To be honest I have experienced the utter most kindness and hospitality in my life amongst people living in relative material poverty.
It feels wrong to use them as the negative example, as you do here, altough I understand that you are not trying to belittle people living in cow-dung huts. Just hit me as a bit overly imperialistic in it's tone.
Leave that poor woman alone you psycho!
Thank you very much for taking the time to give this detailed of an explanation.
Eventually, the funding provided by Seoul National University allowed us to initiate our collaborative research and complete it with some additional funding. Finally, after facing multiple refusals from the Editorial Boards of 11 journals, each denying approval for a standard peer-review process of the paper, we finally found a journal that allowed our results to be peer-reviewed, which led to its publication," adds Piotr Jablonski.
Could someone with as scientific background please explain to me as a layperson, why papers would refuse to peer review a study (or this study specifically)?
Ukraine will lose because Russia has managed to turn up their war time economy to 1000 while the West has given away most of the stockpiles it was willing to commit and has failed to put their money where their mouhts are and actually start a real war economy.
We are giving Ukraine just enoth to not lose at this point. And with Israel taking away the spotlight and adding another nation that is in need of war supplies, Ukraine will run dry eventually.
All the big words of the west on the end will habe been but a lie. And the rest of the world will see this and see it very well, when it comes to who they pick as their allies.
One study. Only one. Compared to study after study after study coming to the same conclusion: Meat is bad for the environment.
I can't tell of you are being sarcastic, humorous or a sociopath.
Location: Germany
The right wing is gaining here, as it is in all. Of Europe (and very obviously in the US) and it terrifies me.
Migration has been the skape goat for so much lately and most parties are blaming Imigrants and are moving towards right wing positions (France for example just got a law trough that has been called the "most restrictive Migration law in 40 years".
I, as a rather progressiv left leaning person, am in fear that my political stance will be a problem in the future. I am very much pro climate action, pro feminism, pro LFBTQI+, pro Refugees, etc.
And I fear that such positions will be problematic in the future to come. We are expecting children (unplanned), and I am in terror thinking about the world they will grow up in.
Plug in Hybriden werden seit dem 01.01.23 schon nicht mehr gefördert.
They just spoke their mind and you call him a pox on the Universe. That's typical light blue dicer rethoric right there. You should be ashamed of yoursef! What are you, against free speech?
Weil wir es für alles, alles brauchen. Es ist nicht nur Energie und Kraftstoff (das aber beides zu wesentlichen Teilen), sondern steckt in so so so vielen essentiellen Produkten. Wir sind viel enger mit Erdöl verzahnt, als nur durch die Energieproduktion. Und auch da sind wir immer noch abhängig von Öl.
Wenn du Lust hast das besser zu verstehen (aber auf einem höheren Niveau als 5) kann ich dir zum Beispiel dieses (englischsprachige) Video empfehlen:
Thank you for engaging with the article in this depth. I might be able to help you clear up some of your concerns and will try to do so best i can.
This has been an ongoing discussion for years now. There have in fact been several scientists who have made the same claim. You are right to be critical here.
This study from 2015, that analysed the performance differences between men and women from 1971 to 2012, in 50 -mile to 3100-mile ultramarathons, comes to the conclusion that men outperform woman, although they point out that one reason for the gender gap might be that less women participate in marathons.
But this preprint (!) from 2023 suggests that, even with equal participation numbers, men still outperform woman.
Either way, it still is an ongoing debate. While the quoted sentence you chose is clearly not backed up by data the authors at least hint towards this by stating that "We still have much to learn about female athletic performance [...].". I still agree: the statement as made is incorrect.
I'd like to point to this article and this study, that seem to point towards men and woman using different pacing strategies in marathons, possible showing how they could have fulfilled different roles during hunting.
The article addresses a relevant point a bit further down: "The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women “artificially faster,” as though women were not actually doing the running themselves."
Still, i would say the evidence is at least unclear and does not back up the statement made and therefore rightfully criticised by you.
Also I’d like to point out that all of this might be of no relevance at all to the question, if woman hunted alongside men or not, since the idea that humans outran animals as a hunting techniques (e.g. "persistence hunting") has been heavily challenged and, to my limited understanding, debunked. But this is not my field, so i am not familiar with a lot of sources on the topic. I am happy to be corrected here.
Have a look at the sources they give in the article. This paper seems to be the main source for the article. In regards to your concerns it states that:
"While there are real, uncontroversial mean biological differences between females and males, the differences that give females an advantage are not only regularly ignored but also understudied. Because of this, science poorly understands female athletic capabilities in terms of strength, endurance, and fatigue. Until this uneven understanding is rectified, our reconstructions of past sexual divisions of labour will be biased and limit the likely broad repertoire of activities females participated in during our evolutionary past."
In regards to your question why movies and gender roles are part of the article, i would like to ask why this seems to be problematic for you? The context for both seem quite clear? "Gender" (not Sex) is, according to Gender-Studies, something "performed". Movies and how we talk about Gender-roles very much form, how people frame a Gender and assign roles to it. The article is stating (and in my opinion correctly so) that it makes a difference if a society "performers", or believes in the idea of male only hunters, as this leads to a bias in the scientific literature and field. Why would this not be included in a scientific article? Its based on quite solid science (other than the whole endurance idea they are promoting). Maybe you could elaborate a bit why you find it not relevant?
But that’s not the only topic at hand, isn't it? They clearly state that in scientific literature it is not made clear when they are speaking of biological or social genders. And it makes a difference if you are addressing gender or sex. Further, it is important to differentiate between the concepts of gender and sex, because they want to make clear where they speak about biology and where they speak about the constructed (or "performed") gender of female.
Why? What is the crazy part to you? Do you disagree with the statement that science has been extreme male focused? As far as i can tell it indeed has been and still is. What’s crazy in pointing that out? Or do you disagree?
Yes! I absolutely agree. None of their three chosen examples showes any female dominating in any category, neither once or "regularly". It is bad practice to make such a claim. I wouldn’t label it as sexist. It's just really bad science. And it invalidates a lot of the very sensible and very much proven point the authors make. And I agree with you: It is not a good thing when anybody does this, regardless of agenda.