• Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
        3
        ·
        2 months 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.

  • Pistcow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

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

  • Smith6826@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did women also hunt? Yes.

    “As much as men”?

    No, beyond any shadow of doubt. Stop trying to white wash over history and verifiable evidence to try and push your personal agenda of stoking culture-wars.

    Unless we’re talking about tribes where the men took care of the children, the above statement is exaggerated at best and borders on anti-history/anti-anthropology nonsense at worst.

    You might as well post that the men spent as much time taking care of the children than the women. And if you can admit that is false for the majority of human history, then you can clearly see how this being false also disqualifies the “women spent as much time hunting” statement.

    Again, there is no debate on the fact that many women were great hunters and not just gatherers, but you also can’t deny that most of the women took care of the kids.

    Looks like I took the bait, didn’t I…smh lol

  • Wild Bill@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    I thought everyone knew this. Tasks based on sex were not so prevalent until high cultures formed and people started settling down instead of being nomadic.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not just nomadic. Many sedentary societies lack strong gender divisions in labor as well.

    • Smith6826@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You can downvote me and science, but wake me up if you come up with a real argument disputing the entire field of endocrinology, molecular biology, and the rest of biology by extension. Not to mention archeology and anthropology.

      At the very simplest way to understand, you do know the difference between testosterone and estrogen, and their biological mechanisms, correct? Rhetorical.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s the anthropology that proves the claim.

        Tell us more about your opinions on high school biology and how no woman ever hunted as much as men in her culture.

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

          Edit: edited out my petty comment directed towards a miscommunication that is now resolved.

            • Smith6826@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              (I thought) the meme implies all women. Oh I understand your other comment now. My comment is only valid if the meme implied all women, and i had no malicious intent.

              If reading as “some”, then yes I fully agree. I guess it depends who is reading it, and I’m assuming it was written that way by design, to get people like us to fight over a misunderstanding.

              Sending good vibes🤙

              Edit: (I thought)

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

      Tasks based on sex were not so prevalent until high cultures formed…

      Like being pregnant and giving birth (as many times as possible), breastfeeding, and raising those same infants while the men are doing tasks that are unfeasible for pregnant breastfeeding women taking care of infants?, like hunting, building shelters and going to war, among other things? (Which some women did, but the majority did not)

      Oh, ya ya, for sure. A lot of people in this thread seem to be sharing the same anti-anthropology delusion. Which is very concerning but not surprising in the age of misinformation. More culture-war BS.

      • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Anthropology tends to support the fact that women and men pretty much all had equal share of pretty much every task in the palaeolithic and neolithic eras.

        You shouldn’t just reject scientific advances because it goes against what you learned at school. What you learned was wrong. Science adapts based on new evidence. You can too.

  • Dimi Fisher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    In any way all of those are just speculations, it’s very hard to be sure about anything when you go more than 10000 years back in time, all I know is that in school they teach mostly lies

    • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Personally I find it weird that we do generalities about a this population as it is very likely that they had all different cultures on the tribe level.

      • Dimi Fisher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        First of all it’s not even sure that thousands of years ago there was only primitive tribes around the globe, many finds indicate that on this planet existed civilisations different and more advanced even than are own, check Velikovsky and Graham Hancock he wrote many books about the subject.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          many finds indicate that on this planet existed civilisations different and more advanced even than are own

          Oh lord.

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

          many finds indicate that on this planet existed civilisations different and more advanced even than are own

          Insane nonsense

          check Velikovsky and Graham Hancock he wrote many books about the subject.

          Velikovsky: “Russian, Israeli and American author, known for his fringe catastrophist theories, widely considered as pseudoscientific by mainstream scholars” (wiki)

          Graham Hancock: “British author who promotes pseudoscientific theories. Hancock aims to erode trust in known facts and archaeological expertise” (wiki)

          Definitely not opportunistic sociopaths trying to distort reality to fit their personal agendas. /s

          Neither have any qualifications whatsoever in the subject of history or archeology.

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right in some regard though I still believe taking note of trends is important, don’t you? If most pre-record civilizations we find have behaved and lived in a certain way it could tell us something notable about our past.

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

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

  • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months 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.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    The only thing that might predispose women is when they get pregnant. Most forms of hunting don’t require excessive strength. This is not speculation, prehistoric people do not give a shit about your value system or how it imposes itself on science. Animals in animal world be animals.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months 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
          2 months 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
            ·
            2 months 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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
            3
            ·
            2 months 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
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months 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
          2
          ·
          2 months 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.

  • Jumpingspiderman@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I grew up in Da Yoop. In my high school, our head cheer leader was an expert bow hunter. This “discovery” is not in any way a surprise to me.

    • Smith6826@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s echo-chamber, culture-war nonsense. There’s a reason men are the vast majority of physical jobs, and it’s not because anyone is stopping qualified women from working.

      Just as an example, in my personal experience, we rarely received women’s applications to work warehouse or roofing, and even less who met the qualifications of being able to pick up minimum 50lbs (not that heavy, approximately 2x 24’s of beer) on their own.

      I’d also like to point out that, while I’m not trying to minimize her impressive achievements, your friend is from modern society, not ancient. She had the privilege of going to school, being a cheerleader and having free time, instead of cranking out babies in the ancient wilderness.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I used to believe in Social Darwinism, I got better info and no longer believe that crap.