"It is truly bizarre how some people don’t want to recognize differences between men and women."
Even better, one can argue that women were innately superior at a thing (which is not demonstrated) by virtue of their unique biological factors AND argue that gender doesn't matter - all at the same time. I am not making this up:
"It is truly bizarre how some people don’t want to recognize differences between men and women."
Even better, one can argue that women were innately superior at a thing (which is not demonstrated) by virtue of their unique biological factors AND argue that gender doesn't matter - all at the same time. I am not making this up:
> From a metabolic standpoint, Ocobock explained, the female body is better suited for endurance activity
I don’t have a PhD in anthropology but I can google “world records for marathons and ironman competitions.” If women are indeed better suited for endurance activity, then why do men perform better in such competitions?
> “And I want people to be able to change these ideas of female physical inferiority that have been around for so long.”
I think that’s the crux of the issue. Some people don’t want to acknowledge physical differences (eg men are on average taller, heavier, and stronger) because they assume that would make men “superior” more generally. This is beyond silly. The fact that someone is taller doesn’t make them a more worthwhile person — just a taller person!
I have done a certain amount of hiking/back packing and I have many acquaintances who do it much more than I do. Also friends in the armed forces.
In every single case when going on an extended hike loaded with tent/supplies etc. the men take more than half the load and leave the women with significantly lighter packs. This is the case even when the women are large muscular women and the men not as large. If they don't at least one of the women will seriously injure herself because of the load. You give women the lighter but bulkier stuff, drink from their water first and so on because that way everyone survives to enjoy themselves.
There is no way this has changed from our hunter gatherer forbears. Sure the woman may (but probably doesn't) have greater endurance but endurance to kill the critter is only half of the requirement for hunting. The other half is bringing the kill back to the band to eat and women will struggle to do that as well as men
Yes, consider the prevalence of the large breasted "Venus" figurines from Neolithic times. I gather people can only guess as to whether that reflected respect for women's role in their society, worship of a fertility goddess for successful child births or harvests (later on), etc. But they were not all that rare.
And women had to carry the infants/ toddlers on their hip until someone (possibly even a man?!!!) figured out how to make front or back carrying contrivances out of hides, etc. I would hazard a guess this discovery occurred first in the colder clients as the child was being bundled up, or carried inside the clothing of the mother to keep it warm.
I wonder what role or contribution the wider pelvic bone structure of women plays in this difference in net carrying capacity. Evolution trading off superior results transiting the birth canal vs. muscle/tendon locations and gravity, etc.???
Helen Joyce wrote a book about this rejection of biological differences- Trans. Thing is, men invented the pill; arguably the enabler of feminism, the post sexual revolution kind anyway. It’s difficult for modern people to grasp a world without contraception. Women have evolved differently around the central fact that we have the heavy machinery of reproduction and it is resource and labour intensive. We are like domesticated pets now, but we were designed or evolved for a very different life.
"men invented the pill", except that "men" in the form of the male half of mankind did not do that, but rather some smallish group of people (possibly with female assistants/ assistance?) did. The question becomes their motive for doing so:
1) advance the male hierarchy dominance (even oppression?)?
2) provide for a condition, situation that allowed greater male sexual libertinism with reduced (or no) consequences? 2.5) or female libertinism, too???
3) truly trying to provide women freedom over their reproductive choices (number, timing, partner, etc.)? Is that attitude part of first wave feminism? Is this part of advancing human flourishing?
4) reduce the incidence of births to unwed mothers? (and the social ills thereunto appertaining)
5) make a profit selling something women (and many men) wanted/ would want? I suspect 3, 4, and 5 dominated in their thinking.
I presume we agree that "enabling of feminism" (2nd wave or Femi-Nazism??) was not anyone's conscious intent.
"grasp a world without contraception..." is something that we should occasionally step back and reflect on as a past and still on-going condition for much of mankind. I am not positive if contraceptives are also involved, but we do know that as societies/ nations get wealthier, they then have fewer children.
Another (bad, sad, but related) thought I had last night was that too many women in Gaza are indoctrinated to act as baby factories to produce jihadi warriors against Israel. They have so many children they don't have (or avoid?) the same deep maternal link to the ones killed in battle. This leads to a logic that says the IDF should really target the women to reduce the production of future jihadi males!!
"We are like domesticated pets now..." Wow! That is a slap in the face! There is an element of truth in that view, but any reasonable man who respects his mother, wife, daughter, sister, niece, grandmother, aunt, or other women friends would resist that description.
But it also brings to mind the adage that mankind domesticated the wolf into the dog, but the reality is the dog domesticated us. :-)
I don't recall the proper phrasing, but isn't there a saying about women and civilization? Women are the domesticators as much as the domesticated??
I taught myself to type on a manual typewriter when I was 10 years old, but now it seems the process of thinking to language to motor control of hands and fingers to keyboard result is deteriorating. Not too much of a problem most of the time, except when I use "not" vs. "now" or some other spell check allowed combinations that change the meaning in sly ways.
"It is truly bizarre how some people don’t want to recognize differences between men and women."
Even better, one can argue that women were innately superior at a thing (which is not demonstrated) by virtue of their unique biological factors AND argue that gender doesn't matter - all at the same time. I am not making this up:
https://news.nd.edu/news/woman-the-hunter-studies-aim-to-correct-history/
This is a gem. Thank you for the link!
> From a metabolic standpoint, Ocobock explained, the female body is better suited for endurance activity
I don’t have a PhD in anthropology but I can google “world records for marathons and ironman competitions.” If women are indeed better suited for endurance activity, then why do men perform better in such competitions?
> “And I want people to be able to change these ideas of female physical inferiority that have been around for so long.”
I think that’s the crux of the issue. Some people don’t want to acknowledge physical differences (eg men are on average taller, heavier, and stronger) because they assume that would make men “superior” more generally. This is beyond silly. The fact that someone is taller doesn’t make them a more worthwhile person — just a taller person!
Just to pile on here
I have done a certain amount of hiking/back packing and I have many acquaintances who do it much more than I do. Also friends in the armed forces.
In every single case when going on an extended hike loaded with tent/supplies etc. the men take more than half the load and leave the women with significantly lighter packs. This is the case even when the women are large muscular women and the men not as large. If they don't at least one of the women will seriously injure herself because of the load. You give women the lighter but bulkier stuff, drink from their water first and so on because that way everyone survives to enjoy themselves.
There is no way this has changed from our hunter gatherer forbears. Sure the woman may (but probably doesn't) have greater endurance but endurance to kill the critter is only half of the requirement for hunting. The other half is bringing the kill back to the band to eat and women will struggle to do that as well as men
Yes, consider the prevalence of the large breasted "Venus" figurines from Neolithic times. I gather people can only guess as to whether that reflected respect for women's role in their society, worship of a fertility goddess for successful child births or harvests (later on), etc. But they were not all that rare.
And women had to carry the infants/ toddlers on their hip until someone (possibly even a man?!!!) figured out how to make front or back carrying contrivances out of hides, etc. I would hazard a guess this discovery occurred first in the colder clients as the child was being bundled up, or carried inside the clothing of the mother to keep it warm.
I wonder what role or contribution the wider pelvic bone structure of women plays in this difference in net carrying capacity. Evolution trading off superior results transiting the birth canal vs. muscle/tendon locations and gravity, etc.???
Helen Joyce wrote a book about this rejection of biological differences- Trans. Thing is, men invented the pill; arguably the enabler of feminism, the post sexual revolution kind anyway. It’s difficult for modern people to grasp a world without contraception. Women have evolved differently around the central fact that we have the heavy machinery of reproduction and it is resource and labour intensive. We are like domesticated pets now, but we were designed or evolved for a very different life.
"men invented the pill", except that "men" in the form of the male half of mankind did not do that, but rather some smallish group of people (possibly with female assistants/ assistance?) did. The question becomes their motive for doing so:
1) advance the male hierarchy dominance (even oppression?)?
2) provide for a condition, situation that allowed greater male sexual libertinism with reduced (or no) consequences? 2.5) or female libertinism, too???
3) truly trying to provide women freedom over their reproductive choices (number, timing, partner, etc.)? Is that attitude part of first wave feminism? Is this part of advancing human flourishing?
4) reduce the incidence of births to unwed mothers? (and the social ills thereunto appertaining)
5) make a profit selling something women (and many men) wanted/ would want? I suspect 3, 4, and 5 dominated in their thinking.
I presume we agree that "enabling of feminism" (2nd wave or Femi-Nazism??) was not anyone's conscious intent.
"grasp a world without contraception..." is something that we should occasionally step back and reflect on as a past and still on-going condition for much of mankind. I am not positive if contraceptives are also involved, but we do know that as societies/ nations get wealthier, they then have fewer children.
Another (bad, sad, but related) thought I had last night was that too many women in Gaza are indoctrinated to act as baby factories to produce jihadi warriors against Israel. They have so many children they don't have (or avoid?) the same deep maternal link to the ones killed in battle. This leads to a logic that says the IDF should really target the women to reduce the production of future jihadi males!!
"We are like domesticated pets now..." Wow! That is a slap in the face! There is an element of truth in that view, but any reasonable man who respects his mother, wife, daughter, sister, niece, grandmother, aunt, or other women friends would resist that description.
But it also brings to mind the adage that mankind domesticated the wolf into the dog, but the reality is the dog domesticated us. :-)
I don't recall the proper phrasing, but isn't there a saying about women and civilization? Women are the domesticators as much as the domesticated??
colder climates, of course! :-)
I taught myself to type on a manual typewriter when I was 10 years old, but now it seems the process of thinking to language to motor control of hands and fingers to keyboard result is deteriorating. Not too much of a problem most of the time, except when I use "not" vs. "now" or some other spell check allowed combinations that change the meaning in sly ways.
Yeah that study appears to originate in a parallel universe.