An anthropological study refutes the idea of strict gender roles in hunter/gatherer societies, evopsych redditors in full meltdown
An anthropological study refutes the idea of strict gender roles in hunter/gatherer societies, evopsych redditors in full meltdown
Posted in r/science by u/mvea • 1,206 points and 306 comments
They're mostly getting dunked on, but they're wriggling around all over the thread raging about science being made "political."
"B-b-but it mapped so well onto my assumptions and prejudices! The rigorously collected evidence must be wrong!"Weird how they call for minorities to always be ready to justify not being purged by eugenics at any given moment, but they will demand a world where their worldview is NEVER challenged. It's correct because they say so, it's only a wacky coincidence that being "redpilled to the harsh truth" just so happens to say that they are super special and deserve extra privileges in society.
In Braiding Sweetgrass the author mentions this Native American tribe where hunting is predominantly done by men but is only taught to boys by grandmothers. They de-masculinise it so that it doesn't become a toxic competition for male virtues. Instead it's taught as doing a hard but necessary thing in the context of stewardship and reciprocity for the land. They're also learning the plants from the predominantly female gatherers since that's necessary information when you're away from camp. Segregating information based on sex only makes sense if one side is so disproportionately powerful that they think they can completely subjugate the other. That's stupid when you have a limited number of hands and a set number of tasks required to survive.
That's stupid when you have a limited number of hands and a set number of tasks required to survive.
violence, particularly structural violence, where all the power is on one side, creates ignorance. If you have the power to hit people over the head whenever you want, you don’t have to trouble yourself too much figuring out what they think is going on, and therefore, generally speaking, you don’t. Hence the sure-fire way to simplify social arrangements, to ignore the incredibly complex play of perspectives, passions, insights, desires, and mutual understandings that human life is really made of, is to make a rule and threaten to attack anyone who breaks it. This is why violence has always been the favored recourse of the stupid: it is the one form of stupidity to which it is almost impossible to come up with an intelligent response. It is also of course the basis of the state.
This is why violence has always been the favored recourse of the stupid: it is the one form of stupidity to which it is almost impossible to come up with an intelligent response. It is also of course the basis of the state.
This resonates all the way to the USMC where they celebrate the crayon eating meme/joke as a personal identifier.
Unto Others has a section in it that has always stuck with me about division of labor in large groups vs small ones. Members of small groups tend towards being jacks of all trades, and their roles and duties look very similar to one another, and few functional distinctions can be made between them because anyone might have to do anything at any time. Large groups have a lot more specialization of labor within their structure.
It's not specifically a book about humans, more of a dry text about the evolutionary theories surrounding altruism. Humans demonstrate it well, but it's a dynamic that other social animals like ants demonstrate too.
Pretty much this. When you're in a small band or tribe it's "all hands on deck" all the time. There might be lowered expectations of the young and the old but everyone does something to benefit the group.
I am posting a bounty for whoever brings me the worst comment from the thread.
Reward: 1 Upbear
Plot twist: Everyone gets an Upbear
Yup, pc article that's gonna be posted on femcentric sites to push a delusional narrative.
Women had far fewer periods? Why? And why do you think they wouldn’t have been as focused on fertility as modern society? It’s literally their biological purpose, as it is for men.
The woman went out hunting with the only source of food for the children attached to her chest... [of course not]
As long as you don't have any shitlings running around, it makes sense for every capable person to be involved.
It’s pretty easy to research your way out of obvious truths. Even if there is just a marginal advantage for male hunters over female, it’s common sense that you wouldn't want women to come because it would lead to people flirting and being distracted. I also don’t think there is a linear relationship where if you add more hunters it increases your success rate, if anything you will reach diminishing returns, so there is no benefit to bringing the whole tribe along
My wife was raised by her grandfather who was born in an igloo in winter 1920. She's Inuit and men being the hunters and women being the gatherers/home keepers (tending children, making and mending clothing, everything not related to hunting) is part of living memory from a stone age culture. Sure women were capable of hunting, fishing and trapping but it was primarily a male responsibility. Again, this is in living memory from a stone age culture not guesswork from anthropologists.
Some of these are not full comments, just the funny parts in those comments.
"i am physically incapable of not harassing women when i am around them, therefore this article is wrong."
- that guy
it’s common sense that you wouldn't want women to come because it would lead to people flirting and being distracted.
men and women in couples regularly go hunting together, dipshit.
stone age culture
bro your wife's grandfather was not from the fucking stoneage holy fucking shit
his wife should be privy what he thinks and says of her culture 'anonymously' onlineIt’s literally their biological purpose, as it is for men.
Both sides are equal in this reductionistic bullshit, therefore one side dominating the other with threats of violence to keep them in line is acceptable!
That inuit woman is an idiot for marrying a white racist dumbfuck
Women had far fewer periods? Why?
The fEMaLe understander has logged on
this is in living memory from a stone age culture
Thank you
They are deeply emotionally invested in the idea that being aggressive assholes that struggle with basic hygiene expectations is because of some primordial caveman power level and not just them being aggressive assholes that struggle with basic hygiene expectations.
People have never, at any point in human history, been that simple. Just because you don't have access to transistors or combustion engines or whatever doesn't mean personalities and interpersonal relations aren't complex.
um sorry sweaty, humanity went to the moon and discovered pronouns
That's what 2001: A Space Odyssey is about
i find it very difficult to take a field seriously when the most famous professor in it is lobster man
It's almost sad to see people get so far in academic careers but still hold onto their biases and prejudices like security blankets. I get it that EVERYONE has sacred cow beliefs, but Jordan Peterson should in theory know better than to let his ideals born out of wishful thinking get in the way of reality.
He suppresses rational thought with cocktails of prescription drugs and red meat
Look I don't want to be too much of a STEMlord but something you'll notice about a lot of these supremely cringe evopsych PhDs is that they have quite a bit more time with the psych part and a lot less with the evo part
(Okay maybe there are some cringe as fuck Evo types too but the first people I ever heard laughing in public at Pee Pee Jordanson videos were some evolutionary biology grads so I want to believe they are above this shit)
90% of the pushback i've ever seen on evopsych comes from actual biologists and the other 10% came from science communicators who are friends with biologists
For a bad time, look up Dr. Professor Jordan S. Peterson MD. PhD Esquire's takes on climate change.
The top comment is
More people able to bring back dinner. It makes sense.
And overall people seem to be agreeing with the comment. Dunno if this post was way before that happened or what but it seems to be the opposite what the title says
The next top level comment down from that one is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, let's keep believing the old hypothesis anyway" malding lol
It's been long enough the mods may have cleaned it up, but there was a lot of brainwormed shit downthread. There are some quotes of it elsewhere in this thread.
At this point it's nothing revolutionary, there are multiple books saying the same. As always indigenous people and hunter gatherers are preferred to be seen as simplistic beings because admitting the opposite would quickly break quite a few narratives.
People are complex beings and always have been, there were many different ways that they formed their societies differing from group to group. Some had equality of genders, some were patriarchal, some matriarchal. It's intuitive if you don't believe in those bullshit distinctions in the first place.
Isn’t there quite a big difference between strict gender roles and each sex having a preference on aggregate?
I had always assumed it was the latter, it seems obvious given how unique people are
If having to operate from the concentration camp you've been trapped in is using human shields, then what is waging a 70-year campaign of ethnic cleansing with a conscript army and then hosting a rave right next to the Gaza strip?
he is not an anthropologist
