[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random


*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open

Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021


Anonymous 68700

Does anybody know some unique facts about the female body? Or any historical facts/achievements/inventions of early women?

Anonymous 68716


I think the way they measured the handprints to reach the conclusion of women being a huge majority does not sound super reliable (it's based on the foundation of cave people being always much more sexually dimorphic so that the difference is larger than in modern hands), but it's got to be a lot of them to come up with this result.

Anonymous 68726

>including the clothing necessary for life in colder climates,
This only reminds me that Freud believed that ancient women invented weaving to braid their pubes to make up for their alleged penis envy.

Anonymous 68974

Women are the 'stable' evolutionary speaking, so our success rates for mating are twice that of men. Which is why we have twice as many female ancestors as we do men. Cause about 40% or so of men ever successfully mated while it's about 80% for women.

This also accounts for the lesser variation among women relative to men, in dimensions such as personality and IQ we have a taller normal distribution curve while men's are flatter so there's more men on the outer ends of the distribution.

Anonymous 69056

Both of these sound like bullshit but on 'The Invisible Sex' the idea put forth is rather incoherent. Who ever said women just sat there not doing anything, that is untenable. It's very strangely worded and presenting like an academic gender war is nonsense. Fibres and wood are perishable, therefore less evidence to work with. The description also ignores pottery and other enduring items which are much more common than 'spear points'? The spear points bit reads like some caricature of men lol. it pretends people think one way and that a field is one way, when it clearly isn't, and somehow changed by stating the obvious?

Anonymous 69063

i bet the history of women is man washed anyway

Anonymous 85999

False. Its just a hypothesis that is based on selective statistical data and is not supported by all studies - in fact there is a ton of research that has found no difference in variability between the sexes (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301003
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2011/12/it-doesnt-add this is just a few, a lot of research that has found no difference goes unpublished because its not ~interesting~ enough) and some of the studies that has found a "difference" can be disproven by statistical analysis of it (like do an F-test to understand how significant the difference actually is). Moreover its based solely on statistical evidence (this is the weakest form of scientifical proof, because it can be easily influenced by environmental/societal factors and the any interpretation of statistics is always speculational, also there is a meta analysis that has found a correlation between participation of females in the labour force and their variability https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9 ie a study that has found a _social_ reason behind such disproportional distribution) and it lacks biological proof or reason for existing (variability is beneficial for everyone not just males and bigger morphological variability doesnt equal bigger variability in everything https://elifesciences.org/articles/63170 this study is on mice but it found bigger female variability in 2 traits, meanwhile males had larger distribution only in 1 trait).
Seriously pls do your research before believing "data" from dailymail.com and propaganding it, it really helps.

[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]