Man and Woman's Evolution

[Carmel]

Kelly:

As to the Aetas as exceptions, look at how many there are: "Mining, deforestation, illegal logging, and slash-and-burn farming has caused the indigenous population in all parts of the Philippines to steadily decrease to the point where they number in the thousands today." (Wikipedia/Aeta)

A small population is in crisis mode, so it'd be understandable if it was "all hands on deck".[/quote]

Carmel:
It's very telling that you didn't consider the last part of my quote. It might not be a matter of all hands on deck, but the most qualified hands on deck. The women have a 31% success rate compared to only 17% with men, so it's only logical that they would have the women do the hunting.

[Carmel]

Your indignance speaks volumes, Carmel.

The blatant bias here speaks volumes, including yours. You're certainly smart enough to see how every thread about "WOMAN" is loaded with bias to the point of absurdity, yet you choose to join in the constant circle jerk of ego assuaging that occurs every time these views are challenged.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, the women have been shellfish-hunters for aeons, supposedly. Shellfish, especially pippies, mussels, limpets, and the like, reproduce faster than mammals - and are also less prone to habitat destruction. Hunting success rates would be reduced for the men when their lands were devastated by non-native Fijians, or others, and also by their own encroaching onto the wildlife stocks.

[Carmel]

"shellfish hunters"? lol! I'm glad Dan reinstituted laughter here, that was a good one Kelly!
In actuality, the women hunt the same animals that the men do and they do it more successfully, maybe due to being more graceful and lithe in movement, so can sneak up on their prey more readily.

[Kelly Jones]

And - the more obvious fact - shellfish can't run away. Even I can catch shellfish. Aeta women are traditionally shellfish gatherers, claims Wikipedia, anyway.

[jupiviv]

It might not be a matter of all hands on deck, but the most qualified hands on deck. The women have a 31% success rate compared to only 17% with men, so it's only logical that they would have the women do the hunting.

Yeah I'm sure they decided that over a board meeting by showing a pie chart of men's success vs. women's in hunting, or maybe some people from UNESCO went there and told them that the women were 14% better at hunting. Surely the fact that they have a small population doesn't matter that much in their letting women hunt, when the women are 14% more successful than men at hunting!

Even considering the stat seriously - if the men and women hunt different animals, or hunt them in different areas, or hunt in larger groups, etc., then the difference is easily understood. Considering that the men and women do hunt separately, all that is quite likely. You say they hunt the same animals, but where did you get this information?

[Carmel]

And - the more obvious fact - shellfish can't run away. Even I can catch shellfish. Aeta women are traditionally shellfish gatherers, claims Wikipedia, anyway.

Carmel:

yup, the women do both, gather shellfish and hunt wild game, they're certainly an industrious crew, eh?

[Carmel]

It might not be a matter of all hands on deck, but the most qualified hands on deck. The women have a 31% success rate compared to only 17% with men, so it's only logical that they would have the women do the hunting.

jupiviv:
Yeah I'm sure they decided that over a board meeting by showing a pie chart of men's success vs. women's in hunting, or maybe some people from UNESCO went there and told them that the women were 14% better at hunting. Surely the fact that they have a small population doesn't matter that much in their letting women hunt, when the women are 14% more successful than men at hunting!

Carmel:
Your mathematical calculations are grossly inaccurate. The percent difference between 31 and 17 is 46.27%. This difference would be visibly observable to the tribe as the women brought in more game than the men. So, it's perfectly logical that they would employ women to participate in the hunting.

jupiviv:
Even considering the stat seriously - if the men and women hunt different animals, or hunt them in different areas, or hunt in larger groups, etc., then the difference is easily understood. Considering that the men and women do hunt separately, all that is quite likely. You say they hunt the same animals, but where did you get this information?

Carmel:
I provided that information already, but here it is again:

from wiki:
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[18]

First you have to understand what a comparative analysis is. Archaeologists use controlled variables when making comparisons to arrive at a statistical difference. They aren't comparing shellfish gathering to hunting in this statistic. They isolate the variables in order to come up with an accurate number.

Also, there are plenty of studies that confirms this. Specifically, women hunt wild pig and deer.

[jupiviv]

Your mathematical calculations are grossly inaccurate. The percent difference between 31 and 17 is 46.27%. This difference would be visibly observable to the tribe as the women brought in more game than the men. So, it's perfectly logical that they would employ women to participate in the hunting.

???

31% - 17% = 14%.

I provided that information already, but here it is again:

from wiki:
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[18]

That says that they hunt the same amount as men, not what they hunt. I don't know if "hunting" can even be used to describe the forceful capture of shellfish.

[Carmel]

Your mathematical calculations are grossly inaccurate. The percent difference between 31 and 17 is 46.27%. This difference would be visibly observable to the tribe as the women brought in more game than the men. So, it's perfectly logical that they would employ women to participate in the hunting.

???

31% - 17% = 14%.

Carmel:
Wowza! no, jup, That's not how you calculate percent difference. 17/31=x/100.
This is basic math that even a thirteen year old should know. It's a simple algebraic equation. Do you need me to finish the calculation for you?






from wiki:
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[18]

jupiviv:
That says that they hunt the same amount as men, not what they hunt. I don't know if "hunting" can even be used to describe the forceful capture of shellfish.

Carmel:
yes, I see you entirely missed the point about what a viable comparative analysis is. Do you know what it means when an archeaologist "isolates variables" to arrive at a viable statistic or did that fly completely over your head?

I did a brief search and the Aeta women hunt primarily deer and wild pigs. Look it up yourself or I can provide the information for you, but then what are you going to say? What excuse will you give to deny the reality that the Aeta women are better hunters than the men? and more importantly why does this fact bother you so much?

[Kelly Jones]

I wonder why Carmel is so interested in a single, small exception to a general pattern that has a "vast" amount of evidence to support it.

Jupta: "Quarry" means prey.

Earlier I mentioned "Fijians", but that should have been "Filipinos". Apologies.

They apparently don't hunt exactly the same quarry: "The night before Aeta women gather shellfish, they perform a dance which is half an apology to the fish and half a charm to ensure the catch. Similarly, the men hold a bee dance before and after the expeditions for honey." (Also: "The dry season is from March to May or June and is characterized by a warm, humid climate with temperatures reaching as high as 38°C to 40° C. Since many plants that are not cultivated in irrigated fields die, food can become scarce. These months are considered taghirap (times of difficulty or hardship). This is the time when young men of the village go into the forest to look for game or honey.")

But, this states that hunting for some Aetas is actually neglected in favour of honey-farming. It also states "Readily available sources of animal protein are scarce. Except for a few chickens, no other livestock is raised, and they seldom hunt for animals such as wild deer and pigs. As a result, the Aetas are dependent on plant protein sources." It also states "Aetas are afraid to eat too much food or partake of what they consider to be "rich" foods, like meat, because they do not want to get used to them to the extent that they will "pine" for them." This may be rationalisation of their famine-prone situation, but it could also be the driver for neglecting hunting. In other words, it seems difficult to study the culture when it's in crisis mode.

Interestingly, they have a version of the Olympic games: MAD tribal games. It says "Some cheered their other Aeta brothers as they competed while others practiced in one corner; some discussed winning strategies while others gamely posed for photos. Enterprising mothers and their children sold souvenir items such as mini-bow and arrows, homemade necklaces and trinkets, and food stuff."

[Carmel]

I wonder why in every single discussion I've ever had with both Kelly Jones and jupiviv, they have had the last word...every time, without even a single exception, because I know that they and their egos will never, ever stop...Their pettiness and pedantry would continue for days if I weren't the bigger person and let it go.

You can both prove me wrong by dropping this, but I won't be holding my breath.

[Kelly Jones]

You've already been proven wrong, Carmel. You referred to an exception to a general pattern, as if that proved the general pattern didn't exist.

[Carmel]

No, that's a bold faced lie. I said nothing about general patterns except to correct Nick about the fact that women were gatherers, which you confirmed. I merely stated that The Aeta women are better hunters than the Aeta men. Why does this particular exception to the pattern seem to bother you and jupiviv so much?

[jupiviv]

@Carmel, I was showing the difference between the two percentages, not the percentage difference. I didn't notice that you wrote "percent difference." Why would you want a percentage difference of two percentages?

I see you entirely missed the point about what a viable comparative analysis is. Do you know what it means when an archeaologist "isolates variables" to arrive at a viable statistic or did that fly completely over your head?

The stat in itself is viable, but your use of it isn't. See below.

What excuse will you give to deny the reality that the Aeta women are better hunters than the men?

Just because they have a higher hunting success rate doesn't mean they are better hunters. There are no reasons given for the higher success rate in the extract you provided. EDIT: Actually, there is. From the extract you provided - "Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men." That would seem to imply that the women's success is due their hunting in groups and with dogs.

German snipers had a lower success rate in the Battle of Stalingrad than Soviet snipers in WW2. That doesn't automatically mean that the Soviet snipers were better than the Germans - in fact, it doesn't. There were other reasons for their higher success rate, like their advantage as defenders of a city, cold climate, better infantry support allowing them to get closer to targets, etc.

In this case, more info is needed.

http://stalkingelmo.net/random/funny_pics/MOAR.jpg

[Carmel]

jupiviv,

Why can't your ego handle the fact that Aeta women are better hunters than Aeta men?
...that is really the underlying issue here.

You claim to be enlightened yet, are engaging in this sort of pedantry? It just doesn't add up.

[jupiviv]

Why can't your ego handle the reality that Aeta women are better hunters than Aeta men?
...that is really the underlying issue here.

Because there is no evidence to show that they are. You are using a statistic in the wrong way. A higher success rate for doing something doesn't imply being better at doing it, it just means a higher success rate for doing something. The simple reason for this is that the success rate may have other causes than just skill/talent. Britney Spears is far more successful in the field of music now than Mozart was in his time, but does that mean Britney Spears is a better musician than Mozart?

[Carmel]

A higher success rate means the women are better hunters. You are just pretending you don't understand this to protect your ego and in so doing, you are exposing your ego. Do you genuinely not grok this...or is that a pretense, too?

[Kelly Jones]

Why does this particular exception to the pattern seem to bother you and jupiviv so much?

It doesn't. It's a potentially interesting exception, but that's all. As an exception, it isn't that meaningful in regards to the principles of our discussion.

Perhaps you missed the edited post (at the end of page 3, before prince's quip). I think you were responding to the original post, before I added material.

[jupiviv]

A higher success rate means the women are better hunters.

http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp ... soning.jpg

[Carmel]

A higher success rate means the women are better hunters.

http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp ... soning.jpg

Carmel:

Wrong again, jup.

The Aeta women are more successful hunters=The Aeta women are more successful hunters
A=A

Even Kelly has finally come around and admitted that they are an exception.

[Carmel]

Why does this particular exception to the pattern seem to bother you and jupiviv so much?

Kelly:
It doesn't. It's a potentially interesting exception, but that's all. As an exception, it isn't that meaningful in regards to the principles of our discussion.

Carmel:
lol! finally!, no it isn't that important, that's why I don't understand why you guys were even trying to deny it in the first place.(and jup still is, presumably)

Kelly:
Perhaps you missed the edited post (at the end of page 3, before prince's quip). I think you were responding to the original post, before I added material.

Carmel:
I'll go back and read it later, but any possible forthcoming response to it might be delayed by a couple/few days or thereabouts.

[Kelly Jones]

I haven't actually seen anything to suggest that the Aeta females are better hunters than the males, but rather, that hunting is largely obsolete in favour of other economically viable means of getting food (rice, honey, via markets in exchange for labour). Vitamin A deficiency is documented because of a lack of proteins. You can share references if you wish, but still, it can't be of any importance in this discussion, because the Aeta are such a tiny population. So, even if there were evidence, the sample is too insignificant to have any impact on the general patterns. Those patterns should be our focus, of course.

[Carmel]

Kelly:
I haven't actually seen anything to suggest that the Aeta females are better hunters than the males,

Carmel:
Yes, you have. I already provided evidence of this, but that isn't the real issue. The deeper issue here is that the mere possibility that the women hunters are better than the men sent your and jup's egos into a tailspin of denial. The actuality of who is the better hunter is irrelevant.

Kelly:
but rather, that hunting is largely obsolete in favour of other economically viable means of getting food (rice, honey, via markets in exchange for labour). Vitamin A deficiency is documented because of a lack of proteins. You can share references if you wish, but still, it can't be of any importance in this discussion, because the Aeta are such a tiny population. So, even if there were evidence, the sample is too insignificant to have any impact on the general patterns. Those patterns should be our focus, of course.

Carmel:
The general consensus that men historically did the hunting and women did the gathering? Do you want to tie this into some larger point? such as cooperative efforts between genders produces a more successful society. That's fairly obvious I'd say, but you seem to have some pathological need to create an artificial schism between the genders which exists primarily in your own head. You continually project that outward, never realizing that it's an internal issue.

You carry on preaching against "WOMAN" much like an obsessed evangelist preacher who constantly preaches against the hellfires of Satan. When are you going to wake up to the fact that "WOMAN" isn't the problem? The problem is yours and yours alone.

[jupiviv]

The Aeta women are more successful hunters=The Aeta women are more successful hunters

Yes, and:

The Aeta women are more successful hunters != The Aeta women are better hunters.

As in, Lady Gaga is more successful than Mozart != Lady Gaga is better than Mozart.

My point is that "successful" may not be defined as simply being talent, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is being defined that way in this particular case.

I can't put it simpler than that, and if you still think I'm being egotistical or in denial of anything, that's your problem.