bloodsheen said:

Becoming an archer takes practice. I'm sure in all of human history a father or two allowed their daughter to mess around with a bow or even become a hunter. But imagine every time you miss and an arrow ends up way the fuck out in the woods, never to be found. Each arrow was an intense task to make. First a straight enough branch, then the fletching needs attached, then the arrowhead has to be napped. All three can be damaged in some way with every shot

Point being, switching roles would have been exceptionally impractical. You couldn't just kinda sorta know a task, you had to be a super expert or your tribe might die.

---

killingravensun said:

killing an animal is easy business, it takes little to no problem solving ability, just the skill needed to do the deed, same as foraging, but fire science does take problem solving, finding the right amount of the right material to burn and then burning the right amount to get the job done without running out or burning down the camp, plus doing it with young children around adds another layer of difficulty, then the food preparation on top of that, making sure there is enough for everyone and getting it done before the village starves

at best the tasks of each sex are on par, with the women doing more diverse work than the men

---

killingravensun said:

you somehow have come to the conclusion that being stationary at the camp is somehow safer than wandering around the countryside, in reality there is smilar odds of danger in each case and in some ways staying in one place makes you a better target for various attacks

you also imply that wandering around looking for meat somehow involves more problem solving than taking care of the camp, foraging for foods, tending to fires and presumably taking care of infants

i think you are way out on a limb here and sound like a male supremacist

---

DividedQuantum said:

It is safer to be in a group, in camp, with fires burning, than out by oneself in the bush. This is obvious. I'm not sure where you get all this stuff, but it's not very well reasoned out.

---

DividedQuantum said:

I am not at all out on a limb, and the fact that you think so betrays your total lack of knowledge of anthropology.

---

DividedQuantum said:

In hunter-gatherer societies, and in hominin societies for millions of years,

---

killingravensun said:

DividedQuantum said:

It is safer to be in a group, in camp, with fires burning, than out by oneself in the bush. This is obvious. I'm not sure where you get all this stuff, but it's not very well reasoned out.

---

i get it from personal experience, i have lived in the wilderness for weeks at a time, i killed animals for fun when i was a kid starting around ten years old, nobody taught me how, it was instinctual, conversely it took me many years to learn how to forage for edible plants, knowing where and when to look for certain kinds, avoiding the poisonous ones, and anyone who thinks building and maintaining a fire is easy hasnt done it

DividedQuantum said:

I am not at all out on a limb, and the fact that you think so betrays your total lack of knowledge of anthropology.

---

i dont give a fuck about anthropology, i have first hand experience

---

bloodsheen said:

Apparently you are a good murderer and a bad fire maker.

---

DividedQuantum said:

In hunter-gatherer societies, and in hominin societies for millions of years, the women would remain close to home and hearth, gathering nuts, berries, tubers – what have you – and generally running the camp and staying out of harm’s way. Presumably fires would be burning. The men, on the other hand, would venture out great distances, executing very difficult strategies, solving problems and sometimes putting themselves in terrible danger in order to acquire meat.

I’m sure the feminists find it difficult explaining all this away.

I

---

Rahz said:

Women get pregnant. Even if they can hunt for part of that period the odds of survival are better if they don't. Then they have to breast feed for a few years. Best not to take the infants hunting. So they stayed close to home and pick berries and roots.

Men became stronger and perhaps more adept at staying cool in the face of imminent danger. They take more risks. This means some men will achieve power, and also that many men will suffer an early demise. There are benefits and negatives to both sexes.

If I were a feminist I would say that there is choice (perhaps more nowso for women than ever) and those who are able to take advantage will. Men and women both have typical traits, but there are exceptions and there always have been. History shows us there are strong willed women who achieve and hold power. Those who can do, but it's not typical. Pushing for such a level playing field will be problematic. That would seem like a logical feminist view. Men have no business telling women how to live their lives and it sucks that it happens, but if a woman has the guts and ability she will succeed. Being a feminist should be about expecting men to respect everyone exercising their inate abilities, however that works out, rather than trying to fight reality by making all women like men. To explain further would entail suggesting that humans in general (men and women) can be evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

Being a man kinda sucks too for many. The grass is greener on the other side.

I will say that men are not the problem so much as the gap between rich and poor. This makes life for the majority (men and women) harder and I think it's a strong driver of the angry feminist agenda. Misplaced perhaps, but there's really not a lot to do but cry and squabble until the bloody revolution happens.

---

Rahz said:

Women get pregnant. Even if they can hunt for part of that period the odds of survival are better if they don't. Then they have to breast feed for a few years. Best not to take the infants hunting. So they stayed close to home and pick berries and roots.

Men became stronger and perhaps more adept at staying cool in the face of imminent danger. They take more risks. This means some men will achieve power, and also that many men will suffer an early demise. There are benefits and negatives to both sexes.

If I were a feminist I would say that there is choice (perhaps more nowso for women than ever) and those who are able to take advantage will. Men and women both have typical traits, but there are exceptions and there always have been. History shows us there are strong willed women who achieve and hold power. Those who can do, but it's not typical. Pushing for such a level playing field will be problematic. That would seem like a logical feminist view. Men have no business telling women how to live their lives and it sucks that it happens, but if a woman has the guts and ability she will succeed. Being a feminist should be about expecting men to respect everyone exercising their inate abilities, however that works out, rather than trying to fight reality by making all women like men. To explain further would entail suggesting that humans in general (men and women) can be evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

Being a man kinda sucks too for many. The grass is greener on the other side.

I will say that men are not the problem so much as the gap between rich and poor. This makes life for the majority (men and women) harder and I think it's a strong driver of the angry feminist agenda. Misplaced perhaps, but there's really not a lot to do but cry and squabble until the bloody revolution happens.

---