Human advancement was due to feminisation of the species.

[Garlick]

Thought you might like this! From the introduction:-

Humans only emerged from the caveman era once females realised the toughest males didn't always make the best partners. Why go for brute force when you could instead choose a clever tool-maker with better social skills? This preference for more intelligent or creative males meant testosterone levels dropped and modern humans evolved to become slimmer and more easier to live with.

theconversation.com/early-humans-had-to-become-more-feminine-before-they-could-dominate-the-planet-42952

I'm no anthropologist but it seems to make sense.

Sexual preferences in modern hunter gatherer societies have been extensively researched. The women's choices focus entirely on speed, strength and courage in the hunt.

Having said that, within primitive farming communities, brute strength is even more relevant in providing food for the family, and more highly prized in men.

Just found this as part of my history lesson: Prokopios, ca. 550 AD, also describes a primitive hunter people he calls skrithifinoi. These pitiful creatures had neither wine nor corn, for they did not grow any crops. "Both men and women engaged incessantly just in hunting the rich forests and mountains, which gave them an endless supply of game and wild animals."

• From a contemporary account of Finland. Other Scandinavian cultures were described as hunters, herders and farmers. At least one was rich enough that men could have several wives: this is interpreted as meaning they lived in extended families, like some of the outlying villages in North-Eastern Europe today.

According to Wikipedia, all of European agriculture was slash-and-burn until the forests had been used up, which caused the fall of Rome. Thus, European Iron Age commoners had no fixed settlements to speak of. Towns grew up around trading sites, so obviously people had permanent homes there.

I don't even know why I'm doing this, FWR is chock-full of real historians! Please, you lot, do fill in the relevant gaps!

Karbon, you can't be referring to primitive farming communities where women do most of the work? I thought that was the majority.

Yes, Karbon what do you mean? What 'primitive' farming communities?

Are you just making this up?

"The women's choices focus entirely on speed, strength and courage in the hunt."

Would be interested in some links on this. However, the time under discussion is when humans were becoming Homo sapiens so we cannot make absolute and direct comparisons.

women do the lighter work, and need men to do the heavier stuff. Anthropologist reckon that sexism took off with reliance on the plough, which men could handle more productively than women, ( and still can)

Would be interested in some links on this look it up, there are many published interviews and documentaries, within the past few years.

A five minute Google of papers shows none of what you say is true, Karbon.

I think if you want to find the evidence, it is all right there, almondcake.

Ah right. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't need to google any speculation random posters make up on the Internet.

You are the one making all the claims karbon. You back it up.

And women do 70% of the farming around the world. I'm pretty certain they don't stick to "the lighter work".

Thanks for the video garlick, I didn't know it was called an atlatl.

Which modern hunter gatherer societies are you referring to, Karbon? Because, and I realise living within a couple of them doesn't make me an expert, I saw zero evidence of your evopsych based claims.

You make claims, back them up!

And what scallops said, which anthropologists don't know the division of agricultural labour?

and I realise living within a couple of them doesn't make me an expert

[delighted applause emoticon]

women do the lighter work, and need men to do the heavier stuff. Anthropologist reckon that sexism took off with reliance on the plough, which men could handle more productively than women

I fort that was horses?

As I said, all the evidence is there if you want it, you clearly don't. Why not? Anyone would think you have decided what you want the truth to be, and are only looking sources that support the conclusions you have already settled on.

"women do the lighter work, and need men to do the heavier stuff."

Karbon, i've read that the move to men taking over agriculture was less to do with being lighter and more to do with being compatible with childcare. Up until recently women took their children with them to work whether it was gathering, weaving, cooking, or going into the fields with them on their backs. Agriculture was (and still is in many non industrialised areas) the domain of women.

What changed things, as you rightly point out, was machinery, but less to do with the ability to operate (I expect our foremothers were tough as nails) and more to do with the fact that it would be dangerous to have toddlers running around a plough.

May I suggest "Woman's Work the first 20,000 years" by Elizabeth Barber. It's very good to get a non androcentric view of history.

"Anyone would think you have decided what you want the truth to be, and are only looking sources that support the conclusions you have already settled on"

The same comment could be addressed to you, karbon!

But you are coming out with opinion not facts karbon. You are providing no evidence to support what you are saying. We are countering your arguments with figures and texts to support our arguments. You are just basically saying "Wah! It's true coz I say so". And no we don't have much interest in finding sources for amateurish evo psych. You are the one spouting it with no credibility. We don't have to accept or believe it just because you say it is so. We're not going to do your work for you. Bring the evidence or you are just talking shit basically.

Here is an interesting paper. Even the picture on the front belies what karbon is opinionating on.

So, I'm no historian, but I can google.

So I googled the first 2, largely manual, farming styles that came to mind - paddy fields, and tea - and those were pretty much all women doing the work.

So then I thought, but that's biased, lets look at some others

Wheat farming - once I got out of the mechanised stuff, I found 'Wheat Farming in the Punjab' and there were both women and men hand harvesting.

So I thought some more. Grapes, Oranges - fruit harvesting - women and men again

Ploughing - the one that requires strength apparently (I know almost nothing about this) - finally mainly men... no.. hangon, plenty of men, but also a fair few boys and old men (so strength can't be all-important then), and when no animals or tractors where involved, there it was, women with the picks and hoes.

So, my googling leads me to disbelieve you karbon.

Oh, this was image searches, because I'm too impatient to read today, plus they're pretty obvious evidence.

Would you please answer my question, Karbon? Which "modern hunter gatherer" societies are you basing your opinions on? Because your assertions don't accord with my experiences or indeed the evidence I've read in any way.

Or is it just more fun for you to come and make wildly inaccurate assertions and then, when unable to prove them, suggest that women who have investigated those claims, and found them to be insupported, are thinking with some form of confirmation bias?

Sometimes the reason why you can't find evidence is because THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE. HTH.