An excellent piece in the Telegraph. Long story short for non-subscribers, Cara Wall-Scheffler, a ‘professor’ at Seattle Pacific University, has claimed that women hunt in 79 per cent of foraging societies. Vivek Venkataraman, a professor of anthropology and archaeology at the University of Calgary, highlighted how the daft bat had arrived at the absurdly exaggerated figure – including many of the manipulations we’ve come to expect from feminist ‘academics’. These parasitical women should all be fired and re-trained as bomb disposal experts. A couple of short YouTube videos on bomb disposal techniques should suffice.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/scientists-say-media-storm-around-myth-of-man-the-hunter-study-was-unjustified-and-misleading/
This gives full details. At the time of the original publication some did point out that though the research claimed to have looked at over 300 tribes but in fact only had data on only 80 and of course this wasn’t very good in many cases because they were simly reading published studies, which often would not had this focus. One critique I read at the time also pointed out that many of the examples cited still had males doing the majority of hunting (often including boys) with women supplementing this in times of food stress. Hardly surprising in communities totally dependent on what nature brings. This sort of fanciful feminist research always takes me back to the late 70s. While at University doing Economics I dabbled in feminism. One anthropological book took 12 tribes researched to show that in fact men and women could do the “same” work (these were more advanced than hunter gatherers). Needless to say for weaving, fishing, pottery, basket making, “farming” and “child care” there were examples. However even in my completely not “red pill” state I could see the glaring problems with these. A. that in each society it was clear there was as real demarcation of women’s and men’s work, so one couldn’t just swap activity at will. And B. it was obvious the real difference was to do with distance and danger. So where the pottery was using materials close to the village and the product was for village use the women did it, when it required travel to source the materials and some bartering the men did it, similarly the weaving cloth, basket making; if it could be contained in the village or environs women’s work if travel and contact with other tribes; men’s work. Unsurprisingly in the fishing villages the women fished in local reef pools and the other fishing tribe the men set out in canoes to fish on the high seas, “farming” showed similar women tending village allotments while men travelled to more distant fields in what was in fact a pretty harsh landscape. Even the childcare turned out to be the men of the village taking over the care and education after about age 9 (and education was of course learning to survive). I was not a genius by any means but it seemed the Authors had completely missed (or ignored) the pretty “traditional” pattern of males taking the “jobs” that were higher risk and took them away from the village, in contrast to the female roles which were all local to the village.
Feminism seems always to have these problems right from the days of Engels and his fanciful belief in J.J.Bachofen’s belief in a matriarchal pre-history of peace and plenty.
LikeLike