Posted on 10/21/2015 1:53:57 AM PDT by SteveH
Our prehistoric forebears are often portrayed as spear-wielding savages, but the earliest human societies are likely to have been founded on enlightened egalitarian principles, according to scientists.
A study has shown that in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, men and women tend to have equal influence on where their group lives and who they live with. The findings challenge the idea that sexual equality is a recent invention, suggesting that it has been the norm for humans for most of our evolutionary history.
Mark Dyble, an anthropologist who led the study at University College London, said: There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. Wed argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Yes, for example, there was once a Cheyenne two-spirit named Little Horse, who btw was even a conscientious objector!
(ok, actually i saw it in a movie)
:-)
I’m not buying this.
Both were punished in different ways.
She was to be submissive to her husband because she was deceived.
I have heard that authorship of the book of Ephesians is contested, and so might not actually be Paul. The point is that if it is not Paul (and in some lines of thought, even if it is Paul), it is not divinely inspired and so does not represent the Word of (the biblical) G*d.
I think it is more relevant to consider what Jesus was recorded to have said about the alleged directive for women to be submissive. What did Jesus say about the need for women to be submissive? And if Jesus said nothing, why did G*d rely on surrogates to convey such important information which would then if true govern such a large proportion of followers of Jesus?
**********************
Exactly right.
This reminds me that (again according to a H2 cable channel special) Genghis Khan’s genes are found in about 8% of Asian males. There are also a couple of other Asian leaders who had a large genetic contribution. I suppose it is at least interesting to note that it is biologically much more difficult for a modern historical woman to have a similarly sized genetic influence. Perhaps there does need to be a consideration of what evolutionary gender equality actually is, and it may not be the type of equality envisioned by the contemporary PC crowd with their assumptions about how communities have flourished in the past.
They would take male slaves, too.
None of the gospels are attributed to Paul, and none of the books of the Old Testament were written by Paul, so why would Pauline authorship be crucial for Ephesians to be inspired?
because the Epistles are regarded as inspired, and equivalent to the word of G*d — as has been told to me by a church preacher — as a result of the alleged author’s (Paul’s) direct contact with G*d, allegedly appearing to him while he was riding a horse (or something like that).
Ya' think? Consider the source(s).
Remember the old Neanderthal motto: "Seduction is for sissies; a he-man likes his rape."
I suspect it was more likely the domestication of large animals plus their use in agriculture and transport that increased the power of males.
Likewise in the story of the flight into Egypt in St. Matthew's Gospel--there is nothing to indicate that Joseph had a donkey. That may be a misconception that arose because people heard that Joseph was told "Take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt" and assumed that a flea implied a donkey.
wow, those are a couple of factoids to bring back to the pastor that i spoke with. hmmm...
But folks of all colors and races sure like to take advantage of all the things that white men have invented and built.
While we are on the subject of early humans, here is an interesting article on the possible process of mixing Neanderthal and Sapien blood lines:
Yeah, vanished because of their success — another example of a false cause-effect chain based in a false underlying assumptions. The odd thing is, it isn’t authored by any UK ‘researchers’.
I have had the impression that Neanderthal bands were much smaller than homo sapiens tribes. If that were the case, then although the Neanderthal were successful in that environment, interbreeding may have diluted the stock so much that it seemed to have disappeared even though successful. I just wish I had samples of my late husband’s DNA. If tested it would not surprise me if it was 10% Neanderthal. Of course, I guess I could have my two sons tested, presumably they would have about 1/2 unless I have some.
Ancient stories that tell of the most aboriginal peoples in the western hemisphere don’t reflect what this guy is saying. Women were always the subjects of protection, all the way back to the discovery of fire.
Exactly. And were they out fighting battles while pregnant and raising very young children? I think not.
A woman, and only a woman, can take care of a child. A woman’s physiology and brain, mind and body, are designed for this very important function.
I’d rather have some Neandertal bands than to have, say, ABBA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.