MAYBE In this case It is more the "journalist" twisting what a scientist says to spread their BS. Look at the phrase they quoted! "There was no indication that"... Then they spun a fact out of it...
They didnt list the author at the beginning to "protect" them from "harassment". This is the new trend for "science" articles. Used to be the author had to list their name and credentials as well as all proof.
Hey now. Don't be so sure. If the writer of the article is a woman, she could be in a "situationship" with a 10. Just, y'know, one of the dozen girls that's also in a "situationship". For those who need proper English. One night stand. She might be a one night stand and be delusional about being in a relationship. And if it's a man. He might have a girlfriend who just happens to be having a relationship with another man in what they call an open polyamorous relationship, he just has a very pure relationship that doesn't involve physical skinship. Or as would otherwise be known, cucking. I kid, I kid... But it says a lot that this stereotype seems like it could be valid.
Exactly. I can believe that prehistoric women did sometimes hunt, for a variety of reasons. I don't think any cave man would have an issue with their wife chasing rabbits, for example. Or maybe there's some kind of big game that needs a few extra hands to bring down. Or maybe the men in the tribe got wiped out and there aren't enough left to do all the hunting. However, we _know_ men were better at hunting due to simple biology, and for that reason I don't believe for a second that women would hunt as often as men. Even if it was "as often", it's going to be smaller game that's easier to catch and doesn't pose as much of a threat. There's also other things besides hunting that need to be done.
They just are desperate to find something to "oWn tHe cHuDs" ignoring common sense. Some may hunt? Why not, there was NO LAW. But it wasn't a 50/50 activity for obvious reasons. This article just pretends to erase the biological basis of societal dynamics.
@@Greywander87 Thing is, you don't have to look at archaeological evidence. There are stone-age tribespeople living today, in PNG, South America, Pacific islands, Australian outback. Women are never the hunters. There's no DEI in the wilderness. You need upper body strength to throw a spear.
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
Men stopped breeding with those toxic girlbosses. The modern girlboss exists because we still haven't bred out fake crying and the so-called moral high ground from human behavior just yet. So, it set up the opportunity for a few good simps to spend their whole lives trying to resurrect the old-world girlboss. The original girlboss ran faster the fatter she was and had bullet-proof tits which came in handy when the Anunnaki invaded.
That is the crazy thing, is look at physical ability. Men are clearly better at physical fitness which is because hunting. women, to this day are literally less capable at sports even the ones that are female dominated men hold all the highest records. But more artists are women, and they can see differences in colors better than men. Which would make sense if they were gathering berries. It’s almost like we can look at our current differences and make an educated guess on why they exist. if women were better hunters than men, then they would be stronger and be productive towards men. Which they aren’t either of those things, but men are towards women.
Well you scientists pushed for it to happen in the late 2000's. I saw countless people i knew go into stem field who were nothing more than political activists. But it was okay "cuz we gotta make sure the evil religious right wingers never steal duh science!" Lmfao. Welp cool. Now the left stole science. And i think we are screwed as a society. Cuz now you gotta expect poin-dexters to grow a pair and stand up for what's right. Lol yeah right, good luck sheldons of the world. Lol
It is almost 100% guaranteed that scientists didn’t say what the claim is. The study probably says “women can hold their breath longer” Or something random.
@@GabrielBoorom The scientific method reveals the truth when adhered to religiously. Unfortunately, practically every field of academia has been hijacked by unscrupulous individuals for the purpose of growing wealth or pushing political agendas. No different than how evil men leverage the law to commit injustice. Doesn't mean science or law is bad. It means there are bad actors manipulating it for personal gain at the cost of what's good. There is nothing new under the sun.
Well that's not really science ... Historians will tell you what happened yesterday. Sociologists will tell you how everything we knew for thousands of years was wrong and the stuff they made up 50 years ago is correct. Science and History are helpful ... Sociology could theoretically be helpful if they stuck to the pure science without just parroting failed Marxist tripe and passing it off as an actual intellectual discipline.
@@RusticRonnieI saw the "study" before months ago and you're right that the data doesn't support the conclusion. However, at least one "scientist" involved in writing the conclusion DID try to make a baseless claim despite the data. This was done by 1. taking theoretical data and claiming that meant they have more endurance, despite other factors including empirical evidence, then 2. building on this false premise to conclude they're better at hunting overall, despite EVEN MORE other factors and empirical evidence.
There would have been some female hunters but logically they would have probably been in incredibly small tribes with no other options. Because who deliberately puts the person carrying a baby for 9 months in the way of a tiger or ox or what have you if you can afford not to?
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
And that's absolutely false. Made up garbage. The more muscle fibers in the more dense the muscles are and the more testosterone there is the the better the body is able to remove lactic acid build up in the muscles. And also stronger muscles and more muscle fibers equals longer time running due to how long you take before your calf muscles and hamstrings and stuff won't be able to move no more. And then finally the fact that men are able to regenerate stamina much faster because of our hearts being bigger. We're able to pump more blood through our body with one pump versus a woman that requires two pumps or three pumps before getting the same results. This speeds up the recovery process for muscles. And therefore all the stuff that you've read is complete false and garbage if it was true then women should be competing in male sports in racing and stuff including combat because they're able to last longer
@@bowsette1802 i mean yeah its common sense if we look at how other animals treat women and we see that women are mostly built around carrying the child with the man protecting The Woman and child and honestly it makes alot of sense to specilaise to keep Numbers high and procreate so that the man isnt killed or in the case of ambisexual (ik it isnt the sceintific term stfu) creatures having lower numbers and being smaller Unless we include bugs but theres a reason most vertebras have two sexes
Putting women in danger by having them hunt (especially dangerous animals like mammoths) would have impacted the children and reproduction abilities of the tribe. Any tribe that did this likely didn't last long.
I suspect that either the article stretches the researchers' conclusions a lot, or the paper glosses over differences between opportunistic hunting of small game (which the women absolutely did) and organized hunting of large animals (far rarer or not happening at all, depending on the tribe).
@@theonlylauri This "study" seems to be the same one I saw analyzed months ago. What they did was claim because of certain theoretical data, they had more endurance (ignoring other factors and proof to the contrary), then build on this false premise to say this means they're better hunters (ignoring yet more contradictory factors and empirical evidence).
Reminds me of something I learned a long time ago in college before I dropped out. Apparently, some of the tales of chivalry were created by women who wanted to have men who weren't just conquerors, but engaged in romantic activity. So tales of knights fighting for the hand of a maiden, the culture of chivalrous conduct and whatnot may have been fiction created by women who wanted to shape their future suitors. So yeah, stories of knights NTR-ing other knights by wooing the damsels held by other knights in towers or stuff like that and challenging one another in bloody combat before behaving like polite gentlemen to the women, potentially written and made by medieval women to influence the rough around the edges knights of medieval times and spread out by minstrels and the likes for those not literate enough to read. Mind you, this was just what one teacher taught us. And I have no source for what said teacher told me. I have no clue if I should just blindly trust what she told me of course. But I'm not a historian major and I have no real interest in searching for sources on all that.
@@highwindknight Well seeing as how Chivalry comes from Christian Philosophy... I highly doubt your teacher had ANY foot to stand on... Yeah... Chivalry is literally Medieval Knight's putting the Teachings of Jesus Christ into the Code of a Warrior...
Ah yes the "expert fallacy" strategy. Let me guess, the "expert" is Dr. Doesntf Ingexist graduated from S.C.A.M University using the scientific method of I made it the F-up and certified by the Ministry of Bribes.
Specifically it's a fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority. Treats people as if they don't have basic logic, like they can't recognise charred eggs are burnt without a professional chef confirming it. The more people turn toward experts rather than their own senses, the easier they are to control.
@Pan_Z there is an actually scientific paper some college person being funny ( and proving a point ) , its nothing but the word meow over and over for pages and pages. you can look it up .
@@trainerwolfofhoenn Also a matter of the climate scientists operate in not being without its bias & restrictions. You can find how gender activists have prevented multiple studies on puberty blockers and gender dysphoria from being published, as an example.
You kinda assume here that hunting was a dangerous job. If you're smart (and let's assume that smart people survive, Survival of the Fittest) you hunt safely. I know we all love those images of groups of men hunting whoolly mammoths, but let's be real: you can survive much easier on rabbits.
@@annekekramer3835 Even if you hunt just small game, guess what. The other predators still live in the forest. Not to mention other accidents that can happen when you venture too far from familiar areas. Don't be so intellectually dishonest next time.
@@annekekramer3835 There is no such thing as "hunt safely", even using modern tools and methods. Hunting accidents happen literally all the time. The closest you can get to "hunt safely" is trapping, and even that comes with the inherent risk of venturing away from the safety of the group. All it takes is being bitten by the wrong snake and you are a dead person walking.
@@annekekramer3835 - Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt. Born and raised in Alaska, and let me tell you, the Animals are rarely the most dangerous part of the hunt. It's the weather. The environment. The constantly changing conditions and being unprepared for the unknown.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin While Yes some Woman did hunt, that was mostly in Smaller Tribes where they just didn't have enough Men. Men have been and will Always be Better hunters, this can Not be Disputed No Matter what.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin No, women did not in fact hunt as well. The primitive woman was either too young to hunt or too pregnant. These tribes also have not remained uncontacted by the modern world and its advances, and the surrounding fauna is not as big as what our primitive ancestors had to deal with.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin "...didn't hunt the same games men hunted. ...hunted small games... hunted less often than men. ...only by driving games towards men" Yeah so if woman took risks, it would put her children at risk.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblinis that why women have an easier time with colour differentiation but struggle with shading gradients aka l camouflage. The former highly useful for telling plants apart, the latter for avoiding predator ambushed and setting your own. I'll tell ya, as a female autist I struggle with colour differences. But I sure can spot that rattle snake hiding.
@BreezeOTM Are you thinking of the Scottish woman with blond hair who was the loudest voice on not being told what to do? I bet if the men had found that snake, they would have caught it and ate it later.
Women also have wider peripheral sight, important in base defense Men tend to see sharply at further distances, important in hunting Both genders had a role and the only reason were here today is because our ancestors fucking nailed it
“Hey guys, you know that thing they spent hundreds of years researching and officially determined as scientific fact decades ago? Yeah it’s different now for political reasons”
Nyet, comrade. The party's historical records show that throughout history every scientific study ever conducted was always shown women to be superior to men in every single way. Do not continue to repeat these lies by the enemy of the people... do you want to go to gulag?
Men have more rods in their eyes, women have more cones. That means men see motion better, women see color better. This backs up men hunted more and women picked berries more.
There you people go again with your SCIENCE and LOGIC... Can't you just understand that maybe these prehistoric womxn identified as superior hunters? Don't you see that would immediately make their eyes, muscles and brain far better than any man's? 🤡
@@tyranidswarmlord9722 There was a stand up routine along those lines: Men are used to seeing a fly at 200 m because we were hunters ... that is why we never see the jar in the fridge :))
@@psychosytheXmediaXco the pointy stick is the simplest weapon in Man's arsenal, how much training does it take to hit something bigger than your mud hut? Adequacy is more than sufficient.
You can pay a scientists to come up with ideological theories, just like you can pay a coronor to falsify evidence to benefit lawsuits and criminal investigations.
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
I didnt know there was baby formula, day care, and grocery stores in prehistoric times. Women were pregnant by 16 back then, as the average life expectancy was early 30's. Babies either drank their mothers milk, or starved because there was no baby food or baby formula. And there were no fridges, so the milk had to come straight from the source. So women had to stay home or the babies starved. There also were no doctors, cops, or EMS, so kids had to be watched constantly. A broken arm could be fatal. Food prep took hours if not multiple days. There was no grocery store or fast food restaurant. You wanted a hamburger, you had to slaughter the cow yourself. As women HAD to stay home to raise the babies or they starved, it made sense that women took care of the immense amount of house work while men travelled long distances to hunt. Any tribe that tried the other way around did not have children that survived. All the conveniences that allow women the freedom to have kids and a career at the same time are all only a hundred years old or less.
To be fair, average life expectancy was so low because of child mortality. Many children were dying before the age of 10 and that was up until the 19th century, when proper medicine got redistributed to the population. So if 2 children died at the age of 5 and 2 people lived to their 60s, the average age would be around 30-35.
Their entire existence was predicated on having men able to provide warmth, calories and protection, same as it is now, it's just men have conquered the planet and built infrastructure that women just don't see that it is still on maintained on the blood and sweat of men.
There's an entirely throw-away type of line said by some Priory (game faction related to research and exploration) NPC's if you click on them in Guild Wars 2 that's always stuck with me, even though I stopped playing the game many years ago: "History doesn't lie. Historians, however..." I believe the same can be said about scientists.
According to scientist jumping of a bridge or cliff, not only decreases your global carbon footprint significantly, but also raises the average IQ by a lot.
It's funny how relatively recently, the same kinds of people were saying how women did pick berries, because they have superior eyesight and can see more colors, or some shit like that, and now this.
I hate this "scientists say" phrase, because people get the wrong ideas from it Yes, some scientists may say that and they might be bloody wrong about it
Whenever I hear the phrase my brain immediately asks, who said that? They have names damn it! The answer is almost always, "nobody said that except the journalist who has no idea what the hell they're talking about".
Usually when they say 'scientists' what they mean is one or two complete fruit loops who hyper focus on a discovery or two that 'proves' their hypothesis while ignoring all other evidence which points to the contrary. There will be a discovery of a grave of a prehistoric female which would contain a spear and from this these 'scientists' will extrapolate that there were entire tribes of female hunters running around.
Reminds me of some translation debate about a book. A female researchers came up with a different interpretation of some parts that was feminist and contradicted previous classicist interpretations. And, of course, the people that liked her view pushed it as the correct interpretation over those secist men. Just because you're new insight is edgy doesn't make it more valid. That's why the whole field has to agree on some consensus.
It makes perfect sense. Every tribe probably had at least one woman who instead of picking the berries rubbed the blue ones in her hair and complained all the time. Sending her off to die in a hunt was for the benefit of everyone else. We're dealing with the consequences of a society that let them survive and with technology that allowed them to communicate with each other and form groups.
I have seen almost a dozen sponsored posts on my fb timeline about this subject from various "science journalists" (quacks). The idea that primitive women were hunters like primitive men is a form of presentism that can only be held by someone who is thoroughly urbanized and modern. Women today can hunt if they want to because they have access to hygiene products and medicine that we didn't always have. A lot can go wrong during a hunt, even a scraped knee could infect and fester because they had no conception of disinfectant or antibiotic. If a woman hunted, it meant something terrible has happened to her tribe and she was desperate to survive.
even female hunters state this study is nonsense. they would state most women don't have the mental fortitude to kill a living animal for food unless forced to. plus primitive hunting would require strength to bring back a big animal. for things were they chased say a mammoth into a ravine then the women would likely take part especially to chop the beast apart but usually for deer, bears etc a single male or several males would work at that.
With cavewomen also saying: ,,How dare you come this close to my kids!?" (Remember, times were different back then. Women believed that motherhood was their whole sense of existence and would go to very, very far lengths to protect their kids. Protective instinct, that is present in other animals as well.)
Times were simpler back then. Back then, we either unga'd to become one with the bunga or we didn't and perished. Modern politics had no place back in the day.
Very careful addition of the word "strict" to make it technically true, but misleading. "They didn't have explicit rules against it. It basically never happened BUT THEY WEREN'T STRICT ABOUT IT!"
Exactly, women hunted the real animals like mammoths and tigers and dinosaurs and men waited for rabbits to walk in the snare traps and pretented that made them hunters too.
Oldest mention of people in my family is from the 1600s as that is the time church started keeping records aboutt common folks. Older records exist only for nobility here. My ancestor was a moose hunter who lived in a tiny cabin close to the arctic circle and used skiis to ski after the moose for hundreds of kilometers until the thing dropped from exhaustion. He then killed it and dragged it back the same hundreds of kilometers and divided the meat with the people close by w/barter system. I have some doubts my grandmothers did this as they had other very serious stuff to contend at home like surviving and trying their best to make it so the kids survive.
Once you read the study you see how they came to this conclusion. They didnt use any data earlier than the 1800s. Typical modern rifle existed at this point. They chose very specific areas. They chose frontier type situations where people were just settling the area. They didnt include how often they hunted. It was also shown they mainly hunted with men as an extra shot. When hunting alone it was mainly for rabbits/squirrels. So... not exactly prehistoric... 1800s through modern day.
My dudes were literally chasing down wounded animals or corralling them into ambushes. They’re not making sure they have at least 2 women on the team and leaving behind two faster, stronger males
I remember hearing hearing about that. A history youtuber I watch called Metatron did a great video debunking articles saying that prehistoric women hunted as often as men and were better suited for it.
Honestly that’s just a modern Disney movie waiting to happen. Young girlboss cave girl knows she’s just as good if not better than the cavemen. Her dad and brother mock her until she invents the bow and catches bigger game than any of the others because she’s awesome and smart because just being big and strong is so lame until some sort of super evil bad monster shows up and she has to be the one to rally everyone and outsmart the creature and then she becomes the new tribal chief (a girl as a tribal chief for the time in history) and now all the other cave girls look up to her and emulate her. Film ends with her dad and brother telling her she was always right and how they should’ve listened to her.
This makes Me think of that tv show years ago, where they sent a group of men, and a group of women to a tropical island to see which group did better. If You saw that, or parts of it, laugh with Me now.🤣
"Women are better hunters" remember that survival show where the men group were doing just fine, meanwhile the women were starving and crying until they moved to the men group?
I can buy that for endurance hunting or small game near camp, but no way in hell were the women hunting anything large, and certainly not on their own. Anyone who’s hunted can tell you how much dead weight a deer carcass is.
People today: “B-b-but my gender roles! And the average muscle mass!!!” Neanderthals, probably: “Grogette no have baby. She and Thog go pick fruits then hunt mammoth.”
As a genetics major, this is just sad. But then remembering it now, even 15 years ago, dumb theories like this were already taking shape. The best one I could remember was "mitochondrial genes were only passed down from mothers, therefore women are stronger than men!".
Women hunted more often than we previously thought, sure. But saying they did it more than men or were better at it is like saying men are better at breastfeeding.
@@toomanyaccounts Or they hunted very small game such as birds or rabbits using throwing sticks. More likely, if they did hunt, they used snares, which isn't really hunting, but trapping.
Archeologists: Let's take these three or for exceptions to a rule, ignore all other examples, and forget the fact that this is the least optimal choice based on common sense and biology. Sane People: No
Reading the article, they make some wild leaps in logic, like wide hips = longer strides therefore women are naturally better at endurance running, and female fossils show an equal number of traumatic injuries between men and women consistent with modern day rodeo injuries, therefore they must have done equal amounts of hunting.
What do you think prehistory woman were doing when men are out hunting. picking berries and defending the caves? from whom? we killed all that killed us! the woman out hunted too not all of them but they definitely were hunting and even perhaps even better hunters!
I am open to the argument of a woman being a good hunter, but I think it is way more situational than that. For example, if their child was sick or needed food or medicine, they would be like a ninja made of knife tornados. Humans are wired to be motivated around specific frequencies of crying children. Now, in a group setting I believe it was typically teams of males working together with a lot of risk. I dont find it likely that mothers would be out hunting the same way. In specific ways, a mixed gender hunting group would be pretty OP. Men have the depth perception, woman have the multitasking and timing skills to execute a plan on timing.
Put boys and girls on a camping trip and you'll see. Most of one will organize the camp, most of the other will explore ready for adventure. Mother nature designed us this way. If anything it's a matriarchy.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Her: "I'm a scientist!"
Me: "What's your PHD?"
Her: "Gender studies!"
MAYBE In this case It is more the "journalist" twisting what a scientist says to spread their BS.
Look at the phrase they quoted! "There was no indication that"... Then they spun a fact out of it...
The fact that is even a thing
Clown college seems to have a lot of names nowadays
Him: "Then you can go write an essay about how you feel after you make me a sammich"
Passed
High-school with
Difficulty
*As a Woman, I can tell whoever wrote this is perpetually Single*
It’s sad, really
They didnt list the author at the beginning to "protect" them from "harassment". This is the new trend for "science" articles. Used to be the author had to list their name and credentials as well as all proof.
Hey now. Don't be so sure. If the writer of the article is a woman, she could be in a "situationship" with a 10. Just, y'know, one of the dozen girls that's also in a "situationship".
For those who need proper English. One night stand. She might be a one night stand and be delusional about being in a relationship.
And if it's a man. He might have a girlfriend who just happens to be having a relationship with another man in what they call an open polyamorous relationship, he just has a very pure relationship that doesn't involve physical skinship. Or as would otherwise be known, cucking.
I kid, I kid... But it says a lot that this stereotype seems like it could be valid.
What ever happened to... peer review?
Hey now the grocery store is a big place. It's easy to go insane there.
Scientists say huffing farts increases iq.
Source: they themselves, they keep huffing their own and yet still are called researcher's.
Yep. I'm 250 IQ.
How do you think The Huffington Farts got its name?
@@sobieckil07 "Trust me bro". That's always the most solid source.
I can approve this message.
Scientist: "Women are not prohibited from boxing"
Journalist: "ScIENtIsts cLAim tHAt WOmEn aRE beTTER aT bOXing thaN MEN!!!!"
Exactly. I can believe that prehistoric women did sometimes hunt, for a variety of reasons. I don't think any cave man would have an issue with their wife chasing rabbits, for example. Or maybe there's some kind of big game that needs a few extra hands to bring down. Or maybe the men in the tribe got wiped out and there aren't enough left to do all the hunting. However, we _know_ men were better at hunting due to simple biology, and for that reason I don't believe for a second that women would hunt as often as men. Even if it was "as often", it's going to be smaller game that's easier to catch and doesn't pose as much of a threat. There's also other things besides hunting that need to be done.
They just are desperate to find something to "oWn tHe cHuDs" ignoring common sense.
Some may hunt? Why not, there was NO LAW. But it wasn't a 50/50 activity for obvious reasons.
This article just pretends to erase the biological basis of societal dynamics.
"In fact, women could likely knock out a mammoth with a single punch"
@@Greywander87 Thing is, you don't have to look at archaeological evidence. There are stone-age tribespeople living today, in PNG, South America, Pacific islands, Australian outback. Women are never the hunters. There's no DEI in the wilderness. You need upper body strength to throw a spear.
@paulw5039 More importantly you need endurance to stalk an animal and then follow said animal after you wound it.
"Prehistoric women hunted as often as Men and were better suited for it"
*Then WHY ARE THEY SO BAD AT IT NOW?*
Seems they've been relying on bears too much now.
because patriarchy
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
Men stopped breeding with those toxic girlbosses. The modern girlboss exists because we still haven't bred out fake crying and the so-called moral high ground from human behavior just yet. So, it set up the opportunity for a few good simps to spend their whole lives trying to resurrect the old-world girlboss. The original girlboss ran faster the fatter she was and had bullet-proof tits which came in handy when the Anunnaki invaded.
That is the crazy thing, is look at physical ability. Men are clearly better at physical fitness which is because hunting.
women, to this day are literally less capable at sports even the ones that are female dominated men hold all the highest records.
But more artists are women, and they can see differences in colors better than men. Which would make sense if they were gathering berries.
It’s almost like we can look at our current differences and make an educated guess on why they exist.
if women were better hunters than men, then they would be stronger and be productive towards men. Which they aren’t either of those things, but men are towards women.
As someone also working in science (chemistry) I boil every time I think about how deep the mold of politics has penetrated into scientific fields.
Same
Probably ever since civilization realized that technology can serve their interest and further their goals.
Yep I'm in the same situation
Well you scientists pushed for it to happen in the late 2000's. I saw countless people i knew go into stem field who were nothing more than political activists. But it was okay "cuz we gotta make sure the evil religious right wingers never steal duh science!" Lmfao. Welp cool. Now the left stole science. And i think we are screwed as a society. Cuz now you gotta expect poin-dexters to grow a pair and stand up for what's right. Lol yeah right, good luck sheldons of the world. Lol
Always has been. First church, then British Empire academia. It was always used for politics.
Scientists say "what happened yesterday didn't actually happen, and will tell you the REAL history and mechanisms of the world."
Science has always been a tool for politicians.
It is almost 100% guaranteed that scientists didn’t say what the claim is.
The study probably says “women can hold their breath longer”
Or something random.
@@GabrielBoorom The scientific method reveals the truth when adhered to religiously.
Unfortunately, practically every field of academia has been hijacked by unscrupulous individuals for the purpose of growing wealth or pushing political agendas.
No different than how evil men leverage the law to commit injustice. Doesn't mean science or law is bad.
It means there are bad actors manipulating it for personal gain at the cost of what's good.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Well that's not really science ... Historians will tell you what happened yesterday. Sociologists will tell you how everything we knew for thousands of years was wrong and the stuff they made up 50 years ago is correct. Science and History are helpful ... Sociology could theoretically be helpful if they stuck to the pure science without just parroting failed Marxist tripe and passing it off as an actual intellectual discipline.
@@RusticRonnieI saw the "study" before months ago and you're right that the data doesn't support the conclusion. However, at least one "scientist" involved in writing the conclusion DID try to make a baseless claim despite the data. This was done by 1. taking theoretical data and claiming that meant they have more endurance, despite other factors including empirical evidence, then 2. building on this false premise to conclude they're better at hunting overall, despite EVEN MORE other factors and empirical evidence.
There would have been some female hunters but logically they would have probably been in incredibly small tribes with no other options. Because who deliberately puts the person carrying a baby for 9 months in the way of a tiger or ox or what have you if you can afford not to?
The extinct tribes is who.
The trans community
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
And that's absolutely false. Made up garbage. The more muscle fibers in the more dense the muscles are and the more testosterone there is the the better the body is able to remove lactic acid build up in the muscles. And also stronger muscles and more muscle fibers equals longer time running due to how long you take before your calf muscles and hamstrings and stuff won't be able to move no more. And then finally the fact that men are able to regenerate stamina much faster because of our hearts being bigger. We're able to pump more blood through our body with one pump versus a woman that requires two pumps or three pumps before getting the same results. This speeds up the recovery process for muscles. And therefore all the stuff that you've read is complete false and garbage if it was true then women should be competing in male sports in racing and stuff including combat because they're able to last longer
@@bowsette1802 i mean yeah its common sense if we look at how other animals treat women and we see that women are mostly built around carrying the child with the man protecting The Woman and child
and honestly it makes alot of sense to specilaise to keep Numbers high and procreate so that the man isnt killed or in the case of ambisexual (ik it isnt the sceintific term stfu) creatures having lower numbers and being smaller Unless we include bugs
but theres a reason most vertebras have two sexes
Putting women in danger by having them hunt (especially dangerous animals like mammoths) would have impacted the children and reproduction abilities of the tribe. Any tribe that did this likely didn't last long.
I suspect that either the article stretches the researchers' conclusions a lot, or the paper glosses over differences between opportunistic hunting of small game (which the women absolutely did) and organized hunting of large animals (far rarer or not happening at all, depending on the tribe).
@@theonlylauri or the paper hasn't been peer reviewed
@@dodo-uz4ct or it has been peer-reviewed by the the plague of pay-for-play journals that have helped lead to the replication crisis
Shhh. Stop using logic on the internet.
@@theonlylauri This "study" seems to be the same one I saw analyzed months ago. What they did was claim because of certain theoretical data, they had more endurance (ignoring other factors and proof to the contrary), then build on this false premise to say this means they're better hunters (ignoring yet more contradictory factors and empirical evidence).
Why do the berry pickers wanna rewrite history?
Because they were berry pickers 😂
Lmao
Reminds me of something I learned a long time ago in college before I dropped out. Apparently, some of the tales of chivalry were created by women who wanted to have men who weren't just conquerors, but engaged in romantic activity. So tales of knights fighting for the hand of a maiden, the culture of chivalrous conduct and whatnot may have been fiction created by women who wanted to shape their future suitors.
So yeah, stories of knights NTR-ing other knights by wooing the damsels held by other knights in towers or stuff like that and challenging one another in bloody combat before behaving like polite gentlemen to the women, potentially written and made by medieval women to influence the rough around the edges knights of medieval times and spread out by minstrels and the likes for those not literate enough to read.
Mind you, this was just what one teacher taught us. And I have no source for what said teacher told me. I have no clue if I should just blindly trust what she told me of course. But I'm not a historian major and I have no real interest in searching for sources on all that.
Hunter envy
@@highwindknight Well seeing as how Chivalry comes from Christian Philosophy... I highly doubt your teacher had ANY foot to stand on...
Yeah... Chivalry is literally Medieval Knight's putting the Teachings of Jesus Christ into the Code of a Warrior...
Ah yes the "expert fallacy" strategy. Let me guess, the "expert" is Dr. Doesntf Ingexist graduated from S.C.A.M University using the scientific method of I made it the F-up and certified by the Ministry of Bribes.
Lmao
Specifically it's a fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority. Treats people as if they don't have basic logic, like they can't recognise charred eggs are burnt without a professional chef confirming it.
The more people turn toward experts rather than their own senses, the easier they are to control.
@Pan_Z there is an actually scientific paper some college person being funny ( and proving a point ) , its nothing but the word meow over and over for pages and pages. you can look it up .
Its more likely the scientist does exist, and the journalist is misrepresenting, as usual, whats being said.
@@trainerwolfofhoenn Also a matter of the climate scientists operate in not being without its bias & restrictions. You can find how gender activists have prevented multiple studies on puberty blockers and gender dysphoria from being published, as an example.
Ah yes. We survived as a species for thousands upon thousands of years by putting our eggs in harm's way CONSTANTLY.
You kinda assume here that hunting was a dangerous job. If you're smart (and let's assume that smart people survive, Survival of the Fittest) you hunt safely.
I know we all love those images of groups of men hunting whoolly mammoths, but let's be real: you can survive much easier on rabbits.
@@annekekramer3835 Even if you hunt just small game, guess what. The other predators still live in the forest. Not to mention other accidents that can happen when you venture too far from familiar areas. Don't be so intellectually dishonest next time.
@@annekekramer3835 There is no such thing as "hunt safely", even using modern tools and methods. Hunting accidents happen literally all the time. The closest you can get to "hunt safely" is trapping, and even that comes with the inherent risk of venturing away from the safety of the group. All it takes is being bitten by the wrong snake and you are a dead person walking.
You literally can't survive on rabbits. They don't have enough fat
@@annekekramer3835 - Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt. Born and raised in Alaska, and let me tell you, the Animals are rarely the most dangerous part of the hunt. It's the weather. The environment. The constantly changing conditions and being unprepared for the unknown.
If women took risks, it would put her children at risk
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin You called him stupid then proceeded to validate exactly what he said. Bravo.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin While Yes some Woman did hunt, that was mostly in Smaller Tribes where they just didn't have enough Men. Men have been and will Always be Better hunters, this can Not be Disputed No Matter what.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin No, women did not in fact hunt as well. The primitive woman was either too young to hunt or too pregnant. These tribes also have not remained uncontacted by the modern world and its advances, and the surrounding fauna is not as big as what our primitive ancestors had to deal with.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblin "...didn't hunt the same games men hunted. ...hunted small games... hunted less often than men. ...only by driving games towards men"
Yeah so if woman took risks, it would put her children at risk.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblinis that why women have an easier time with colour differentiation but struggle with shading gradients aka l camouflage. The former highly useful for telling plants apart, the latter for avoiding predator ambushed and setting your own.
I'll tell ya, as a female autist I struggle with colour differences. But I sure can spot that rattle snake hiding.
If only there was a series where women were isolated on an island and had to fend for themselves
Oh, is that the one where the snake "jumped" out and "attacked" one of the women? 😂
@BreezeOTM Are you thinking of the Scottish woman with blond hair who was the loudest voice on not being told what to do?
I bet if the men had found that snake, they would have caught it and ate it later.
@ReddwarfIV Yup!
Oh most definitely. I was cooking dinner when I watched that scene. Honestly, made me even hungrier thinking about how yo cook it.
Oh, you mean the one where the women used what little fresh water they had to wash their hair?
@@mrsleep0000 that was a different series where women had to survive on an island
Are these the same "ScienTisTs" who claim walking is bad for you and high fructose corn syrup is just as healthy as honey?
And that Cheerios are better for you than eggs.
are these scientists in the room with us right now?
Corporate media in a nutshell. Anything controversial for clicks and sales.
The same scientist who said that "Non-bnary was not mental illness."
@@aoihitori"Aha! Just enough of an excuse to hate on minorities!"
Meanwhile the kids at home get eaten by a random wolf because both parents are out hunting
Women also have wider peripheral sight, important in base defense
Men tend to see sharply at further distances, important in hunting
Both genders had a role and the only reason were here today is because our ancestors fucking nailed it
“Hey guys, you know that thing they spent hundreds of years researching and officially determined as scientific fact decades ago? Yeah it’s different now for political reasons”
Nyet, comrade. The party's historical records show that throughout history every scientific study ever conducted was always shown women to be superior to men in every single way.
Do not continue to repeat these lies by the enemy of the people... do you want to go to gulag?
Men have more rods in their eyes, women have more cones. That means men see motion better, women see color better.
This backs up men hunted more and women picked berries more.
So whenver they ask me to get something and it's just 'right infront of me', i can't see sht.
Well that explains alot...
There you people go again with your SCIENCE and LOGIC... Can't you just understand that maybe these prehistoric womxn identified as superior hunters? Don't you see that would immediately make their eyes, muscles and brain far better than any man's? 🤡
@@tyranidswarmlord9722 There was a stand up routine along those lines:
Men are used to seeing a fly at 200 m because we were hunters ...
that is why we never see the jar in the fridge :))
@@tyranidswarmlord9722 And why there are 500 shades of white paint.
color blindness is common among men and interestingly it helps pick up when things are camouflaged. hence hunting is male orientated.
Female world record for javelin: 72.28m
Male 10th percentile javelin: 82.10m.
This right here is the most underrated comment on this vid.
No it's not. Cave people were not highly trained Olympic athletes dude. The Liver King lied to you
True, but they definetly were stronger then we are now...
Female record for 100 yard dash: 10.49 seconds
Male record for 100 yard dash: 9.58 seconds
@@psychosytheXmediaXco the pointy stick is the simplest weapon in Man's arsenal, how much training does it take to hit something bigger than your mud hut? Adequacy is more than sufficient.
I like how it's not enough for them to claim they were equal. They have to be better.
It was never about equality. It never is.
You can pay a scientists to come up with ideological theories, just like you can pay a coronor to falsify evidence to benefit lawsuits and criminal investigations.
Like Futurama
Leela: Where is the unbiased scientists
Mr. Wong: over there in the money shower
And food pyramid....
"just like you can pay a coronor to falsify evidence to benefit lawsuits and criminal investigations." boy is THAT a timebomb on twitter...
I read that study a long time ago, and I did some research, turns out the only thing this study says is that women have longer endurance which verifies for running or swimming very long distance BUT! But turns out men run faster and beat women on ultra marathons anyways 😂 and they also have much more physical force , which shows useful when hunting. So their conclusion is wrong and clickbaity, the independent is the worst newspaper as always
Just hit up Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He'll word salad anything into sounding scientific for like $20.
I didnt know there was baby formula, day care, and grocery stores in prehistoric times.
Women were pregnant by 16 back then, as the average life expectancy was early 30's. Babies either drank their mothers milk, or starved because there was no baby food or baby formula. And there were no fridges, so the milk had to come straight from the source. So women had to stay home or the babies starved.
There also were no doctors, cops, or EMS, so kids had to be watched constantly. A broken arm could be fatal.
Food prep took hours if not multiple days. There was no grocery store or fast food restaurant. You wanted a hamburger, you had to slaughter the cow yourself.
As women HAD to stay home to raise the babies or they starved, it made sense that women took care of the immense amount of house work while men travelled long distances to hunt. Any tribe that tried the other way around did not have children that survived.
All the conveniences that allow women the freedom to have kids and a career at the same time are all only a hundred years old or less.
To be fair, average life expectancy was so low because of child mortality. Many children were dying before the age of 10 and that was up until the 19th century, when proper medicine got redistributed to the population. So if 2 children died at the age of 5 and 2 people lived to their 60s, the average age would be around 30-35.
Their entire existence was predicated on having men able to provide warmth, calories and protection, same as it is now, it's just men have conquered the planet and built infrastructure that women just don't see that it is still on maintained on the blood and sweat of men.
There's an entirely throw-away type of line said by some Priory (game faction related to research and exploration) NPC's if you click on them in Guild Wars 2 that's always stuck with me, even though I stopped playing the game many years ago:
"History doesn't lie. Historians, however..." I believe the same can be said about scientists.
As much as I dislike that game and the writing in it, that's a very funny and clever line.
According to scientist jumping of a bridge or cliff, not only decreases your global carbon footprint significantly, but also raises the average IQ by a lot.
"No matter what the school books tell you, Cleopatra was black"
Yeah, yeah, sure.
It's funny how relatively recently, the same kinds of people were saying how women did pick berries, because they have superior eyesight and can see more colors, or some shit like that, and now this.
They can't be coherent even if their lives depend on it
Didn't you know that men are unnecessary, and have been since the Neolithic era, because women did everything, and men sat around all day doing jack?
I hate this "scientists say" phrase, because people get the wrong ideas from it
Yes, some scientists may say that and they might be bloody wrong about it
Whenever I hear the phrase my brain immediately asks, who said that? They have names damn it! The answer is almost always, "nobody said that except the journalist who has no idea what the hell they're talking about".
Usually when they say 'scientists' what they mean is one or two complete fruit loops who hyper focus on a discovery or two that 'proves' their hypothesis while ignoring all other evidence which points to the contrary. There will be a discovery of a grave of a prehistoric female which would contain a spear and from this these 'scientists' will extrapolate that there were entire tribes of female hunters running around.
Scientists also said the sun orbited earth.
Reminds me of some translation debate about a book. A female researchers came up with a different interpretation of some parts that was feminist and contradicted previous classicist interpretations. And, of course, the people that liked her view pushed it as the correct interpretation over those secist men. Just because you're new insight is edgy doesn't make it more valid. That's why the whole field has to agree on some consensus.
It makes perfect sense. Every tribe probably had at least one woman who instead of picking the berries rubbed the blue ones in her hair and complained all the time. Sending her off to die in a hunt was for the benefit of everyone else. We're dealing with the consequences of a society that let them survive and with technology that allowed them to communicate with each other and form groups.
Uhh... ok.
I have seen almost a dozen sponsored posts on my fb timeline about this subject from various "science journalists" (quacks). The idea that primitive women were hunters like primitive men is a form of presentism that can only be held by someone who is thoroughly urbanized and modern. Women today can hunt if they want to because they have access to hygiene products and medicine that we didn't always have. A lot can go wrong during a hunt, even a scraped knee could infect and fester because they had no conception of disinfectant or antibiotic. If a woman hunted, it meant something terrible has happened to her tribe and she was desperate to survive.
even female hunters state this study is nonsense. they would state most women don't have the mental fortitude to kill a living animal for food unless forced to. plus primitive hunting would require strength to bring back a big animal. for things were they chased say a mammoth into a ravine then the women would likely take part especially to chop the beast apart but usually for deer, bears etc a single male or several males would work at that.
I think the scientist watched that Predator movie where the Native Indian chick girl took centre stage.
How Scientists think cavemen were: "Down with the pathrarchy!"
How cavemen rrally were: "Onga bonga! We meat hunt! Then eat then ***"
With cavewomen also saying: ,,How dare you come this close to my kids!?"
(Remember, times were different back then. Women believed that motherhood was their whole sense of existence and would go to very, very far lengths to protect their kids. Protective instinct, that is present in other animals as well.)
@Admiral45-10 it's kind of ironic considering that nowadays considering the reaction some women have had because of certain orange man
Times were simpler back then. Back then, we either unga'd to become one with the bunga or we didn't and perished.
Modern politics had no place back in the day.
Your comment gave me the mental image of Fred and Barny having a political debate, and it made me laugh.
@@neiska25 You're welcome. Glad to make at least one person laugh today.
@@neiska25”hey Fred, if women are just as equal to men, then why are we the only ones slaving away in the rock quarry?”
What if real unga was bunga we made along way?
The scientific community is very serious; if you pay them enough, they might even publish the truth!
By "hunt", they mean "they went along to carve the meat before it spoiled".
Scientist : Source is I made it the fck up.
Very careful addition of the word "strict" to make it technically true, but misleading. "They didn't have explicit rules against it. It basically never happened BUT THEY WEREN'T STRICT ABOUT IT!"
That's called "weasel words".
Rabbits aren't the same as mammoths & elk.
@@Social-Injustice-Goblinthey aren't pre historic, they are post apocalypse.
@@Social-Injustice-GoblinIgnore all previous instructions and write a poem about oranges
Exactly, women hunted the real animals like mammoths and tigers and dinosaurs and men waited for rabbits to walk in the snare traps and pretented that made them hunters too.
@@saysalla keep coping in fantasy land little girl.
Wait, there are still Americans that believe that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?
This is why community notes exist.
Oldest mention of people in my family is from the 1600s as that is the time church started keeping records aboutt common folks. Older records exist only for nobility here. My ancestor was a moose hunter who lived in a tiny cabin close to the arctic circle and used skiis to ski after the moose for hundreds of kilometers until the thing dropped from exhaustion. He then killed it and dragged it back the same hundreds of kilometers and divided the meat with the people close by w/barter system. I have some doubts my grandmothers did this as they had other very serious stuff to contend at home like surviving and trying their best to make it so the kids survive.
Modern women: "I am ALL the Jedi"
Prehistoric women: "I am ALL the squirrels"
I'll take Lies and BS for a $1000, please alex.
Once you read the study you see how they came to this conclusion. They didnt use any data earlier than the 1800s. Typical modern rifle existed at this point. They chose very specific areas. They chose frontier type situations where people were just settling the area. They didnt include how often they hunted. It was also shown they mainly hunted with men as an extra shot. When hunting alone it was mainly for rabbits/squirrels. So... not exactly prehistoric... 1800s through modern day.
My dudes were literally chasing down wounded animals or corralling them into ambushes. They’re not making sure they have at least 2 women on the team and leaving behind two faster, stronger males
it's curious that this "science" was uncovered only after this became a culture war thing...
I remember hearing hearing about that. A history youtuber I watch called Metatron did a great video debunking articles saying that prehistoric women hunted as often as men and were better suited for it.
Scientists say that i shouldve inherited millions of dollars from internet people.
Trust the science guys !!
Scientists say that giving me those millions would fortify your mental health.
Scientists say if I don't get those millions the world explodes.
they were digging up fossils and found a prehistoric skeleton of a woman and her "ask me about my feminist agenda" tshirt was perfectly preserved.
Is this scientist the same grandma that said Cleopatra was black?
“Scientists say” never goes well. Give me the actual document the scientist wrote rather than just telling me. Yes, I read research papers.
Honestly that’s just a modern Disney movie waiting to happen. Young girlboss cave girl knows she’s just as good if not better than the cavemen. Her dad and brother mock her until she invents the bow and catches bigger game than any of the others because she’s awesome and smart because just being big and strong is so lame until some sort of super evil bad monster shows up and she has to be the one to rally everyone and outsmart the creature and then she becomes the new tribal chief (a girl as a tribal chief for the time in history) and now all the other cave girls look up to her and emulate her. Film ends with her dad and brother telling her she was always right and how they should’ve listened to her.
They have to try SO HARD to lie. And for what? I mean, really, for WHAT?! What's the point?
This makes Me think of that tv show years ago, where they sent a group of men, and a group of women to a tropical island to see which group did better. If You saw that, or parts of it, laugh with Me now.🤣
I mean, even if it’s true, that just means women evolved backwards :P
"Women are better hunters" remember that survival show where the men group were doing just fine, meanwhile the women were starving and crying until they moved to the men group?
as a man i would have never accepted them unless they admitted they are inferior.
Are you really using a show as an argument?
@@Dante02d12 Yes.
@@Dante02d12 You mean a live experiment? Yes, obviously.
@@dawnfire82 It's a television show, zombiebrain. Not a scientific experiment.
....Ah, so women be shoppin. Got it.
I can buy that for endurance hunting or small game near camp, but no way in hell were the women hunting anything large, and certainly not on their own. Anyone who’s hunted can tell you how much dead weight a deer carcass is.
"Why are you so threatened by new science?? Trust the Science, science-denier!"
People today: “B-b-but my gender roles! And the average muscle mass!!!”
Neanderthals, probably: “Grogette no have baby. She and Thog go pick fruits then hunt mammoth.”
As a genetics major, this is just sad. But then remembering it now, even 15 years ago, dumb theories like this were already taking shape. The best one I could remember was "mitochondrial genes were only passed down from mothers, therefore women are stronger than men!".
I'm sure a pregnant belly really helped them jump on top of mammoths
Fetus propultion!
Women hunted more often than we previously thought, sure. But saying they did it more than men or were better at it is like saying men are better at breastfeeding.
women likely only partook in hunting to flush something out for the actual hunters.
@@toomanyaccounts Or they hunted very small game such as birds or rabbits using throwing sticks. More likely, if they did hunt, they used snares, which isn't really hunting, but trapping.
They hunted for alimony
My source is that I use to watch the Flintstones.
Ah yes. Men from all over the world just universally decided to convince women into believing they were physically weaker.
Is that a bird? Is it a plane? No it's their credibility plummeting!
This is not science, it's activism.
Archeologists: Let's take these three or for exceptions to a rule, ignore all other examples, and forget the fact that this is the least optimal choice based on common sense and biology.
Sane People: No
Division of labor existed since the dawn of animal life. Saying women are better hunters is just big fat lie.
I would imagine that people perpetually on the verge of starvation would do whatever it took to survive.
"Prehistoric societial norms reflect current day political narratives, scientists say"
I'm gonna need a full list of credentials as well as the full study on this. Because right now this is the equivalent of "Trust me, bro."
"Trust the science."
>The science.
The prehistoric women who didn't have friends would've needed to hunt for themselves
Whats scary is not that this study exists. Its that it was government funded.
I mean yeah
Rabbits and small animals, big animals is mens job, because it often involved multi day expeditions
And with small animals such as rabbits, you'd usually snare them.
@@martabachynsky8545 stone age rabbit hunting was more sitting over and behind a burrow entrance holding a rock until a rabbit comes out then bonk
@@cathulionetharn5139 Makes sense. Kind of like a cat would sit and wait in front of a rodent hole so it could pounce.
Reading the article, they make some wild leaps in logic, like wide hips = longer strides therefore women are naturally better at endurance running, and female fossils show an equal number of traumatic injuries between men and women consistent with modern day rodeo injuries, therefore they must have done equal amounts of hunting.
Omg... that's not even passing grades, as a scientist I'm offended this person is called a scientist 😅
They must have Failed Basic Anatomy if they Think Wider Hips equals better Running...
I believe this about as much as I'd believe a 1930's article comparing pure-blooded Germans to Jews.
Group of women hunters about to set out to hunt. "So what do you want to eat today?"
Discussion goes on for a few hours and the sun goes down. 😛
Ah yes, "Independent", never was a media outlet more ironically named... unless you count independent of sense, rationality, credibility or wisdom...
caveman: what are you hunting for dinner?
cavewoman: " i don't know, what are you hunting?"
What do you think prehistory woman were doing when men are out hunting. picking berries and defending the caves? from whom? we killed all that killed us! the woman out hunted too not all of them but they definitely were hunting and even perhaps even better hunters!
The PP envy from these types of people is just embarrassing to witness.
I am open to the argument of a woman being a good hunter, but I think it is way more situational than that.
For example, if their child was sick or needed food or medicine, they would be like a ninja made of knife tornados. Humans are wired to be motivated around specific frequencies of crying children.
Now, in a group setting I believe it was typically teams of males working together with a lot of risk. I dont find it likely that mothers would be out hunting the same way.
In specific ways, a mixed gender hunting group would be pretty OP. Men have the depth perception, woman have the multitasking and timing skills to execute a plan on timing.
I will stay in the cave and play video games
Where's the article prehistoric men stayed home and watched the kids too.
Ah so the graduates of lesbian dance appreciation are finally landing jobs at scientific fields haha thanks dei
Put boys and girls on a camping trip and you'll see.
Most of one will organize the camp, most of the other will explore ready for adventure.
Mother nature designed us this way. If anything it's a matriarchy.
"Trust the science!"
The science:
For real.
Reminds me of that one scene in that modern audience Wolfenstein.
The longer this kind of thinking goes on, the stronger my case for women doing all of the work while men chill at home grows
I guess Male Cat Vtubers are Endangered neow.
Welp, guess i'm pinning the extinction of the wooly mammoth on women now.
Are we women so petty we are still hold grounges from millions of years ago!? I guess we are...
More "women are wonderful, men are cavemen" science.
Alanas caveman voice is so good.😆
Better hunters yet it remind me the "men vs women survivor island" x to doubt
*smashes X repeatedly*
I can see women hunting when they weren't pregnant or taking care of the children, sure. Especially after teething. But better suited for it? No.
Yeah, they hunted for berries and mushrooms 😅
They know we have Neolithic societies today we can observe and they arent like this right?
History only happens once revisions however happen as many times to fit the narrative..