I have read your anthropologists article.... have to say I'm far from impressed... here's just one example of why....
'Men hunted and fought one another? For the vast majority of human evolution we do not have clear evidence that only men hunted.'
ONLY MEN? Notice how he talks in an absolute and further confuses the matter by referring to the 'vast' majority of human evolution. Where exactly did 'human' evolution start by his own definition? With the emergence of hominids, mammals or life itself as evolution is a continuing process?
No ones going to sensibly say ONLY men hunted before the establishment of farming and the move away from hunter gathering.. but why does he not talk about the evidence that gives us an indication as to the ratios between the sexes and why it may have changed???
Well lets look at his own source......
Ill summarise some important points
'It appears that Neandertal males, females, and juveniles alike participated in a narrow range of economic activities that centered on obtaining large terrestrial game. This apparent absence of regular economic differentiation in Middle Paleolithic cultures (including that of the Neandertals) is consistent with the distinctive features of human demography and anatomy of this period'
so some 30,000 to 300,000 years ago we don't see much difference in roles between sexes for our ancestors who were competing with other hominids - life in this period would have been hard short and rather brutal for all concerned so it is likely a survival necessity to have 'all hands to the pump' in terms of both hunting and gathering
'Better evidence for foraging economies based on a range of complementary subsistence roles coincides with the emergence of the early Upper Paleolithic. Such cooperative economic systems may have given Upper Paleolithic humans a demographic advantage over Neandertals and their contemporaries, facilitating the rapid expansion of Upper Paleolithic culture throughout Eurasia.'
'Nonetheless, recent humans are remarkable for cooperative economies that combine pervasive sharing and complementary roles for individuals of different ages and sexes'
So between 30,000 and around 10,000 years ago our human ancestors started to develop a range of 'complementary subsistence roles' (read differentiated by age and gender) and that this provided an advantage over competing hominids! And in more recent humans gendered and aged roles are pervasive.
Well I never its as if someone were to suggest that its not that the sexes can't perform the same roles but that there may be explanations as to why certain roles may be carried out more by one sex then the other for good reason!
The author even comments that the humans of the past (showing less gendered roles) were very different to modern humans with both sexes being far more 'robust'....
'And, importantly, earlier humans were substantially more robust that we are today…that is, a large percentage of females in the past were more robust than many males are today'
Lets move on.....
'That women sometimes become successful hunters and men become gatherers means that the universal tendency to divide subsistence labor by gender is not solely the result of innate physical or psychological differences between the sexes'
So now we get to the point ..... your Phd man was setting up a false argument in his ONLY men statement wasn't he! Because that's NOT THE POINT! In recent hunter gathering humans ' some' women performed some roles more often performed by men but the overall trend was vastly towards gendered roles as this was a proven and successful evolutionary strategy!
'The basic generalization from which we begin is the nearly axiomatic** division of subsistence labor by gender and age documented in virtually all recent foraging peoples: put most simply, men hunt, women and children gather'
'This basic form of gendered division of labor is expressed both in ideology and in practice in nearly every ethnographically documented foraging group.'
** axiomatic - aksɪəˈmatɪk/ - adjectives 1. self-evident or unquestionable.
Oh dear it not looking very promising for your idea that biological sex differences doesn't account for at least a substantial amount of the differences we see in how modern women and men act and the routes they take in life
For an additional point about the author not once does he mention sexual selection! Which is rather relevant to sexual dimorphism within a species.
Sorry prof you get an F - from me
BUT WHY STOP THERE... LETS LOOK AT THE SOURCES POLTICAL AFFILATIONS VIA THE USEFUL PORTAL OF HIS TWITTER PAGE....
(I accept that this moves on from arguing his point to actual ad hominem attack but I think it's interesting to consider the authors political views and any biases he may appear to hold...)
Retweets Communist SJW slogans!!!!!
"In a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." - Angela Davis
What was I saying about academia being infested by Marxist thought again??
LOTS OF ANTI TRUMP CONTENT BUT LACKING CRITISCM OF THE EQUALLY ODIOUS RECENT DEMOCRAT LEAD - CHECK
LOTS OF ECHO CHAMBER RETWEETS ABOUT HIS ARTICLE TO AFIRM HOW RIGHT ON HE IS - CHECK
LACK OF ANY CRITISCM OF EXTREMISM AND VIOLENCE ON THE LEFT ITS ALL THE 'ALT RIGHT' AND 'FACISTS' - CHECK
RETWEETS EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL TO AGITATE FOR UNLIMITED MIGRATION INTO THE USA - SOD ANY CONSEQUENCES - CHECK
'ON AUGUST 4, 1944, 73 years ago, the Nazis found Anne Frank. In 1941, the U.S. denied the Franks immigration. @POTUS: #NeverAgain to anyone.' (Retweet August 4th)
HINTS AT SOME RATHER IRRATIONAL BELEIFS FOR SOMEONE STUDYING HUMAN HISTORY - CHECK
Agustin Fuentes @Anthrofuentes Aug 4
Multi species companionship in the afterlife?
SUPPORTS 'POSITIVE' DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHITES - CHECK!
Agustin Fuentes @Anthrofuentes Aug 1
Major problem in higher ed is discrimination against white students? #levelplayingfieldisBS
(in response to this article about moves to get rid of 'Affirmative action' (a term dishonest people use to try and put a spin on DISCRIMINATION)
Yeah like he has no political bias to DISHONESTLY REPRESENT SCIENCE to push a Marxist world view!
Last edited:
