this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
878 points (93.8% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2843 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 57 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This study this meme is based on is completely incorrect and should be retracted. Here's a lay summary of its issues:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/04/new-paper-debunks-the-prevalence-of-women-hunting-in-early-societies/

And the published article detailing the problems with that study's issues:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497

[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I remember reading this simply terrible article in Scientific American; the entire article was based on this research paper referred to the meme above.

The paper was a complete fraud, and people just guzzled the cool-aid. He'll they still do, looking at this thread.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I refuted this article when it was published based on their incredibly biased and cherry picked data sources which were entirely baseless.

I wish more people were willing to apply critical thinking and analysis to such claims. All falsified claims are a setback and detriment to humankind's comprehension of the universe.

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To say it's "completely incorrect" is an exaggeration at best. The paper you cited is far more nuanced than that.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:

Venkataraman et al. find that the paper commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper: leaving out important papers, including irrelevant papers, using duplicate papers, mis-coding their societies, getting the wrong values for “big” versus “small” game, and many others.

"commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper," and, "completely incorrect," aren't very different.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 49 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you're saying women are capable of taking out the garbage and recycling?

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I should tell my girlfriend this news!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I hate to break it to you, but She-Ra is less about hunter gatherers and more about interstellar empires with magitech

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I'm gonna use that saying, lol

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I urge everyone to look up the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. The cultural patriarchy is crazy.

Nobody questions how archeology is influenced by contemporary culture. When archeologists find a grave and goes "the body is buried with weapons and a shield, therefore it must be a warrior and thus a man. And they still fucking note how it's weird that this definitely-a-man is smaller than other men from this culture, and his hips are wide, almost like a woman... But he's a dude, he's got weapons after all!" smh

[–] wildflowertea@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 weeks ago

I got the audiobook and I couldn’t finish it. I just couldn’t. I felt so much anger.

But what I managed to get through was fantastic. The part about public transport during winter was so eye opening.

[–] Smith6826@sopuli.xyz 26 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Did women also hunt? Yes.

"As much as men"?

No, beyond any shadow of doubt. Stop trying to white wash over history and verifiable evidence to try and push your personal agenda of stoking culture-wars.

Unless we're talking about tribes where the men took care of the children, the above statement is exaggerated at best and borders on anti-history/anti-anthropology nonsense at worst.

You might as well post that the men spent as much time taking care of the children than the women. And if you can admit that is false for the majority of human history, then you can clearly see how this being false also disqualifies the "women spent as much time hunting" statement.

Again, there is no debate on the fact that many women were great hunters and not just gatherers, but you also can't deny that most of the women took care of the kids.

Looks like I took the bait, didn't I...smh lol

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Fizz 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you have a link to that evidence? I remember reading a while back about a find in South America that had female hunters but would be interested in reading more evidence about it being widespread.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] clark@midwest.social 19 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

I thought everyone knew this. Tasks based on sex were not so prevalent until high cultures formed and people started settling down instead of being nomadic.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Not just nomadic. Many sedentary societies lack strong gender divisions in labor as well.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

Its almost as if people need to be flexible to stay alive

[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 weeks ago

THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT, PEOPLE!

[–] uis@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

No, you don't understand, this is all communist propaganda! /j

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, octomom has a baby.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

My mom would puke at these, even I feel some nausea. It just was such a horrible time to be alive. I wouldn’t wish these times on my worst enemy

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Would be a nice plot twist, but do you habe any sources for your claim? If this is real I would like to know more

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10306201/

This paper has a lot of back and forth. Another commenter posted a rebuttal.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by Wengrow and Graeber

[–] ynazuma@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Different point of view on your “source”, which is a mass market paperback made to sell and be consumed, not for serious scientific inquiry.

https://libcom.org/article/wrong-about-almost-everything-review-dawn-everything-david-graeber-david-wengrow

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I'll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I'm pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah it's a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I'm like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it's just as academic as "Debt" was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it's a way for critics to get their name out there.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DimFisher@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In any way all of those are just speculations, it's very hard to be sure about anything when you go more than 10000 years back in time, all I know is that in school they teach mostly lies

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Personally I find it weird that we do generalities about a this population as it is very likely that they had all different cultures on the tribe level.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago

The only thing that might predispose women is when they get pregnant. Most forms of hunting don't require excessive strength. This is not speculation, prehistoric people do not give a shit about your value system or how it imposes itself on science. Animals in animal world be animals.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 10 points 2 weeks ago

Oh yeah? Then why am I always angry at everyone all the time?!

Boom. Scienced!

\s

[–] Jumpingspiderman@reddthat.com 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I grew up in Da Yoop. In my high school, our head cheer leader was an expert bow hunter. This "discovery" is not in any way a surprise to me.

[–] Smith6826@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's echo-chamber, culture-war nonsense. There's a reason men are the vast majority of physical jobs, and it's not because anyone is stopping qualified women from working.

Just as an example, in my personal experience, we rarely received women's applications to work warehouse or roofing, and even less who met the qualifications of being able to pick up minimum 50lbs (not that heavy, approximately 2x 24's of beer) on their own.

I'd also like to point out that, while I'm not trying to minimize her impressive achievements, your friend is from modern society, not ancient. She had the privilege of going to school, being a cheerleader and having free time, instead of cranking out babies in the ancient wilderness.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's why when you see documentaries about tribes that had little to no contact to the outside world, women are often hunting and do the heavy lifting and men are at home raising kids and taking care of the village while the women are out there. I mean i haven't seen it, but according to this one weird paper they must exist.

[–] ynazuma@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

they're being sarcastic, since they find it preposterous that women are people

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I used to believe in Social Darwinism, I got better info and no longer believe that crap.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What about Darwin Socialism?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›