Many (((scientists))) believe hunter-gatherer women from the Paleolithic Age provided at least 80% of food to their tribes. They also say women and men were "socially equal" until the advent of agriculture.
Is this just typical SJW nonsense, or is there some merit to this info?
How do they know this? It's not like these culture wrote down logs of how well everyone's eating or how "socially equal" everyone was.
i've never seen anyone claim that, not even the most retarded feminist. Got a source?
Could you provide a source for that?
I reckon you could find reasonable grounds to believe this. Firstly, women were more likely to be gatherers whereas men would be more likely to be hunters. I'm not sure if it'd be as much as 80%, but you could easily imagine that gathering is more fruitful than hunting, as fruits and berries can't run away, whereas hunting is very challenging.
It wouldn't be written, but you could tell what people had eaten from finding the poop. Finding fossilized poop really gives archaeologists huge boners.
Question answered, now close this thread.
Do you think all archeologists are scat fetishists?
Uhh question is not answered. No one knows any of this for sure. But some healthy debate from knowledgeable people would definitely make things more clear.
>healthy debate from knowledgeable people
>on Veeky Forums
They we're "equal" is misleading. Thats a concept that exists only in societies, where individuals have status . In tribes everyone is a family and everyone works together. Men and women also spend a great deal of time away from eachother since often times hunts will take multiple weeks. One of the reasons tribes are often "matriarchal" is because the men are off hunting and only the women and children stay behind, so of course women are going to manage that. Idk how much that means that they are "in charge" of their husbands though.
Also women definitley contributed more calories, but hunting allows us to consume MEAT, which has all kinds of benefits.
maybe more like palaeontologists but kinda:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>Is this just typical SJW nonsense, or is there some merit to this info?
While it's not unlikely that women did all the work, the interpretation is most likely SJW nonsense.
The idea that "working" provided you with social status is a modern point of view. In plenty of "primitive" societies all around the world it is fairly common for women to do all the work and men doing nothing at all but socialise with other men. In ancient Greece, the free men would do fuck all and cultivate their virtues while work was something left to women, slaves and foreigners. Same with noblemen Europe who defined themselves specifically through not having to work and having more time to enjoy the finer things.
The idea of work being tied to social status, as something that elevates you, was born during the 18th century. The idea that in a primordial society a woman would be regarded equal to a man just because she did all the work is rather questionable.
Consider also that Hunter Gatherer society was not homogenous. It would've varied enormously depending on the place in the world the tribe lived in, and how abundant in food that place was. For some, hunting and fishing would've been hugely dominant. For others where little to no big game existed, both genders likely would have done gathering. Many tribes also did a mix of farming and hunting/gathering/herding without ever fully transitioning fully out of gathering, and never reaching the benefits a full farming society would bring.
In short, I'm sure plenty of these societies were matriarchial, but obviously that's not definitive.
My university history teacher stated this verbatim, and I'm pretty sure it's in my old history book from that class.
Your history teacher must be a cuck.
She was a female. She also argued about the US not having a female president
Everyone was equal in the liberal sense, everyone gets to try out. This is how it works right now in peoples who seem to live in the manner all of our ancestors lived. I can only imagine our ancestors were even more egalitarian, since they were living in richer lands for hunting and gardening - lands that are farmed today.
Obviously nobody is saying everyone was of equal height before the modern age. The reactionary idea of equality is INSANE.
How? The USA has not had a female president. And there is no argument against having one.
>le (((meme)))
Hahaha so le (((funny))) le (((lololol))) XDDDD am I so le (((funny))) yet guise (((lololol))) XDDDDD(((DDDD))))!!!!!!
>food
How did they gradate protein, dietary fiber, fat, sugar, carbohydrates and sources of vitamin C?
What climate are we talking about here. One where seal hunters bring in most of the calories? Or where they spend hours a day gathering manioc and processing it?
Sounds like bait. Might be true in one corner of the world, without more info it will be a useless discussion.
I think it’s nonsense. One of my anthropology professors, a very impartial, but probably fairly liberal guy, said that there is essentially no evidence of actual matriarchal societies today or since the foundation of anthropology. He pointed out that people often confuse matrilineal with matriarchal. Even in matrilineal systems, men still hold most of the political power.
My professor lived among a hunter-gatherer tribe in South America in total for about two years. Men are very politically dominant in that tribe and see themselves as superior. He also noted, however, that women have tremendous influence behind the scenes, and are proficient at banding together against the men to convince them not to do something. It would be very unlikely that it is this way because of the outside world, because the quickest way to reach this tribe is by sailing seven days up a tributary of the Amazon. In other words, it’s extremely isolated.
Obviously men are better hunters whilst women are better gatherers, most of your diet will come from the nuts and fruits you eat
Men hunt big game. Everyone hunts small game.
80% from women is ridiculous. Like user says, everywhere would be different. And every tribe would differ year on year.
As an addendum, the part about women gathering 80% of food sounds plausible.
Sounds far-fetched.
You're positing an almost crude sketch of hunter-gatherer production. Tribes based their mode of production according to their land.
Inuit have a different system than the San and the San are different than the Yanomami. This takes a greater importance when you realize civilized societies have taken the most fruitful land for themselves.
If there was a "universal" characteristics, it'd be the raiding behavior, which ( IIRC) would end up killing 20-30% of men and who knows how many rapes.
The transition to farming was fucking horrible because you had ever-larger and escalating raids performed by men literally malnourished by a monoculture grain diet while the chief became a ruler because he had control of the surplus produced by the malnourished poor fuckers. This also allowed transition Era chiefs to support unbelievable harems to cuck poor farmers. Not only that but the strongest metal available was fuckong copper. Thus that recent article about the Stone Age claiming a 17:1 ratio of genetics passed down between both sexes.As in 17 women passed down their genetics for every man.
Because the chief monopolized access to women. A question that comes to mind is how did the priest caste evolve from shamans?
Monopolized access via surplus food*
There's evidence of sedentary tribes but they either had access to a natural choke point where you could squeeze surplus out (salmon runs) or a nexus of trade between various tribes.
>gathering is more fruitful than hunting
have you ever hunted?
Also it was probably women and their children, so reasonably 30-40% of the gatherers were males.
>hunting is very challenging
>for people who do literally nothing else but hunt
Fossilized poop is not a good measure of food consumption, it at most describes what one person or what a collection of people might have had at that time.
>speculation :the post
Considering the main method of hunting for several thousand years was "chase the herd until it gets tired, then stick the slowest ones with pointy sticks", it doesn't seem very fruitful especially when you consider the calories required to maintain that lifestyle.
We have skeletons of transition era people. They show severe malnutrition. Going from a diet that incorporates multiple sources and multiple food types to a single cereal grain will fuck your world up.
It's even worse because cities had a habit of deforesting miles of land around them. Even if you wanted to hunt to supplant your shitty diet, you'd have to travel far.
>Well why would they subject themselves to this?
Now here's actual speculation. Take the case of multiple indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. They had a tradition called a potlach where they would exchange gifts with each other on important events.
Now imagine a particularly ambitious chief at the right time. The melting of glaciers produced vast floods which smothered land plant life and left the area desolate once the water receded. Well imagine that, there's a type of plant that has a strategy of monopolizing a flooded area: Cereal grains (in general). After a few generations people would notice that you could harvest these plants and they would be subject to direct human manipulation.
So this ambitious chieftan switches the tribe's mode of production to gathering as much grain as possible. While fantastically shitty for the farmers, the chief got to use grain surplus for his own whims. He could've covered this up by saying he needed this surplus because of they needed to show strength by having the biggest potlach.
Of course instead of potlach, you had the chieftan using his grain surplus to raise armies for larger raids that would take the surplus of other (increasingly) sedentary tribes in the area.
That's fucking speculation.
CONT.
What do you think Abel and Cain was about?
It's a memory, and a wish, for a different era where most people actually got to eat some meat. Cain is the projection from the farmers of how shitty farming life was. Abel is the projection of lamenting transition era farmers who remembered merely hunting and gathering.
Of course, speculation.
CONT.
And of course, the farmers kill their past in the form of Cain killing Abel.
CONT.
I think you can summarize all of history as ever-larger tribes killing other tribes and absorbing ever-increasing amounts of surplus and booty.
You have to remember, most people have a theory of how other people will think, feel, etc. This leaves them open to manipulation by ambitious and "smarter" people. A smaller percentage (mainly autists and asperger's) have a theory of reality.
daedalus2u.blogspot.com
The tl;dr above is that fetuses develop different capabilties based on the chemical signals the mother sends down. Stress produces low NO (Nitrous Oxide) which facilitates autistic-like mindset (ToR). Good times produce normal/elevated NO, which produces infants with more Theory of Mind aka manipulating people.
Now imagine why dynasties exist. Because pregnant females of the ruling class produce more manipulative ("normie") children.
Yes, speculation.
Before I stop for tonight, I'd like to copy/paste something from that blog.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
How autism provides resistance to the delusional thinking of groupthink (aka drinking the Kool-Aid).
When your primary competition is with other people, life is a zero sum game. When your primary competition is with reality, there are no limits."
But before you think I completely endorse that view, manipulating people is probably the best way to impose a moral-aesthetic worldview. If you want kindness to animals, you have to crush those who disregard them. If you want sanity to reign in the world, you have to crush the insane. If you want law and order, you have to crush the disorderly. And that takes the social intelligence normies have.
But with that said, I can't wait for the autist who creates universal acid* and enables a Stirnerian association, and disassociation, of individuals. Of course such an endeavor might take an accumulation of research and development lasting beyond my lifespan. But I hope.
* - the first nanomachine universal constructor that is portable and available to any person.
there is some merit, but it has been deformed by undecated political agendas.
Hunter-gather societies are by nature more equal, because there isn't enough surplus for non-food-producing specialists (aka kings, soldiers, scientist, lawyers, ....). Even the leader had to chip in to get some grub.
So yes, institutionalized social inequalities appeared with agricultutre, simply because they weren't "affordable" before
As far as blanketing men-women dynamics as a result of historical period, that is utterly retarded. The respective places of men and women, and how they fared compared t one another, is cultural, and in one given period, some areas had women chieftains while others treated them like property.
>I reckon you could find reasonable grounds to believe this. Firstly, women were more likely to be gatherers whereas men would be more likely to be hunters. I'm not sure if it'd be as much as 80%, but you could easily imagine that gathering is more fruitful than hunting, as fruits and berries can't run away, whereas hunting is very challenging.
THIS IS JEWISH LIES REEEE
Uhhhhhh no. Not a chance.
Yanomami are horticulturists and live in settlements. The Inuit have boats and rely heavily on fishing and their capabilities may surpass what many other hunter gatherer groups may have had.
The San culture is probably the closest to the reconstructable paleolithic lifestyle.
>Implying the average individual doesn't prefer meat to produce.
It's more likely a pitching of the nomadic lifestyle against the settled one which the story of Lot also portrays. Also a blood sacrifice was probably simply considered proper as opposed to any vegetable offering since they weren't exactly sophisticated oriental devotees practicing the purposeful use of vegetable offerings over blood sacrifices on preceptual grounds.
>He also noted, however, that women have tremendous influence behind the scenes, and are proficient at banding together against the men to convince them not to do something
Reminds me of the saying "A man is the head of the household, but the woman is the neck". Men make decisions but women can influence a great deal in what direction it goes.
This was even the case in ancient Greece
An Oikos was the the extended family company, of the day, and while men had a most of the power in terms of making decisions
women had the final say on who could be hired, and had the ability to fire workers of thier own discressions
> The Inuit have boats and rely heavily on fishing and their capabilities may surpass what many other hunter gatherer groups may have had.
There's a certain tragedy nowadays. Their diet was one of the healthiest in the world with the only problem being osteoporosis later on because of lack of vitamin D, a lack of which cripples the ability of bone to hold onto calcium. But now that we've dumped so many toxic metals, they get the big concentrations of mercury and god knows what else.
big concentrations of mercury, accumulated up the food chain to the fish they eat,*