I did! Running endurance today is nothing. The maon issue is, most women then would have had children early on in life. Having children can mess up womens hips, causing problems with running. That is if they lived through child birth and healed properly afterwards. They can assume what they want though, none of us were there, and there is no going back. 🤷

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a ton of assumption and reductionism. This is frankly insulting. Your primary argument that endurance is meaningless only makes me think that it comes from many current popular sports that rely on fastest speeds rather than what the article was actually trying to convey. Women in the past could have and did hunt, especially given that many in several different cultures were buried with hunting weapons, and the article used the scientific nature of a woman's body to prove her endurance. Just because you discount endurance completely doesn't mean the rest of society is so closed minded.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Maybe women hunted, probably they did, maybe they didn't. Being able to run 100+ miles is freaking cool and great.

You DONT ENDURANCE HUNT into the next state. This is shit "evidence" of anything. It does not matter if you can lift 25% of not very much 2000% more than someone else can lift 25% of a lot, or if you can walk until 8 days from now and be less tired than someone else.

The premise is probably true that men and women both hunted, but endurance++ isn't a cut and dry argument for being a good huntress.