The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong - eviltoast
  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons.

    We have a lot of marathon data. There is a large, consistent difference showing the opposite. This article is horrendously unscientific, so many claims, assumptions, and over summarizing and simplifying

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Author does address this, btw. I still think it’s a bad argument. I just couldn’t fathom that they would say this and not further clarify.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        they make claims and assumptions to address it, they dont really cite anything. Shit like this “The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.” is a hypothesis, but it is not being stated as one, it’s being stated as fact. It’s a testable hypothesis, they could have controlled for the variable of pace setting runners that they bring up by only looking at statistics of running events that do not have this variable.

        And like, the whole premise could be true, that women were also hunters, modern runners with modern sports medicine arent ideal evidence, that kind of endurance might not have been needed for their hunting, women are still humans and humans have the greatest running stamina of any animal. But besides capability, ancient humans also could have had roles determined by sex, it’s at least prevalent in other apes like gorillas. Either way is possible without more solid evidence and it’s pretty crazy to say one way or another is scientifically true.

        • reliv3@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can’t just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, it’s also unlikely to be true. The difference between male and female bodies is the equivalent of years of high end steroid use.

            If you wouldn’t let a man who had taken steroids for a decade and still takes them compete with other men, then you already acknowledge the biological advantage men have over women at physical sports.

            • daltotron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean we also see a lot of what I would define as “outlier behavior” from men more generally. We see crazier olympic world records being set and broken, we see higher rates of suicide and violent crime, that sort of shit, which I’m personally kind of interested in figuring out the reason for. If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina and shit than comparing athletes of different sexes to one another, I think the gap would be smaller.

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina

                They would not. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.

                The difference between the average man and the average woman is the same as the difference between a man who’s been taking steroids since he was 12, and an average man.

                • reliv3@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Estrogen is also a hell of a drug… It’s actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.

                  Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one…

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        They point to women’s impressive performance in extreme distance events, like 100+ mile ultra marathons.

        But that runs head long into the question of “How far do you have to actually chase an animal for it to collapse from exhaustion?” I’m having a hard time finding hard numbers but I don’t think gazelle have the endurance to run 10+ miles before collapsing. So women may be biologically equipped for ultra-long distances, but I don’t see how this correlates to endurance hunting as that advantage doesn’t play out hunting game.

        That’s not to say the basis for the theory on male hunters/female gatherers is not without flaw, but the arguments being made against it don’t seem to really be citing evidence that backs up women being significant, let alone dominant, in that role either.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this ‘article’:

      The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

      From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathons_at_the_Olympics#%3A~%3Atext%3DIn_2020%2C_both_the_men's%2Cby_Tiki_Gelana_in_2012.?wprov=sfla1

      This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don’t even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

        Because if you say things like this enough, people believe you

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Men tend to be taller, so I’d think longer limbs are an advantage. I don’t pretend to know anything beyond that.

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this ‘article’:

        The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

        1.Wikipedia is not a scientific source.

        1. You are, if anything, showing that men are faster than woman. The claim the authors make is about endurance.

        I found this study that seems to support their point.

        “Men Are More Likely than Women to Slow in the Marathon”

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

        This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don’t even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

        I can’t read the article so unfortunately don’t have the grounds to agree or disagree with you. But I’d be carefull voicing my option like this when your only source is Wikipedia and isn’t speaking about the claim you are trying to disprove.

        Edit: incase anybody is interested in reading some more real evidence instead of Wikipedia, this study goed deep into mens vs womans endurance and highlights a few problems with research focusing on males as the baseline.

        Sex Differences in VO2max and the Impact on Endurance-Exercise Performance

        • Murvel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lmao, that wikipedia article has better listed sources than this so called ‘scientific article’ which, incidentally, has none…