367
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago

I had always assumed that Hunter-Gatherer societies were very loosely sex divided and strongly necessity based. Meaning, sure men could be the typical hunter and women the typical gatherer but if necessity dictates, any person would do any job, and, given the times, that was probably frequently.

Furthermore they also likely didn't have societal structures the way modern societies did, meaning people likely weren't barred from any job or forced into any job, it was a community effort for survival, if you meet a criteria that can help, you do that.

These are not factual statements, these are just my assumptions on how I figured they reasonably existed.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Same here: the t seems the most logical answer. I’m not especially convinced by the arguments in this article, except that they are at least as strong as “man the hunter” arguments so neither changes my mind

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Man the hunter presupposes any woman is weaker than the weakest man. It really is junk science. When they say those guys ignored evidence of women hunting, they mean it. And at the end of the day, women doing it is the biggest evidence you're going to find.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
367 points (100.0% liked)

science

14323 readers
42 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS