|
Awareness -> RE: Why Aren't Women More Like Men In This Respect? (9/11/2016 9:35:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alecta
The hunter bring the food back to the tribe, which is women, children, other men, and other hunters, gatherers, producers, artisans etc., and they all eat. Interestingly, the majority of man's diet back then was not the product of hunting, but of gathering, which was produced primarily by women, being a task that can be performed around the challenges and restrictions presented by their children. It was not the nesters who flocked around the strong hunter, it was the other way around - the hunters offered themselves to the nesters, to become part of the tribe for the myriad advantages - yes, sex, but more importantly, varied diet, social interaction, the benefits of various skills cultivated in the tribe (if Tommy doesn't have to worry about hunting enough food everyday to survive, Tommy can spend his time learning medicine), including creating higher yields and efficiency in hunting (being able to preserve the uneaten parts of that deer you shot today means you can still have deer next week when you don't catch anything). I find that FUCKING unlikely, given a bowhead whale can feed a tribe of Inuit for a year. Not to mention the skills needed for hunting were also those skills needed for protection because, strange as it may seem, the ancient world was something of a hostile place with predators in the form of animals and other tribes.
quote:
Women did not flock to the greatest hunters, they went to the men whose skill was the greatest contribution to the tribe, and each tribe at different times, have different priorities. Say the tribe's focus is expanding population. The most popular men would be those with a track record of producing multiple births. Or the tribe wants to up it's hunting power, so the women flock to the strongest, in order to produce strong children, who can then be trained to become strong and skilled hunters. If the tribe worships knowledge, it would be the cleverest or most learned men. And as a coincidental consequence of this focus, that wise man, strong man, fertile man, because society values him for his wisdom, strength or virility, therefore becomes "rich".
Nonsense. Utter fucking bilge. You're presupposing a level of consideration and hive-mind thinking in women's decisions about who they fuck which is completely untenable.
Mind you, I suppose it continues the delusion of women's choice in these matters, but it doesn't make it any less a bunch of utter horseshit. Women's attraction to men is based on evolutionary survival characteristics, because the women who didn't instinctively select for those characteristics had bloodlines which died out. Men select for fecundity and health which is why a well-proportioned female form and long hair are characteristics of attraction to this day. Women select - still - for survival characteristics. Social dominance and strength.
That's evolution in action, right there.
quote:
But I can see where one might think that it was the "rich" part that attracted the women; and to be fair, we are in an age where the societal focus had been on the "rich man" as opposed to the virile, wise or strong. No. Rich men have the ability to provide and women will happily partake of that - although they will cheat with other men.
quote:
The reason this model no longer holds true is that our society has changed. We are so many in a tribe and the tribe's needs are so vast and many that we are no longer restricted by the urgent tribal needs to take on specific roles, hone certain skills, or produce young that hold specific genetic attributes with the same urgency and pressures as in the hunter-gatherer days. Changing society doesn't change our instincts. While a small minority of people are focused laser-like on one particular attribute (your gold-diggers and your men looking for trophy wives) for the vast majority, attraction is not a choice. And our attraction isn't based on rational thought.
quote:
The question of whether male humans are better equipped to hunt is very much arguable. No. It's not. Most men possess skills which the average woman does not. Mainly targeting, judging distances, velocities and the ability to rotate objects inside our head. It's why we can read a map without rotating it, why our ability to drive is much better than yours (women can't judge gaps in traffic to save their life) and why the primary focus of our recreational games and sports involves targeting. Golf, football, cricket, darts, fucking lawn bowls, hockey and so on.
There are outliers of course, but they're a vast minority. 99% of air-traffic controllers are men because we can think in 3D. Women not so much. 99% of translators are women, because women can talk and listen at the same time.
quote:
It does, in a large part, depend on what you are hunting, and yes, female hunters have a striking disadvantage in general by way of menstruation (smelling of blood), there is no credible means of generalising male humans as better equipped to hunt -- they are more commonly relegated to the role of hunting because traditionally society had always valued a woman's ability to procreate over any other of her abilities (tell me that's not true the next time you mom pesters you about giving her a grandson more than she does about your next career promotion heh). It's not their only disadvantage. Aside from the aforementioned (targeting is usually kind of important when you hunt), it's their lack of strength and stamina. Driving a spear with sufficient speed into the body of an animal takes strength. Running after an animal until it dies of heat exhaustion requires stamina. Shutting the fuck up, while you wait the necessary hours for the optimal conditions requires the ability to shut the fuck up. Women simply don't possess these attributes.
|
|
|
|
