You Make Me A Sandwich
Posted on 06/14/2019 12:03:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
To arrive at these conclusions, the researchers have analysed two groups of indicators. On the one hand, life conditions and demographic aspects; and, on the other, funerary practices. In the first group, they studied factors like the sexual ratio (the demographic proportion of men to women), diet, genetic data, movement, the most common diseases and the detected stress markers. In the second, they considered data like the type of burial, the primary or secondary character of the deposit, if it was individual or collective burial, the spatial organisation of the site, the position and orientation of the bodies, the funerary goods that were placed in the tomb or the "funerary movements" (signs of manipulation of the bodies, pigmentation or alteration caused by the heat)...
It is precisely this last aspect that is most evident in this study. The arrow wounds on male bodies, the depositing of projectiles in their tombs or the pictorial representations (cave paintings) of men hunting and fighting have no equivalent parallel in women. Therefore, the authors point to the birth of an ideology that connected men with the exercise of force. In this sense, they highlight that the creation of different roles according to gender and other forms of gender inequality played a fundamental role in the growth of social complexity, a factor that has not always been well understood in previous research projects.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Absurdly stupid and phony conclusion.
They sure know a lot of history about “prehistoric” societies!
Other than Islam, yeah.
The aboriginals in Australia were paleolithic cultures. Cultures that existed before neolithic technologies.
They had no agriculture, no domesticated animals (the dogs were not bred or trained, it seems) no bows, and limited stoneworking, that I can tell.
Yet, the women were essentially slaves owned by the men.
This article is attempting to peddle a version of the noble savage: society was equal before all that nasty technology messed things up.
What a load.
I think I remember this. It was from an infowars interview of someone on a ‘slut walk’, correct?
This was from AAAS??!!
They really *have* scraped the bottom of the barrel now. I knew AAAS was now Agenda-Driven Science (tm) but didn’t realize it had gone this far.
As a civilization, we’re sunk.
I wonder if it occurred to the authors that the birth of this "ideology" was at all connected to the fact that women conceive and bear children, that men fight to protect their women and children, who are frequently the target of raiders -- and that men, being bigger and stronger, are naturally adapted to excel at fighting.
The authors are modern academics, so these thoughts presumably did not occur to them.
An example from nature that I've found useful in some recent conversations is a pride of lions. Back when I was in school, I can recall it being pointed out regularly that, in a pride of lions, the male lion mostly lazes around basking in the sun. The females raise the cubs and do most of the hunting. This point used to be made with some glee by the ladies, including elementary school teachers. I suppose they were protofeminists before modern feminism had gone totally crazy, and they liked the image of useless males.
So what is the job of the male lion? He has two. The first is to get the females pregnant. The second is to defend the pride. Against other lions. The primary threat to lions, who are at the top of their local food chain, is other lions. A new alpha male who takes over a territory and a pride will routinely kill the cubs, especially the male cubs. (House cats are fully capable of doing this as well; as any cat person knows, introducing a new kitten to a house with adult cats, especially males, should be done with care.) The male lion is not optimized for hunting; the lionesses do most of that. He is optimized for combat. Against other lions.
Want a model of aboriginal human society? There it is.
When someone, anyone, especially in academia, begins with a conclusion and then proceeds thru their “logic” to find “facts”, they often miss the mark.
“Therefore, the authors point to the birth of an ideology that connected men with the exercise of force.”
More and more I’m becoming convinced that about 75% of University professors could be driven naked into the howling wilderness and humanity would gain from it.
L
How stupid are the archeo-sociologists.
That men became more often the hunter than the women begins with pregnancy and its development. It was better for the woman and the future of the family, clan, tribe if in the later stages of pregnancy the woman was safe and secure, not fighting the wild animals with their mate. Women kept the home fires burning with a contingent of men to help, while most of the adult men were on their hunting parties. What the modern archeo-sociologists call sexist, the traditionalist recognizes as respect for womanhood.
It - sex-assigned work roles - not only reflected respect for womanhood but also respect for infancy that follows pregnancy, the extra care the infant needs, the mothers-only role in that care (breast milk feeding) and the physical vulnerability of the infant, as well as the small child. Pregnancy, infancy and childhood were best managed with a home and around a home, not tramping across the countryside hunting with the hunters. It was thinking in favor of the mother, and the child as far as their safety, and how important their survival was to the group that led to mostly men being the hunters, and over time the fighters as well.
Woah...the last thing that one needs is another sammich. Maybe a bag of oats...
It really takes a liberal arts\social science PhD to write a “learned” paper the argues for setting aside reality.
Women on the average have 50% ( I have seen articles saying 40% & 60%, lets split the difference and go with 50%!) of the strength of men. So we have a non-technical, non-machine age society (maybe the only machine Oz aboriginals have is the occasional lever!) a paleolithic culture where physical strength means survival. The stronger will simply dominate. No surprise there!
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.
