[refurb]

Wow, the headline is a pretty terrible summary of the article.

To counter the claim that men were predominantly hunters and women gatherers is a scientific exploration of physiology, showing women are capable of hunting and have some attributes that are better than men.

Then it talks about edge cases where societies where women were predominantly hunters (though still the exception) or cases where societies where men were predominantly hunters there were rare examples of women also hunting.

Is it just me or does that argument fall pretty flat?

It’s like saying men don’t have more muscle mass because of the few examples of weak men and strong women.

The exceptions don’t disprove the rule.

[oefrha]

> It’s like saying men don’t have more muscle mass because of the few examples of weak men and strong women.

You’d think that’s absurd, but back when I took a feminism course at Stanford (that was a long time ago), that bit about strength, as well as height, was literally part of required reading and “discussed” in class (discussed is in quotes because no one was willing to discuss when I brought up statistics). There’s no arguing with those people.