So, men aren;t hunters, women gatherers. Because we’ve evidence of women who are hunters.
At which point, current political correctness:
From a biological standpoint, there are undeniable differences between females and males. When we discuss these differences, we are typically referring to means, averages of one group compared with another. Means obscure the vast range of variation in humans. For instance, although males tend to be larger and to have bigger hearts and lungs and more muscle mass, there are plenty of females who fall within the typical male range; the inverse is also true.
That is indeed true. But then politics:
Before getting into the evidence, we need to first talk about sex and gender. “Sex” typically refers to biological sex, which can be defined by myriad characteristics such as chromosomes, hormone levels, gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen. For the purpose of describing anatomical and physiological evidence, most of the literature uses “female” and “male,” so we use those words here when discussing the results of such studies. For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms “woman” and “man” are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but when citing the work of others, it is difficult to add that nuance.
OK, cool, nuanced, spectrum etc.
Therefore finding evidence that some women are hunters does not show that the mean – or even median – woman is a hunter, male a gatherer. Because as we’ve just said that variance over the spectrum is greater than the variance between the two means. Cool. But that still doesn’t tell is what the mean of each is, does it?
A lot of misunderstandings about the physical world can be traced back to people somehow growing up and achieving chronological adulthood without ever being punched in the face.
There surely isn’t much point in engaging with such dishonest bullshit is there?
But if you must, please subject it to foul ribaldry. Treat it as being the sort of thing the Tuberosum Preposterosum might produce if he were drunk.
It’s the queer, black, indigenous, gender obsessed Scientific American. A once great publication with as much relevance today as Ozymandius’s legs.
A native American of my acquaintance said there was a rule for girly men who didn’t want to go out and hunt or wipe out the next door tribe.
They stayed in the camp, dressed like the girls and did girly things. They were not allowed to marry.
One wonders that no one considered the rather obvious paternity risks. It seems if anything even more stupid than allowing nonces in girls changing rooms.
I will ask next time we speak if butch women were allowed on the hunt (and genocide),and if this also resulted in cases of unclear paternity.
Come to think of it, there are two film series in this for Rocco. I’ll collect my royalties thankyou.
girly men who …………..stayed in the camp, dressed like the girls and did girly things.
Already happening, regrettably also in the armed forces.
……..if butch women were allowed on the hunt
Also already happening. Also in the armed forces. Consequences as expected.
John: A once great publication with as much relevance today as Ozymandius’s legs.
Why so coy?
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my mighty gonads, and despair!
When I was in the sixth form, Scientific American was one of my first introductions to real science. Every issue would be filled with ‘hard’ science articles, often by Nobel winners, and tough mathematical ones (and Martin Gardner RIP). I had a subscription for 4 decades, but cancelled it a couple of years ago after it became full of this kind of meretricious nonsense, punctuated by “we’re all going to die” warble gloaming and “why aren’t there more disabled black lesbian professors of physics” drivel. See also New Scientist, and Nature isn’t far behind.
Is there a disabled black lesbian physics?
If so perhaps its proponents could enlighten us on the question of whether there is also a Jewish physics.
On second thoughts, perhaps they should not.
BiG in Hong Kong.
They stayed in the camp, dressed like the girls and did girly things. They were not allowed to marry
They also had their own, distinctive, Third Gender Native American names, such as Sitting Bullock, Sacaga-heshe, and “Dances with Men”.
Sadly this noble tradition was wiped out due to the white man’s homophobic laughing.
there are plenty of females who fall within the typical male range; the inverse is also true
No there are not. There are few women today who fall into the male bracket, because many men nowadays are inactive. In an era when everyone routinely did physical exercise there would have been even fewer. A brief look at women’s sport shows that.
Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially.
It absolutely exists in all three of those cases. You can sex a person just by their chromosomes.
A tiny number of exceptions doesn’t really break that.
The editorial staff at this once-respectable magazine must have sunk to abyssal lows of competence, given that they’ve actually published this Polished Turd, since it’s obvious to even the most casual reader with actual common sense that the authors have got their basic premise ass-backwards.
And it gets worse from there.
I do love the breastfeeding long-distance runner.. No doubt she ran that distance with the child on her person..
Oh wait… she didn’t… She actually used a very neat “natural doping” trick there, with the help of modern transportation and some helpful staff..
Same principle as erstwhile eastern european athletes, notably gymnasts, and the ..Special Attention.. of their coaches…
The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies …
I suspect that in hunter-gather societies, sex and gender were one and the same. They probably didn’t even have a word for gender. The entire concept of “identifying as a gender” is very recent. Personally I blame Enid Blyton, for coming up with the male-identifying character of George / Georgina in the Famous Five.
There were lots of different tribes and they had varying rules about the girly men including some very unpleasant ones, treating all native Americans as one homogeneous group with the same beliefs seems a very colonial view but is a favorite of the progressives it seems.
The entire 2 Spirit thing was apparently made up a couple of decades ago by a bunch of academics and isn’t some long tradition
BniC.
Maybe I should see if there’s any talk about the abos’ girly men. Haven’t heard of any, but of course I’ve always assumed that what I learned about them when I was growing up was the truth.
Still, I’m sure Aussie academics can be just as stupid as Canadian ones.
If one of these dough brained scientists were to be assaulted, then describing their assailant should fall flat on its face from the get go if they cannot even state if it was male or female.
Chris Miller,
The problem is that anyone who actually knows and can communicate science is just giving away a lot of value writing for one of these places instead of doing a YouTube or Podcast and keeping all the money and control for themselves.
The comedian Doug Stanhope said this about his podcast. He didn’t have to live in LA, didn’t have to tone it down for radio, could do exactly what he wanted from Bisbee Arizona.
One would have thought that a sensible tribe sent the best men on a hunting expedition, not just ‘all men’. The fastest, the strongest, the most enduring. The weak, the lame, the sick and the generally useless will have been left at home. If they existed of course, they may have been discarded long ago as a drain on the tribe’s resources anyway.
So its probably true that the men who hunted were a subset of all men, the best ones, because natural selection and some brutal social selection discarded the rest. So they will have been way ahead of even the capable women available.
Plus of course a woman was not worth losing on a dangerous hunting trip. A man dying here or there while hunting is manageable. Sperm is plentiful. Eggs are not. Losing women like that is an existential threat to the group.