Women hunt in vast majority of foraging societies, upending old stereotypes
For decades anthropologists have witnessed forager women—those who live in societies that both hunt and gather—around the world skillfully slay prey: In the 1980s, Agta women of the Philippines drew bows and arrows as tall as themselves and aimed at wild pigs and deer, and Matses Amazonians struck paca rodents with machetes. Observations from the 1990s described Aka great-grandmothers and girls as young as age 5 trapping duiker and porcupine in central Africa.
A study published today in PLOS ONE has united these reports for a first-of-its-kind global view of women hunters. Reviewing accounts penned by scholars who study culture, known as ethnographers, as well as those by observers between the late 1800s and today, the researchers found that women hunted in nearly 80% of surveyed forager societies.
These data flatly reject a long-standing myth that men hunt, women gather, and that this division runs deep in human history.
Worldwide survey kills the myth of 'Man the Hunter'
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday July 01, @06:08PM (2 children)
My guess is that in prehistoric times as today, women do the work while men watch the game.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @07:26PM
... and men then go on and on about how watching the game is somehow productive. Not only that, but they will also bitch and moan about how watching some dude playing hand-egg in the game and yelling insults from their comfy seated position somehow classes them as being more capable at hand-egg than said professional hand-egg person and how if only the could be given the hand-egg, they would show all of those professionals, including the coach.
And all the while, women are doing something actually productive.
(Score: 3, Touché) by RS3 on Saturday July 01, @11:29PM
If you're the prize stallion. The rest of us mules pull the chariots.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @06:47PM (2 children)
My wife is much more accomplished than I at tracking down and dispatching spiders.
I am more into catch and release.
Not much of a dinner though.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @11:32PM (1 child)
You have trained her well my son.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @04:45AM
It was supposed to be funny. No senses of humor here?
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Saturday July 01, @07:27PM (15 children)
I guess it depends on how you define the "myth". If there definition is that there aren't any women hunters at all. The sure. "Myth" busted. If that was ever the myth, apparently they found some papers that didn't age well that seems to suggest that. But that men hunt and women gather isn't about all the men hunt and all the women gather and that there are none doing the "job" of the opposite sex.
If it's still more common that men hunt then women then the "myth" is alive under any kind of normal circumstances. Question then opens up, perhaps that is the next paper, -- Did men gather? Cause according to their myths apparently men are incapable of picking up berries or mushrooms or whatever ...
No it doesn't. It just shows that women hunt to. But it doesn't mention frequency or anything of the sort as far as I can tell. Just that some women hunt. But an outlier or two doesn't invalidate the core pattern or what is considered to be normal, or most common.
Not standing weird comments made in the 80's, according to the article about female aggression or that periods would somehow make hunting impossible -- one would think the smell of blood would attract prey and not scare it away. Predators tend to go for blood after all. If anything they would then make excellent bait ...
Overall this paper seems to be more of a critique of previous shitty papers that apparently had binary assumptions on hunting and gathering.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Saturday July 01, @07:46PM (5 children)
The myth is that these "jobs" were divided by genders, which is patently false. It's as true as saying that women are nurses and men are engineers. It's a stereotype, not reality ;)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 01, @08:07PM (2 children)
>It's as true as saying that women are nurses and men are engineers. It's a stereotype, not reality ;)
I'm going to go with Anton Ego's analysis of Chef Gusteau's tagline: "Anyone can cook." from Ratatouille.
Stereotypes are a shortcut, and people who use them to exclusion are small minded, lazy, and undeserving of any role which affects others with their judgement.
Having said that, the popular opposite of stereotypes: "Anyone can do anything, if they just apply themselves diligently enough" is a complete crock of shit, too. There are differences among people (and animals): genetic, learned, physical. Someone who stands 5'6" tall can play center on a basketball team but they should not expect to compete at higher levels of the sport. Some people will be better at hunting than others based on: eyesight, strength, intelligence, empathy with the prey, etc. You can train many of those skills, but there will be some people who are just inherently better at it than others no matter how hard the others try and train. Maybe in your village the young boys train to be hunters and as a result of that most or all of the hunters are men. Another village may train their young girls to hunt and there the women are the hunters. I would argue that the most successful village takes no such stereotypical shortcuts and instead trains children in all skills, then based on their aptitudes (and the needs of the village) develops the skills that show the most promise for future excellence, and that should usually result in co-ed hunting parties. Not necessarily 50/50 mix, maybe it's 90/10 M/F because the men are bigger, stronger, etc. Maybe it's 60/40 F/M because the women are better archers... Wouldn't it be a better world if we did less torture training of people who just don't excel in certain things, and instead developed the skills they _are_ good at?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Sunday July 02, @03:56AM (1 child)
I agree with you. I'd further add that the corollary to that is that people who refuse to use them at all, are likewise unfit for any decision-making roles and will not go far in life without reality kicking them in the ass.
Stereotyping is a tool, built in to us by several thousand years of evolution. Use it where appropriate.
- D
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 02, @12:13PM
I mean, yes, a stereotype is a starting point. The problem with so many decision makers in this world is they barely even start when it comes to gathering data, let alone analyzing it.
If you're navigating an overwhelming sea of information and must make decisions quickly, yes- do the best you can.
If you're navigating an overwhelming sea of information and must make decisions that significantly affect the lives of other people, and make those decisions quickly, you're doing it wrong - and if it's the role your employer has set out for you, your employer is doing it wrong. Sure, there are "people at the top" and don't we all want to emulate them? But, those people should have a pyramid of data gathers, analyzers and synthesizers that report to them, and they should listen to what they say. And, if you are a "people at the top" type person, you should never carelessly make decisions, particularly decisions that significantly impact individuals, based on stereotypes - you should be considering what your team has told you about the individual / situation basically to the exclusion of stereotypes.
Basically, the further up the chain you live, the less you should use stereotypes.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Sunday July 02, @06:25AM (1 child)
Wow, you literally spouted exactly what the GP was criticizing. "Most" does not mean "all". Finding an exception does not invalidate "most". No one ever claimed that women never hunted. By the way, "no one" means "most reasonable people", since it seems extremely difficult for you to recognize that concept. Even today, there are many women who hunt recreationally. But most hunters are still men. Most.
Also, stereotypes ARE reality. That's why they're stereotypes. Again, "most" does not mean "all". Stereotypes are a vital evolutionary development that enabled many species to recognize patterns and avoid dying. Exceptions are what enable evolutionary mimicry to exist, but such mimicry must remain exceptions otherwise the stereotype collapses.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday July 03, @01:17PM
Note to self: ok, let's not try to use sarcasm on the internet
The point is, stereotypes change over time. What one society views as "man's job" or "women's job" is then put upside down few hundred years later. Take the role of a doctor. Today, it's mostly balanced across genders. But go back 150 years, and female doctors were unheard of in England or North America for example.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/history/women-med-ed.html [hopkinsmedicine.org]
But if you go back few hundred years more, doctors in same societies were women! Of course, that resulted in them being accused of witchcraft with their medicinal potions and such.
https://theconversation.com/how-the-middle-ages-female-doctors-were-consigned-to-oblivion-197756 [theconversation.com]
So, saying that "but but but some doesn't mean all!" is just playing into same stereotypes you see today. You don't exactly need extra strength to hunt and trap rabbits, chickens or small deer. I don't see why women would not be able to take primary role for hunting for their families. The only caveat here is child rearing puts limits on this, not perceived lack of strength or whatever.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 01, @07:51PM (8 children)
The primary theme my junior college sociology prof wanted to convey, in the textbook he authored, is that: everyone does everything. Imagine a basic social structure, travel far enough and you'll find it. Usually in the Amazon basin these days, but in the past all kinds of isolated societies have developed their own hierarchies that have nothing to do with paying taxes to a rich white man.
Women can hunt, women can lead, women can take the risks in the field while men stay home and tend the gardens, women can be the builders while men do the cooking...
There were just a couple of nearly universal taboos to be found among most societies: incest and cannibalism - both have pretty clear-cut problems, though that didn't stop the Hapsburgs.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by darkfeline on Sunday July 02, @06:32AM (5 children)
> women can lead
Time to get downmodded by people (man or woman) who can't read or tolerate harsh relaity. Obviously, there are woman who can lead. There is no genetic reason that absolutely prevents it. But most women can't.
Historically, there have been matriarchal societies. Those societies failed.
Ignore natural selection at your own peril. For better or worse, reality doesn't share the same emotional biases as humans. A rock isn't going to stop being a rock even if it gets bashed into more female leaders' heads than males (although an affirmative action laws of physics might make for an interesting screenplay).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Touché) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 02, @09:35AM (3 children)
Guess what? Most men can't either. This includes some who consider themselves great leaders.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday July 03, @11:54PM (2 children)
Indeed, but still the overwhelming majority of good leaders are male.
Let's say that there is a leadership skill that is normally distributed. The average is 100. A good leader requires at least 130. The standard deviation is 8 for women and 12 for men. There would be 0.009% women and 0.621% men who would be good leaders. Indeed, more than 99% of men wouldn't make good leaders. But out of all good leaders, 98.6% of them would be male. Statistics 201: when dealing with extremes, small variances are magnified.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday July 04, @04:29AM (1 child)
Well, you can invent scenarios as much as you want, as long as you don't come over with actual data, with citation of the source, all your speculations tell exactly nothing about reality.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday July 05, @09:32AM
The reality is that matriarchal societies have all failed.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 02, @12:23PM
>Historically, there have been matriarchal societies. Those societies failed.
It's a tiny little planet, relative to the societies that currently rule it. Due to the childbearing role of womanhood, I'd say there's a natural bias against strong female leadership (priorities given to family over the larger group) - but... today's society and into the future (if we're going to have much of a future), there will be a lot of women with two or less children, and that massive devotion of their life-energy to raising a brood of 4 to 9 children won't be a factor for them.
Cling to outdated realities at your own peril. Just because a majority of women in successful families of the 1700s through the early 1900s had 3+ decades of child rearing to do, doesn't mean that women aren't cut out to lead. Those same traits that selected for successful motherhood can (in certain leadership roles) outperform those dog-eat-dog bash the competition in the head with a rock traits that successful men were selected for through the same timeframe.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday July 03, @01:21PM (1 child)
The only caveat in the process is that only women have the parts needed to take care of little kids -- boobs and a uterus. And since you rinse and repeat the process here for decade or two, you end up in a situation where one sex has a lot more "free time" simply due to biological reality.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 03, @01:28PM
Yes, the obvious is true, but... in modern (world population 8B and rising) society, a lot of women won't be having children at all, and the ones that do will likely have fewer - often much fewer, particularly in the more prosperous ends of society.
There are certainly biological realities, all around, but hunting, leading, risk taking, designing, building, etc. aren't dictated by the biological differences.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 01, @08:41PM (8 children)
How many women are active hunters at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 months pregnant? And, how many are active hunters while nursing children? How many might decline joining a hunt when they are suffering monthly cramps and general malaise?
Only a fool would claim that women never hunt. It probably takes just as big a fool to say that women are full time hunters. The truth is somewhere in between.
I can accept the basic premise of this article - that women hunted - without much question. But, they go too far by implying that women compete with men for lifetime hunting quotas.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @08:57PM (2 children)
Does your mom know you think this way? You don't come across as respecting women or their contributions to us as a species all too much (and don't give me the equivalent crap of "oh but the hijab is because we respect women TOOOO much").
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @01:35AM (1 child)
Did your mama have any kids that lived?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 02, @09:37AM
Simple logic says: Yes. Dead people tend not to post on the internet.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 02, @01:35AM (2 children)
>How many women are active
huntersanything physically strenuous at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 months pregnant?That depends, a LOT, on the society. Famous stereotype: Asian mother out working the rice paddies, even on the day of delivery: takes the time off needed to pop it out, wraps it in a sling to breastfeed, and continues on working until sundown.
I'd argue that hunting is a great deal less stressful, and better for the fetus, than managing an office full of typical cube dwellers.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday July 03, @04:20AM (1 child)
It's worth noting that rice is an incredibly labor-intensive crop to grow. Societies that count on rice as a major source of calories don't have the luxury of people taking time off when the crop needs to be harvested. In modern times, it's a lot easier, but that's much more recent.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 03, @10:27AM
Stereotypes are always based on something, sometimes it is even factual/ truthful.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @02:47AM (1 child)
The most dangerous animal on that list was the wild pig from the Philippines. They don't seem to have found many women hunting dangerous prey.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 02, @01:50PM
Uhhhh - let's not be dismissive of wild boar, or wild pig as the article calls them. And, which of mankind's prey animals do you suppose are more dangerous than a boar? Yes, there are other animals that most people would consider to be more dangerous than a pig, but we don't eat most of those. I suppose hunter/scavengers might eat a big cat, but probably not by choice. Bear is supposed to be good eating, or at least some bear. The canines aren't especially good eating, though they are eaten when people are desperate. That pretty much leaves bovine prey animals.
But, back to pigs. Do you want to go hunting them, with only primitive weapons? You won't mind if I find a safe place to watch, will you? If I hunt wild boar, I'm going to be carrying a boom stick, somewhere in the range of .270 or any of several .30 caliber rounds, or for the metric people, the heavier 7mm rounds, or larger.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Sunday July 02, @05:19AM (1 child)
Someone moved in with some hunter/gatherer societies and measured the calories brought in by the hunters and by the gatherers.
The majority of nutrition came from the gatherers.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday July 04, @01:18AM
You must be vegan.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday July 02, @09:25PM
Straw doggin to the max, women hate rats and put out traps, now they're bigger hunters than men are, LOL.