Skip to main content

“Man the Hunter has dominated the study of human evolution for nearly half a century & pervaded popular culture. [But] it was the arrival of agriculture that led to rigid gendered roles & economic inequality. Hunting belonged to everyone.”

The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt & Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/ #science #history


The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong

The influential idea that in the past men were hunters and women were not isn’t supported by the available evidence
Sarah Lacy (Scientific American)
#science #history
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

rob
rob
• •
Imagine how embarrassed Jordan Peterson must be feeling.
It will take some time to edit all those YouTube clips to reflect this new data.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

MarkG
MarkG
• •
Interesting. Though I feel the idea that eating animals is how we "evolved" to be off. Running a marathon to tire and hunt an animal down for food seems an incredible waste of energy. Seems better to gather nuts, seeds, veggies and fruits, and have a feast. Perhaps have some cool fermented grain beverages with it. Then hang out in the cluttered man-cave, waiting for the women to return.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

⚛️Revertron
⚛️Revertron
• •
Women evolved to carry children and to give birth.
So they are slower when hunting demands run.
It was just easier to practice gathering for women.
And because of more muscular mass in males, they had more heavier prey - better results in hunting, no?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Hadi
Hadi
• •
it's interesting that it looks like the entire discussion is about a statistical statement, where neither opponent, nor proponents, are not mentioning something like p-value, or any other statistical tools, which is necessary to make it a valid statement. And both sides are called scientists!!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

El Arzobispo d'Eppaña
El Arzobispo d'Eppaña
• •
I remember how my optics teacher at the university explained that men eyes are more sensitive to movement because men were hunters, while women eyes have more chromatic sensitivity because women were gatherers.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

ArkansawTravler
ArkansawTravler
• •
I think it developed that way bc you had aholes back then just like you have aholes today.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Juleselt
Juleselt
• •

I can tell from many comments some haven't ever read evolutionary biology, especially recent research.

"Fitness" does NOT equal strength. Nor the opposite. An organism is fit by its ability to adapt to changing evironmental triggers. This includes bacteria and viruses...

Starting with a conclusion is not an argument, nor evidence or proof of anything. Of course some men will not like these new facts, because it puts them on a more equal footing to women. Deal with it.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

vijes49
vijes49
• •
Some women no doubt could hunt. Men were better at it, they were You are probably wrong..
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sebastian 𓀠
Sebastian 𓀠
• •
Why are there so many replies to this from people that want to argue but obviously didn’t read the article? If you want to refute its conclusion at least engage with what’s actually in there, don’t just read the headline and jump straight into debate mode
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Ian Malcolm
Ian Malcolm
• •
Suspect it’s no coincidence so many deities of hunting (and often archery) were goddesses: Diana (Roman), Artemis (Greek), Flidais (Celtic), Skaði (Norse), Neith, Pakhet and (to some extent) Bastet (all Egyptian), Mielikki (Finnish), Banka-Mundi (Hindu), Bendis (Thracian), Devana (Slavic) and on it goes.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.

⇧