japanese populations but was stronger for within-population judgements, which indicates that attractiveness cues are learned. Subjects preferred feminized to average or masculinized shapes of a male face. Enhancing masculine facial characteristics increased both perceived dominance and negative attributions (for example, coldness or dishonesty) relevant to relationships and paternal investment. These results indicate a selection pressure that limits sexual dimorphism and encourages neoteny in humans.
The neotenic trend in human evolution has been going on for millions of years. the difference between robust and gracile Australopithecus, of which modern humans descend from the gracile line.
>genetically inherited and not cultural
There is another anon, but of course sexual selection is a 'cultural thing' otherwise it would just be natural selection, but there's also possibly interaction between genes leading to certain preferences themselves with a feedback effect.
Just look at peacocks, the tails are actually detrimental to survival (hindrance in flight, waste of energy to grow etc), but due to sexual selection they are much larger than natural selection would have had them.
I'm pretty sure I have the same number of female and male ancestors. I had a mother and father, so did each of them and so on. Perhaps you need to reword that, maybe genitics shows a greater contribution from female ancestors?
Think of species with harems, In one population less numbers of males will have disproportionately more descendants due to multiple females having the same father for their offspring.
>gender roles did not come really into their own until the Agricultural Revolution around 10,000 B.C.
that's exactly opposite to what happened. in early agricultural societies gender roles almost disappeared and everyone was expected to participate in farming and defending your home. it was only when larger villages and towns begun to appear that gender roles reappeared since agriculture had become stable enough to support different roles for different people.
Oh yes, I get that. But each of those individual descendants has the same number of male and female ancestors. It's the difference between the individual creature and the pool of genes that make up a population
I agree that a descendant walrus for instance, will have dna from fewer male ancestors and more female ancestors contributing dna, because of the harem nature of walrus society, with dominant larger males.
But each walrus has an equal number of male and female ancestors.
Is that because I spelled the word genetics wrong? Just have a think about what I'm saying.
You are confusing the genetic contribution from ancestors with actual number of individual ancestors
He most certainly was. I had 2, also 2 grandmas, then I had 4 of each sex great grandparents and so on. At some distance in the past distant cousins start to breed but still all down the line each individual has a mother and a father
What is tool use in animals, including non-primates. how exactly is a specific behaviour performed by one population in a species but not the others passed on to the next generation except through cultural means.
Pic related for chimps
Yes but you were saying that culture requires language, and that non human animals has no form of consciousness and hence aren't capable of culture, what term would you give to the examples I gave if not culture (albeit a very simple form, compared to complex human culture).
Yea, but there seems to have been some feedback loop between culture and genetics in the form of sexual selection than has resulted in this direction of evolution to have been a several million year trend.
It's not like neoteny has no other examples, pic related.
Hey, /his/'s one resident sumerologist here. Care to backup this line of bullshit? Especially since we have written correspondence from his daughter who was likely in a prominent political position as high priestess of Ishtar? And the fact that women were pretty socially elevates in both aocieties? (Literate, could divorce, etc. But naturally under authority of husband and wife as aeen in marriage of dumuzi and inanna, ur3 but attested presargonic by language etc and some examples).
Tldr women had rights, but were ABSOLUTELY under male authority, inanna in the myth is a woman passing from her father to her husband and freaking out a bit like in 18th c england austen novels. Akkadians actually had more interesting view of women because ishtar mattered more and was more of a war goddess than innana, the sumerian form of her. Sargon put in an akkadian ruling class and maxe the religion more coherant/imperial but didnt change society that much.
Depends on which period however in Africa and the middle east where most of the food was small fauna like dwarf hippopotamus' men and women could hunt them. Fish and shellfish were major components in Europe however which were well within female capacity. Hunter gatherers would often drive herds over cliffs and into kill sites because humans can't outrun most macrofauna and women most likely had a role in this. Only carrying large prey back to a base is exclusive for women however most meat would have been cut off at the kill site and women could have carried hides, tusks and flints instead.
Considering that that hunter gatherers mainly hunted by running and tiring their prey out, i think this is bullshit.
When it comes to running (humans are one of the best runners on earth, believe it or not) Women are just retarded versions of men. Their hips are too wide and asses too big. Human male body is considered to be the apex of a running body.
But then again, i don't know. No one knows. It's called pre-history for a reason.
>Patriarchy has existed since we were reptiles
You're retarded. Many animal societies are dominated by females. You really want to make the claim that not a single species we are descended from had a matriarchal structure? Not to mention the fact that many of our ancestors, the reptiles specifically wouldn't have lived in a social structure at all, hence being in neither a patriarchy or matriachy.
Would depend on what they were hunting and how, I suppose.
Among the Aka (pygmies) some women will hunt even when pregnant, and some men will watch out for the children. On average, men still spend less time with children than women do. The special position of elephant hunter is always taken by a man.
Among the Tchambuli, women keep busy with fishing.
Overall, I'd say most protein is gathered by men. In some cultures there is division of labor is less marked, but there are quantitative differences between groups, even if their roles aren't considered fundamentally different*.
*In some ways they'll be different no matter what: war, for instance, is a male occupation.
>Bonobos also dont progress at all compared to the patriachal chimps that even have their females inventing things.
Also, the only non-human to have learned to use fire was a bonobo.
Men's eyes are best for detecting movement, thus performing better in hunting. Women's eyes are best in detecting colores, thus being better in detecting which food was good and which was rotten.
I did for a long time. Learned how to throw properly after years of bodybuilding, put way too much strain on my shoulder from not having done anything like it before, had to rest that shoulder for six weeks afterward. I'm back to throwing like a girl now.
I think the diagram is pretty shit. It makes it look like he suddenly switches from an underhand toss to an overhand pitch. What they're trying to explain is the way a baseball pitcher would throw a ball.
You can see the whip motion they're talking about pretty clearly right here.
That's true, though. All war and hunting would be taken care of by men. It still is, so there is no reason to think there was ever a time when it was different. If you aren't fighting wars and hunting when you have rifles, you sure as hell weren't going to do it with spears. Don't be a retard. The entire premise is entirely illogical.
>hunting mostly requires tracking.
Women don't seem to have whatever cognitive function that allows men to hunt. You can look at driving directions for a modern example of this. Men are just better at orienting themselves and knowing where they are going.
It's really quite blatant that men and women were designed for different roles by evolution. There is no mental or physical proclivity conducive to hunting that women exhibit more than men.
>How do chimpanzees do it?
Chimpanzees are known to be shit at throwing things. They aren't very accurate and their throws aren't powerful. It's still interesting that they do throw things because it displays a certain level of intelligence.
Ask the teacher to back up the claims, or is their "proof" revisionist make believe
Part of the idea of men doing the hunting and women gathering, is based on modern H/G tribes, the Native Americans hunted bison, the men killed them the women moved in and helped to strip the carcasses, same pattern over and over all around the world
Scientists look at the bones of our long dean ancestors, the muscle attachments on their bones tell what kind of life, skills, abilities they had, the damage done to their bones, injuries from hunting, the thickness of arm, leg bones, more stress, more strenuous activity the thicker the bone
They can tell which arm was used to throw, to cut
Men's bones show these patterns, women's don't
Men normally talk to friends, standing side by side, both looking in a similar direction, as you would while guarding, hunting
Women like to communicate face to face, as groups of women do while making things, cleaning foods, repairing, cooking
Men are stronger, faster, women are better at organization, teamwork, caring
Together males and females form a whole, each doing something that makes the unit stronger
The modern belief that everything is/must be equal is fantasy thinking, even in our current society men and women take different roles, each does what they are better suited to
Female and male brains, while similar in structure are organized differently, does this mean they are unequal, no, just different
Same as our ancestors, men and women had/did different roles, they worked together to survive
I suppose they did a fairly decent job, we are still here
The queen bee actually doesn't do anything. It's just the worker bees. Tqueen bee excretes some kind of chemical that stops other female worker bees from being able to reproduce. Forgot what it was. The males are essentially haploid. One major difference,though, is that the queen bee is capable of laying 1000s of eggs at once to replenish both males and females.
>is there any truth to this?
No, your professor has only dedicated years of his life to studying his field so he can casually make remarks that have no basis.
Why don't you ask him about it next class. Say, "that was interesting what you said about men and women in hunter-gatherer societies. Where might I find more information on this?"
And then you'll learn
>No, your professor has only dedicated years of his life to studying his field so he can casually make remarks that have no basis.
Is this satire? That's pretty much par for the course these days.
>ALL women are perpetually 6-9months pregnant at like the same time...like perpetually.
>Your second point is just stupid
>All hunting is big game.
nice one. I think you should lurk here some more.
Anyway this is a huge contrast with human reproducing females that can only have 1-3 babies at once naturally. Triplets usually never happen without some kind of synthetic fertility techniques.
Think about it anon- very early human societies were highly mobile and there's no reason to not have everyone participate in the essential activities. There may be some evidence of this in the following.
>le liberal professor meme
Every professor I've had emphasizes scholarship, and the supreme virtue of scholarship is stating only what is known to have been learned from good sources.
And they all heartily disagree about this or that, but I've not had a single one who was not extremely well read in their field. College isn't high school m8. The gap between professors and their students, in terms of knowledge and books read, is as wide as the gap between an adult and a toddler.
The notion that men were the sole providers of sustenance is the myth. In modern hunter-gatherer societies, men almost universally do most of the hunting in any given group, but women gather, fish, and trap small game, and prepare most of the group's food.
That's absurd. No one would make that claim because we know so little about Neanderthals. Furthermore neanderthals would be more likely to have gender divisions because we have a good idea about their hunting practices being centered around ambush, which is dangerous and therefore they would be inclined to just have the men do it.
They don't only prepare food, in most cases they actually collect/harvest the majority of a group's caloric intake, which gives a lie to the very popular notion that men are natural providers and women homemakers, that our evolutionary history determined these roles.
No because hunting is physically demanding and men have more muscle mass due to testosterone, but don't openly express this fact or you will be falsely accused of sexism and lose your scholarship or worse.
If you're a man who wants to see the hunter-gatherer/male-female dynamic in action, take a woman shopping with you sometime. It gives the men-as-hunters and women-as-gatherers idea a hell of a lot of legitimacy.
Nah, women are just as intelligent as men, there may well be differences in spatial reasoning bla bla but it is mostly to do with motivation more than anything else, proof...
The higher proportion of male hunters is almost entirely due to higher testosterone and muscle mass.
Warning: Don't openly express this fact or you will be falsely accused of sexism and lose your scholarship or worse.