The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong - eviltoast
  • Plague_Doctor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idea that ‘males hunted because they were stronger, etc’ was cope to rationalize the fact they are less reproductively valuable than females. Four males don’t come back from a hunt, village mourns- Four females don’t come the village dies.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m willing to believe that men hunted more frequently for this reason alone. Women are simply too valuable. I wonder if this is the origin of a dowry as well. Compensation for the tribe or family losing the ability to expand.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you mean bride price. A dowry is something the woman’s family gives to the husband’s family.

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

          Not always. In Islamic tradition, the man pays the dowry (know in Arabic as mahr مهر) to the bride, who would then own the money herseöf (so not her family or tribe). It can be anything with monetary value, including lifestock or gold.

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

        Men were more expendable but the more important issue at hand was continued survival of the tribe. If we don’t have children we die out in 20-40 years. If we don’t have food, we die out in 2-4 weeks. If a woman was physically capable, she was likely going to be sent out on a hunt, more so if her family were hunters too.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re willing to believe that despite complete lack of any evidence for that?

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

          I would never quote it as scientific fact without scientific evidence, but it does withstand some scrutiny. Hunting is dangerous.

          10 alive men + 5 alive women + 5 dead women = 0-5 babies

          10 alive women + 5 alive men + 5 dead men = 0-10 babies

          If that isn’t evolutionary pressure, I don’t know what is

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

      If this is true wouldn’t that be a reason for a village to send only the men on hunts?

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

        You have to eat, so if a woman was your best hunter you’re sending her out. Young men were almost certainly encouraged if not pushed into being hunters if they showed any aptitude for it, but before agriculture became common, most of the tribe had to dedicate a lot of time to gathering food.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My problem with these comments is that while it’s rational, it’s also just speculation. We have no actual idea beyond best guesses around found artifacts.

    • crocat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this might be the reason for the strength disparity. Tasks that require strong people tend to be more dangerous but a sensible tribe leader would send the strongest to do these tasks whether they are male or female. A tribe where the strength balance leans female will grow slower than a tribe where there is equal distribution which will grow slower than one with male balance. This selection effect would cause evolution in that direction.

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

        Male/female size differences would have evolved prior to humans as a recognizable species evolving - and the fossil record of pre-humans supports this.

        Humans have never self-selected for physical fitness with any regularity, throughout the historical record. We primarily mate for social reasons.