women were hunters too

[parietal]

I'd like to tell everyone about a new paper (highlighted in Science) which destroys the myth that men were hunters and women were gatherers, and that this impacted on brains & evolution

a big review of anthropological studies around the world shows that women hunt in nearly 80% of the societies studied

https://www.science.org/content/article/worldwide-survey-kills-myth-man-hunter?utm_medium=ownedSocial&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=NewsfromScience

I think this gives a strong argument against any claims that there are 'lady brains' because the women had to stay at home and gather. And against any claims that modern gender roles have any origins in evolution.

@user9630721458
That was very interesting. Up to 50% of the hunting done by women - alone, with hubby or in groups. More variation in hunting strategies than their male counterparts, hunted all sorts of game, not just the small animals. I was fascinated to see that they took their children with them on hunts! I suppose they had strategies to keep them safe and it was important for skills to be passed on. Just like taking the kids to Asda, really.

Yes, I have had a look too now. It seems women are equally involved in hunting, even in some contemporary hunter gatherer groups. Contemporary social scientists, anthropologists and archaeologists are really breaking down the myths. I was interested in how the authors connected the idea of men as hunters with traits such as being unemotional. I think there has been an amount of sexist projection in academic studies and it's good it's being challenged. Women taking children with them may also be a way to teach skills, and suggests even children may have useful skills to help with hunting. I think I would prefer it to Asda, really, no queues!

But surely there is an argument for women to be more maternal and naturally for child rearing? After all, historically women only ever breastfed. That meant a special relationship with those children a man just couldn't have. And means the child looks to the woman as their main care giver

The article that @BellaAmorosa and I looked at states that women in hunter gatherer societies become adept at hunting with children. Also, if we imagine life in prehistoric times, it's quite likely that a woman could end up the sole provider for herself and possibly children. Men could die and a woman would need hunting skills. The article also suggested women hunt in groups with other women, suggesting they may assist each other with the child care. I don't think the breastfeeding role prevents women from hunting.

I think I may have linked the paper that OP's article refers to! Hope that's OK, didn't realise when searching. It really just repeats in greater depth OP's original article.

@user9630721458
Yes, but the finer detail and the numbers of the study are very interesting.

I don't think breastfeeding would be the more significant barrier for women, after all, women can share that role quite easily if there are several who are lactating, and that's pretty common in many more primative societies where there aren't other good options for feeding infants.

More limiting would probably be pregnancy itself, and maybe some of the risks associated with large game hunting depending on what the prey animals were. Generally a reduction to the female population is likely to have a more severe impact than a reduction of the male population, if survival of the group is at marginal levels.

The article also suggested women hunt in groups with other women, suggesting they may assist each other with the child care. I don't think the breastfeeding role prevents women from hunting

I think that's much more likely, that child rearing was communal; some women (the pregnant or older ones) looked after the children too young to hunt or forage while the other women in the tribe were out hunting. They might even have had women acting as wetnurses.

Peasant women the world over take their kids to work in the field or the forest/jungle. The baby sleeps most of the time and when it needs feeding, they feed it. We have to remember that we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers for many, many tens of thousands of years. We would have worked something out.

It may have been that a heavily pregnant woman or a mother of a brand-new baby might temporarily restrict her hunting activities, or join in but stay at a safe distance when the other tribe members are flushing out the prey. But basically we are animals and in many mammals the female in a pair or top female in a group is the one who gets the food in. Strength and speed isn't really an issue - the differences between men and women, although real and large, are probably dwarfed by those differences between humans and their prey. We were mainly using our massive brains to hunt and kill animals.
And we may not have had that many children, either. One child every four years on average, I read - can't find the article, sorry.

Thanks @BellaAmorosa
@DemiColon Pregnancy would be a limitation, I agree. Up to late pregnancy activities like fishing using nets, trapping perhaps sound feasible.
@MrsDanversGlidesAgain That sounds likely.

Basically, women are awesome. That's what I'm taking from all this.

@BellaAmorosa I agree. The skills women display are impressive! I also think you are right that intelligence, cunning, stealth and endurance might be as useful in hunting as sheer strength, which is the main difference between men and women. That's not to say that male strength would not have been invaluable in the past for various tasks, but being physically weaker wouldn't have prevented women from being very capable hunters.

Can't recall where I read it but there's a theory that hunting large prey was actually rare because of the expenditure of energy needed as against chance of success and danger involved; so the day to day diet would have been small animals and birds plus whatever was foraged; and of course women could trap and hunt small ones quite easily because no brute strength needed. Set a few traps, go looking in the hedgerows and woods, come back and see what you've got for the pot.

That makes sense.

But on the other hand, paleolithic humans managed to wipe out almost every species of large prey animal wherever we went... Might depend on each society's attitude to gambling, I suppose.

There's a huge amount of observer bias in anthropology. Particularly historically - field scientists in the early days were generally men, and thought men were more important. So if there was division of labour they would go off with the male group, while women's activities were less observed. (And if they went by self-reported activities, males the world over are more likely to boast. There's an excellent bit in - I think - one of Jared Diamond's books, where he goes off for the day with the men's hunting party which spends hours stalking and shooting at various animals, eventually makes a successful kill, and returns to the village dancing and singing about their prowess. They sit down for the evening meal for the village that is made up of various foods the women have collected during the day plus the men's celebrated contribution of .... one single wren.)

And data on hunting is also skewed by the definition. Men women and children all collect grubs and insects - not hunting. Fishing is either everyone or mainly women and children - not hunting. In some societies collecting frogs is entirely a women's job - not hunting. But if the thing at one end of the spear is a man instead of a woman, and the thing on the other end is a bird or guinea pig instead of a frog or a fish - that's hunting.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn Ah, it's the spear which makes it hunting? How, um, phallic! I can well imagine most academic disciplines were dominated by men, so there would be some bias bound to creep in to their studies.

Oh, no - women using a spear for frog or fish aren't hunting. It's who holds the spear that matters. Only men hunt, therefore only what is done by men is hunting.

It's like certain academics contantly redefining language to ensure it is purely human attribute.

Language is using sounds to communicate meaning. Ah - animals do that? Oh, but that's just instinctive vocalisation - of course we meant voluntarily and purposefully using sounds to convey meaning.

They do? Really? Well, we meant
voluntarily and purposefully using combinations of sounds to convey meaning.

Animals do that too? Ah. Hmm. Well obviously we meant voluntarily and purposefully using combinations of sounds in a defined order to convey meaning.

..the men's hunting party which spends hours stalking and shooting at various animals, eventually makes a successful kill, and returns to the village dancing and singing about their prowess. They sit down for the evening meal for the village that is made up of various foods the women have collected during the day plus the men's celebrated contribution of .... one single wren.)

That is hilarious, @BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn