News

Author does address this, btw. I still think it's a bad argument. I just couldn't fathom that they would say this and not further clarify.

It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this 'article':

The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathons_at_the_Olympics#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DIn_2020%2C_both_the_men%27s%2Cby_Tiki_Gelana_in_2012.?wprov=sfla1

This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don't even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

I read most of it, not bothering with full paragraphs when I could see the idea at the beginning, and from what I saw it doesn't get any better.

It points out that the only physical sport activity they women excel at is ultra marathons. it then goes on to day that flexibility when it comes to family roles was important for survival. And this I absolutely agree with and it is certainly the case that women can hunt too.

But the author just seemingly completely ignores the argument that women can still fill the role, even if there is some kind of specialization that makes one sex generally better at one task then the other. The fact that we are different almost certainly means this is the case.

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.

Why would anyone need to cope with the value of individuals in pre-civilization society? These things are not relevant anymore, an individual's value to society is mostly determined through productivity and wealth now.

If this village is made up of 8 people, then 4 male hunters not returning also means the village dies.

You need...err...two to tango.

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.

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

I'm a natural sprinter. Very fast on short distances. But the endless slog from one shop to the next, with no respite, no idea when it will end. When we come home I'm dead tired and empty. She's dead tired and full.

I read an article like that a few month ago and the thing that i still don't get is that i used to watch all these documentaries about these remote tribes that have no or hardly any connections connection to the outside world. And they all have pretty strict gender roles when it comes to hunting, gathering and stuff. That's the only reason that this is so burned into my mind.

There is no evidence, it's simply an opinion piece. Good lord the article does not even list sources, so even if it claims to have supporting evidence, you cannot follow up on it. This just stinks...

And Scientific American, really?

No, one of the theories is actually that early homo sapiens groups were mostly closely related and interbred often. That's what have them advantage over other species. We can see evidence of that in the DNA. Men fighting men came later, probably with first settlements and dependence on local resources.

Apes fighting apes, maybe. AFAIK, size differences between the sexes has not increased since we first evolved. It's part of our pre-human genetic heritage, not an evolutionary pressure on homo sapiens.

Here's a summary:

The article "The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong" challenges the long-held assumption that men were the primary hunters and women were the primary gatherers in our evolutionary past. This assumption, often referred to as the "Man the Hunter" hypothesis, has been deeply ingrained in popular culture and scientific discourse.

However, mounting evidence from various fields, including anthropology, archaeology, and exercise physiology, suggests that this simplistic division of labor is inaccurate. The article highlights several key points that contradict the traditional view:

1. Women are physiologically well-suited for endurance activities, including hunting, due to their higher aerobic capacity and fat utilization efficiency.

2. There is a growing body of evidence from archaeological sites and ethnographic studies that indicates women actively participated in hunting in various societies across different time periods and cultural contexts.

3. The assumption that women's childcare responsibilities limited their hunting activities is challenged by observations of women hunting with their children in present-day hunter-gatherer communities.

In conclusion, the article argues that the "Man the Hunter" hypothesis is no longer supported by the available evidence and that a more nuanced understanding of gender roles in human evolution is necessary. Women played a more significant role in hunting than previously thought, and their contributions were essential for the survival and success of our ancestral populations.

To anyone who studied anthropology in even an amateur manner, this male/female division of labor never made any damn sense. It’s echoed in so many hominid and pre-hominid species, and it’s even seen an echoes in society today. Men and women, males and females, and all monkey and ape-descendant species share these tasks.

I live in New York and even here it's not uncommon for women to also hunt lol. I'd say it's mostly men but it's not taboo at all for women

Well you did just critique them. But without offering any meaningful criticism, just political feelings.

I think there are two sets of claims in the article. The first set - women hunt - is blindingly obvious and it was stupid to ever think anything different. The second set - women are better suited for endurance activities is dubious and weakly argued.

Timothy Noakes is as good a scholar as we have in endurance exercise, and he points out that all of the ultramarathon evidence is a bit dubious because the sport does not attract the best runners. So East African runners dominate the marathon scene (especially the Kalenjins) but are virtually absent from the ultramarathon world. Why? No prize money or sponsorship. So the fact that European ancestry dominates the longer distance is more a function of who's running than it is a difference in physiology.

So looking at the role of estrogen in race times requires some deeper understanding of who's running and what their overall potential is. I'll note that the ultra scene is generally populated by an older crowd who are following the " if I can't go faster I'll go longer" approach. So maybe men maintain competitive marathon times later into life so are slower to join the ultra scene?

Noakes also points out that a smaller body size works for women in several ways - smaller bodies use less energy to move, generate less heat, and shed heat more effectively. So without correcting body size, sex based comparisons are not deeply informative.