sexism

09/01/2010 - 09:45

Recently Overcoming Bias had a post about how men are evolved to hunt, women to gather. It then went on to speculate about how most sports are based on hunting instincts:

"Now sports let us show off many kinds of physically-expressed abilities. But it seems to me that most sports emphasize hunting skills, such as chasing, evading, throwing, and hitting, far more than gathering skills, such as visual search and fine finger control. Now it makes sense for men to prefer hunting sports, but oddly females also seem to prefer them; pretty much all sports emphasize hunting more than gathering skills. Why don’t women prefer sports designed to show off the skills for which female bodies were designed?

Sorry, but there is a "sport" that uses exactly these "gather" skills--it's called hunting! Perhaps our ancestors did persistence hunt and our most popular sports are based on those skills, but the persistence hunt only works in certain environments.

Modern hunting really isn't much like persistence hunting, even when practiced in open plain environments that would be suited to persistence hunting using ancient methods. There isn't much chasing, that's for sure, in waiting all day in a tree blind for a deer to walk by. Visual search and fine finger control are extremely important in modern hunting.

Besides that, I think anthropological studies have been heavily clouded by modern ideas of "the hunt" that are only relevant to academics who have probably never hunted themselves. They seem to think that all hunting involves chasing animals around. For example, in some ethnographies, net hunting, trapping, and spear fishing are counted as "gathering." This has led to two erroneous ideas now embedded in pop culture: that women squatted around gathering leaves all day, and that such leaves made up most of the diet.

The real truth about the study posted on Overcoming Bias that showed that women in rural Mexico are better foragers for mushrooms is that mushrooms aren't exactly the most important food in the world. They are of very little food value, but have high culinary value, and the more hours you put into learning to forage for them, the better yields you get. I have zero experience with this myself, and in Sweden I got zero mushrooms, while my male Swedish roommate got several bucketloads.

But this is not all to throw away the idea of gender roles in evolution. A recent NYTimes article about the challenge of building a decent sports bra reminded me of the biggest foil to the "born to run" idea of human locamotion. Maybe men are born to run, but women happen to have breasts: jiggly protusions that are often quite large. When running they can be rather painful. Modern women get around this obstacle by using sports bras, but when was the last time you saw a hunter-gatherer with a bra? This explains quite well to me why women who hunt in those tribes utilize traps, nets, and bows. But maybe women get used to the "bounce" after awhile?

Elite female runners often experience amenorrhea which can lead to infertility and low bone density (and it's not associated with low body fat, it's associated with running). Do male elite runners experience such reductions in reproductive "fitness?" 

But it is an interesting question: what do you think? Were all humans born to run? Or just men?

Comment?: 12
05/24/2010 - 19:38

While the MacLeans article on paleo was one of the better ones, I think the illustration they chose (above) is indicative of what's wrong with paleo media coverage. While there have been exceptions, nearly every reporter I've talked to about paleo has asked me ridiculously sexist questions pulled out of some sort of pulp caveman fantasy. "Do do the guys doing the paleo diet club women and bring them back to their caves?" was one of the worst.

It's fiction people.

It doesn't help that there are more than a few paleo dieters willing to go along with this and frame paleo as a way to pick up hot chickz and to reclaim a ridiculous idea of masculinity. Guess what? While evolutionary psychology has some lessons, it's been distorted to justify disgusting behaviors that have nothing to do with being human. Real hunter-gatherers are diverse: some have rigid gender hierarchies and others don't. But such men don't want to hear about the complexities of human cultures, they just want to cover up their own very-real inadequecies by spouting nonsense about how manliness is being oppressed by modern society.

Nevermind that it's women who are the ones consistently shamed away from eating meat, hunting, and fishing, among other things. The wimpiness of our culture cuts across the gender divide. Did you know the foragers have LOWER testosterone than studied hunter-gatherers? American men are crash and burn- high testosterone when young probably leds to stupidity and aggression, which quickly fizzles out into viagra-popping territory.

In the media's stupidthropology, men in the Stone age hunted while women pattered about with children on their backs gathering the makings of an organic argula-walnut salad. Guess what? Gathering is a dumb word that demeans the role of women, because in the anthropology world it includes fishing, trapping, and hunting game- often with complex traps and nets. But this is consistently ignored, even by female writers.

And guess what- the Stone Age wasn't an era of hot muscular men having sex with a zillion ladies while the wimps were beaten into the jungle. Humans are not bonobos. We are wired for "monogamy," though this biological term has little to do with the modern Christian fantasy of having one partner for the rest of your life. Rather, it seems humans bear biological marks of serial monogamy with some furtive extra-pair copulation....with as all things human, quite a bit of diversity in terms of sexual preferences.

Syndicate content