Yeah I'll let the scientists debate this one out before believing this. Every time this comes up there's not enough evidence to make a convincing case. This one seems to have evidence from all around the world and makes some very bold claims.

Will be interested in how this new information changes things. It wouldn't surprise me that women hunted. There's always been girls in every traditional "male" activity I've done throughout my life.

[–] appel@whiskers.bim.boats 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like we probably just never interpreted the evidence that was out there in the correct way because of our biases. I don't see why they would have gender segregation when everyone could just do whatever they wanted to/were good at. Seems like the simplest method to me too.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

I agree I don't think they would have had gender segregation I just think the ratio of hunters would skew towards more males because of interests and danger.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

It makes sense for men to be more exposed to danger, we can't bear children

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it's not like all hunting requires top-tier physicality, if someone is just good at tracking that's arguably the most important part of hunting, since you have to find game to kill it.

[–] Lowbird@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've found it notable that a lot of people have latched onto the idea of humans as endurance/persistence hunters, tracking their prey down slowly until it's exhausted... While also entirely ignoring that women tend to do better than men in ultra-marathons (and more so the longer the ultra-marathon is).

And also how some people latch onto the idea of teamwork and communication being essential for hunting, and also decide that women are better at communication and cooperation, then fail to consider that maybe such a communication advantage might outweigh a physical advantage.

Also there can be advantages to being small in some situations, too, like for stealth, or for climbing trees, or making their way through dense brush. Or for surviving with less food and water on long journeys.

Also literally anyone in a society like that, even the least built of them, would be in better shape than the vast majority of humans from modern sedentary cultures. Including gym bros, I'd argue, because building a physique by active lifestyle (vs a few hours of targeted exercise within an overwhelmingly sedentary lifestyle) optimizes for that lifestyle in a balanced way and won't leave you with odd weak spots (no forgetting leg day, or forgetting to work out your core, then ending up with weird aches and pains).

[–] forestG@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I just watered my plants on the balcony. I noticed that one pigeon had taken a shit near one of the pots. Then I remembered that neighbor that feeds tens of them before they fly to bombard every balcony near him. I started feeling some kind of frustration. Then I opened this thread, saw your nickname. Started reading your comment. Negativity started going away. A laugh escaped near leg day. Cool.

On topic, there are quite a few reasons why women are better the longer the distance gets. Which is very nice, since ultra-marathons are one of the few sports that are not yet super-tainted by commercial interests and steroids. One of the few clean sports, and women are better XD

The little time I spent looking for information on persistence hunting, I didn't come across any convincing arguments against it. That's why I commented the way I did in my first comment. But I like the idea very much.

As for the gym bros, all I have to say, training for pleasure instead of training for pain is way more sustainable in the long run! ;-) No hate though, something is better than nothing. I guess.