raspberriesareyummy

The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female's ability to hunt.

Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.

"It holds" - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.

I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.

The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging "all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists".

he’ll vote for Trump but he’s not a True Believer.

If you support fascists, you are a fascist. Period.

what an insecure dumb little shit-stain on a worn out shoe with holes in it

*nucular. It's (pronounced) nucular :D

Interesting read but I'd argue a fish is a concept by characteristics, not considered a biological classification. Much like mammals.

Fish: has scales and fins and a swim bladder and gills. Sharks are not easy to classify as fish, and whales certainly are not.

Again, thanks for the article, it was interesting to read indeed.