3 ms·
This is counting any % at all of female hunting as hunting. So men are doing 99% of the hunting and women are doing 1%, it’s counted the same as if it were 50/
by dyno12345 3y ago
This is counting any % at all of female hunting as hunting.
So men are doing 99% of the hunting and women are doing 1%, it’s counted the same as if it were 50/50. Turns out that in most societies women do engage in hunting, but only a tiny percent of the time.
Sources:
https://twitter.com/ed_hagen/status/1674761975673532416 https://twitter.com/ed_hagen/status/1674761975673532416
https://twitter.com/datepsych/status/1675080665413369861 https://twitter.com/datepsych/status/1675080665413369861
- hexane360 3y ago>“I had a sneaking suspicion that women were going to be regular hunters,” Wall-Scheffler says. What surprised her was the intentionality: Among the societies with women hunters, 87% did so deliberately rather than opportunistically happening upon prey by chance. “When they get up at the beginning of the day, they’re heading out” to hunt. This seems to broadly disagree with your claim that "Turns out that in most societies women do engage in hunting, but only a tiny percent of the time." Do you have a source for that claim?
- LatteLazy 3y agoI think you have misunderstood either OPs claim or that stat. That stat just says "among the societies with women hunters". So there could be almost no women hunters as long as 87% of the tiny number were doing so deliberately...
- dyno12345 3y agoI edited my comment to add sources.
- OscarCunningham 3y agoWow, we've reached the day when academic papers are more accessible than tweets.
- dyno12345 3y agoYea that’s why I hesitated to add them
- darkerside 3y agoI can't wait to show my wife this survey and explain how I do 50% of the housework
- jljljl 3y agoThe paper actually makes no claim about the percentage of time that women hunt relative to men. So I’m not sure where you got the data for your last sentence
- dyno12345 3y agoif they told you that men hunt 350 times more by volume (see first source) it would make their thesis sound irrelevant I edited my comment to add sources
- jljljl 3y agoThe first source (which you're citing for the volume number) warns against making this sort of volume estimate and inferring differences between men and women hunting, in part because of the small sample size of women hunters and because women tended to hunt in pooled/group settings. The pooled/group setting difference is something that the original paper also calls out.