Clarification on men/women hunting.

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

Just admit it’s a retarded question and move on like a man.

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[Greg HondaParticipant 6406]

If women didn’t need men to provide for them by hunting, they would abandon their men. It’s the same as modern day Single Mothers, they don’t need the man to provide as the state fills in, so they ditch their men.

We are only a rescouce. If we have no utility we are abandoned.

Women don’t DO they just ARE. They don’t need to be good at anything that they can get a man to do for them instead.

If this tribe ever existed it would have died out quick through lack of procreation. Same as our modern society will die out if men are no longer needed.

All sucessful societies follow the same formular of male and female roles. Tried Tested Proven.

Mess with Nature and you go extinct.

And by the way, I don’t recall seeing an introduction?

Bad form old boy 😉

It's Time to get Wise

[Anonymous 42]

Why don’t ya try some feminine hygiene questions? I’m sure they’ll fly like a lead balloon!

[KeymasterKeymaster]

The Fraternian wrote:

Men have a lower reproductive value because

Yes I understand the fundamental premise “eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap” and YES, it’s “deeply ingrained in your psychology”.

But not in mine.

Women give birth, but men give LIFE.

There’ isn’t a single woman on the planet paying a man 216 monthly payments for a child that’s not even hers. So you still fail to show how women have more “reproductive value”… because here’s a single mother with 15 f~~~ing kids demanding someone ELSE had to pay for them.

Show me the money. Show me the “value”. Oh that’s right, there’s isn’t any.
She’s a goddam parasite.

—

The fact that something has been “ingrained in your psychology” is not a reason to go around making a declaration like it’s true. “Men have a lower reproductive value and need to compensate for that by providing resources” f~~~ you.

D- for your women’s studies class.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Elric GreenstoneParticipant 1637]

The Fraternian wrote:

I’m a man btw and I am pretty flatchested.

No male would ever, ever, ever say that.

"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

I’m a man and I wish my t~~~ were smaller

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[Anonymous 42]

And the banana is unpeeled.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

By that logic:: A dog can have up to 12 puppies so therefore it has higher reproductive value than a woman. Go get a dog.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

FrostByte wrote:

By that logic:: A dog can have up to 12 puppies so therefore it has higher reproductive value than a woman. Go get a dog.

Dam dude, you just crystallized my feelings into words. I’ve been shopping for a German shepherd!

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Chaff/Flare wrote:

I’ve been shopping for a German shepherd!

Good for you man.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[bladeParticipant]

Can i have my tuna points now km . Lol . She even said she has small t~~~ to .

THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .

[GrumpyParticipant]

The answer is data manipulation.
Firstly the premise is a red herring due to comparing a neolithic tribe to modern civilization.
Because I am a bit of a dick I will point out a few things about the “sources” provided in support of the question.

The numerical value attributed to the “female hunters” vs the “male hunters” is misleading as it is a percentile.
Nowhere do the “sources” indicate the demographic distribution of the population.
For example:
Total population in numerical value.
Population by gender.
Population by age group.
Population that are incapable of labour participation, due to age, infirmity, or other reasons. This information has to also broken down by gender.
Population that are farmers/gatherers, also broken down by gender.
Population that are hunters, also broken down by gender.
Population birth rate by gender.
Population death rate by gender and cause.

As none of this information is provided, one may use any numerical value and for that matter any data they wish to come to a desired outcome.

Let us assume the tribal population is 100.
Let us also assume that the population is 50 male/50 female.
Now we must determine the age groups eligible/able to actually hunt. We need to ascertain the number of infants, prepubescent children, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the farmers, the “caregivers”, and other non hunters.
This is where we begin to run into issues. A fair assumption would be that only 25 members of this particular tribe are actual hunters. Here is where the fun begins.
What is the gender breakdown of the hunter group/groups?
Based on the original statement of “About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt” that would indicate that 43/50 women in this particular tribe hunt with a success rate of 31% which by the way is a horrible hunting record especially when dogs are used to track prey, while leave 7 women to protect/provide/do domestic duties for the tribe.

Do you see where this is going?
The only reason any population base of 85% of women would be out hunting is because there are minimal to no men available to hunt/protect/provide in the tribe. Period

TLDR
The study is feminist propaganda bulls~~~.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[Mr. ManParticipant 2916]

Greg Honda wrote:

If women didn’t need men to provide for them by hunting, they would abandon their men.

Let me tell you a thing in support of that notion. I work around the super duper wealthy ruling elite class. And I noticed a phenomenon that occurs with EVERY SINGLE DIVORCEE living a life of abject luxury on their ex husband’s dime.

NONE of them remarry and almost never even date again. And it’s not because their ugly. On the contrary.

That’s because they got all they ever needed from a man — his money.

Whereas the divorced rich men, you know, the guys who actually earned their money, nearly always remarry.

Just think about that.

[The FraternianParticipant 8]

Thank you Grumpy for the serious answer, I was just interested by the supposed “data” in the article, it did seem shady for some reason, but I agree with you and I was thinking along similiar lines, there’s no way that a majority of hunters would be female just because men would increase their reproductive value through hunting and women wouldn’t need to do that so it must have been out desperation and a low number of men would have certainly be the cause of this desperate move on the tribe’s part. If indeed 85 % of the female hunters had a toatl success rate of 30 % that would indeed be worse than compared to the 17 % success rate who comprised only 15 % of the hunters, I did some calculations, if we were to multiply the group of male hunters by 5,7 that would result in similiar hunting group size as the women’s, now if we take that 17 % success rate and multiply the failure rate of that original hunting group size with the factor of 5,7 it results in a total failure rate of about 35 % which means that there is a 65 % chance that the larger male hunting group will at least one successful hunt and the 65 % chance is far higher then that of the female group which was at 31 %, it makes sense. Thank you for helping me clear things out with the article, there was so much information missing from it but I asked you guys because I though I would get a neutral answer and a more objective one, and, in the end I seemed to get it.

[Author]

Posts