>>5505No, you pulled that idea from thin air.
>>5506>You're not being very clear. It does seem like you are denying that people in the past overwhelmingly held beliefs we'd today call religious.I've been exceedingly clear that my stance is you're being overly romantic of historic religiosity, and it is clear that this is yet another strawman as I never so much as sneezed at the idea that historic people weren't religious and in fact said the opposite already. Please be serious for once.
>The concept of hunter gatherer has been controversial. Some anthropologists say the concept is valid, some argue 'forager' better describes peoples who live subsistence lifestyles, and some argue the concept of 'hunter gatherer' is limited or should be phased out entirely. These studies detail a specific view on hunter-gatherers that does not deny their existence but rather says that it isn't reasonable to use knowledge of modern hunter-gatherers to talk about how early hunter-gatherers may have been. It relies nigh solely on an appeal to purity fallacy as an approach, however, which is perhaps a large part of why it's a minority view. Ah, and hey, appeal to purity steeps your arguments too. Unsurprising. Also, it's worth noting that "forager" is nigh interchangeable with hunter-gatherer as the term "forage" again still refers to wild food resources. Please argue with a modicum of good faith next time instead of intentionally misrepresenting something as being more controversial than it is.
>There already have been studies looking at how different groups from the stereotypical bushman 'hunter gatherer' to dumpster divers, homeless people, roving laborers, the urban poor etc. share comparable foraging and gathering strategies despite major contextual differences between them. If you insist on taking things like 'use of wild resources' or 'cohesive communities' as essential to a prototypical hunter gatherer lifestyle, you wind up missing these nuances and how they challenge the popular concept of a hunter gatherer. Questioning these interpretive strategies isn't asinine. Again, utterly stupid argument. I never said a comparison couldn't be made, I said it was the mark of a dullard to suddenly pretend that homeless people are not meaningfully distinguished from the San people or something of that nature, which is an asinine point you only brought out to obfuscate the argument.
>Your claim that in hunter and gatherer societies, women and men participated in hunting together is an oversimplification too. Read the study you posted. Of course, that's probably a big ask as it is neither free access nor available via sci-hub. It's not an oversimplification, it directly addresses the problem of whether or not labor is as gendered as you pretend. It's not, even if it certainly is still gendered. The study attacks two things:
1. Issues of reproducibility and inclusion in the study it responds to. To this end, they particularly note that the primary issues are lack of transparency in what they meant by certain exclusionary criteria and a lack of establishing a minimum threshold for a society to be considered as having women as hunters. Of course, ironically, they reinforce through this that gender roles are flexible in these societies such that, even if women are not typically hunters, they often fill the role in societies for several reasons.
2. The idea that men and women in hunter-gatherer-forager-subsistence-lifestyler societies (or whatever name is politically correct enough for you to not obfuscate the argument further) had no gender division of labor, which I never posited despite your attempts to attribute it to me.
As the study you posted yourself says, the division of labor exists in these societies but tends to be flexible and overstated.
>We agree that, historically, hunting and men's labor have been over-emphasized in research among forager populations. For instance, see (Bliege Bird and Codding, 2021) for a discussion of gender bias in historical datasets such as the Ethnographic Atlas. Again, please be serious, or at least try to get back on the thread topic instead of bullshitting.