How do hunter-gatherers live? Do they divide jobs between men and women? Or is this a modern myth? I've talked with scholars from both sides of the debate. Here is my attempt to make sense of it.
Is the issue mainly that our brains expect binary, yes-no answers, something like "women are essentially non-aggressive" or "no gender difference at all" and an answer like "X% of women hunted on the avg Y times per year" simply does not feel like a satisfactory answer? Ultimately, people want stories and usually individual, personal stories.
Absolutely, I think this is a a big part of the issue! But of course, there are also genuine questions, like the dating of the emrgence of sexual divisions of labor. There the questions seems to be a genuinely open topic for future science. But yes, well said.
Why wouldn’t men be the hunter the vast majority of the time? Men hunt because we are vastly stronger than women, have thicker skins and denser bones, run faster, and have better spatial throwing skills, all of which is biologically universal and suggests a body made for hunting. Men release more testosterone after eating meat even. Social constructionist marxists try to muddy the waters by suggesting a woman shooting a small squirrel with a bow once a year is equivalent to mammoth hunting. it isnt, and all the blue haired feminists in academia can only lie about it to craft a narrative.
I think this is way too simplistic. What about Agta women? What about Martu women? What about Aka women? They have contributed hugely to the hunting efforts of their groups, not just “shooting a squirrel once a year”. Also, you are immediately turning to mammoth hunting which is a very small part of the puzzle. There’s nothing trivial about the squirrels ;)
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with the _possible_ conclusion that men hunted the vast majority of time. I’m leaning towards it. But you cannot get to the conclusion by thinking in the armchair. This is a scientific debate. Let’s keep it that way.
Agta mostly fish, and is fishing really “hunting”? I see it more as gathering. And Martu women do mostly hunt small fauna. I think big game is what springs to mind when I think Real Hunting.
- Yes, fishing is an under-appreciated part of the puzzle. This is one of the reason why we should probably start using "foragers" instead of "hunter-gatherers". But the public would be confused. Tricky one. This said, the Agta women are famous hunters in a traditional sense, too. They hunt with dogs. (Though curiously, I've heard that they don't do it anymore.) In general, dogs seem to make women's hunting more likely. (See: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/gfphe)
- Absolutely right on Martu! Small game. Again, this is the general pattern: women hunt more small game. (See ref above). But I would insist that this is just as much "hunting" as anything else.
Is the issue mainly that our brains expect binary, yes-no answers, something like "women are essentially non-aggressive" or "no gender difference at all" and an answer like "X% of women hunted on the avg Y times per year" simply does not feel like a satisfactory answer? Ultimately, people want stories and usually individual, personal stories.
Absolutely, I think this is a a big part of the issue! But of course, there are also genuine questions, like the dating of the emrgence of sexual divisions of labor. There the questions seems to be a genuinely open topic for future science. But yes, well said.
Why wouldn’t men be the hunter the vast majority of the time? Men hunt because we are vastly stronger than women, have thicker skins and denser bones, run faster, and have better spatial throwing skills, all of which is biologically universal and suggests a body made for hunting. Men release more testosterone after eating meat even. Social constructionist marxists try to muddy the waters by suggesting a woman shooting a small squirrel with a bow once a year is equivalent to mammoth hunting. it isnt, and all the blue haired feminists in academia can only lie about it to craft a narrative.
I think this is way too simplistic. What about Agta women? What about Martu women? What about Aka women? They have contributed hugely to the hunting efforts of their groups, not just “shooting a squirrel once a year”. Also, you are immediately turning to mammoth hunting which is a very small part of the puzzle. There’s nothing trivial about the squirrels ;)
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with the _possible_ conclusion that men hunted the vast majority of time. I’m leaning towards it. But you cannot get to the conclusion by thinking in the armchair. This is a scientific debate. Let’s keep it that way.
(For more of my thoughts on the perils of “armchair Darwinism”: https://onhumans.substack.com/p/distorting-darwinism)
Agta mostly fish, and is fishing really “hunting”? I see it more as gathering. And Martu women do mostly hunt small fauna. I think big game is what springs to mind when I think Real Hunting.
Very relevant points. My brief reactions:
- Yes, fishing is an under-appreciated part of the puzzle. This is one of the reason why we should probably start using "foragers" instead of "hunter-gatherers". But the public would be confused. Tricky one. This said, the Agta women are famous hunters in a traditional sense, too. They hunt with dogs. (Though curiously, I've heard that they don't do it anymore.) In general, dogs seem to make women's hunting more likely. (See: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/gfphe)
- Absolutely right on Martu! Small game. Again, this is the general pattern: women hunt more small game. (See ref above). But I would insist that this is just as much "hunting" as anything else.
Is catching bugs the same as hunting then?