assumed evolution was acting primarily on men, and women were merely passive beneficiaries of both the meat supply and evolutionary progress.
He was superimposing the idea of male superiority through hunting onto the Ainu and into the past.
This fixation on male superiority was a sign of the times not just in academia but in society at large.‘’
At that time, the conventional wisdom was that women were incapable of completing such a physically demanding task
Scholars following Man the Hunter dogma relied on this belief in women’s limited physical capacities
Today these biased assumptions persist in both the scientific literature and the public consciousness.
“Powers of Estrogen” infographic.
This is quite the charged language and I’m not even halfway through. Throw in a bunch of other stuff about the Boston marathon and gender presentation in movies, yeah this isn’t that good of an article.
Before I’m downvoted into oblivion, we probably all took part in hunting. They’ve found the speed differences in running between ages and gender are not extreme, so we likely all went out running and hunting together. But men probably took on the more dangerous and physical aspects, but everyone with a spear is a more capable unit.
I read most of it, not bothering with full paragraphs when I could see the idea at the beginning, and from what I saw it doesn’t get any better.
It points out that the only physical sport activity they women excel at is ultra marathons. it then goes on to day that flexibility when it comes to family roles was important for survival. And this I absolutely agree with and it is certainly the case that women can hunt too.
But the author just seemingly completely ignores the argument that women can still fill the role, even if there is some kind of specialization that makes one sex generally better at one task then the other. The fact that we are different almost certainly means this is the case.
The author’s argument isn’t that women are faster but that they can sustain physical exertion for longer. I have no idea if that’s true, but citing marathon times really misses the point.
If men can keep up a faster pace for over 100 kms, then they can sustain exertion for more than long enough.
The paper someone else posted showed that women start to lose pace in a marathon later than men, but men start out so much faster, and over the course of an ultra-marathon men still keep up a faster pace the whole distance.
Worth pointing out that there is lots of existing races that would compare “sustain exertion for longer”.
One called “backyard ultra”. Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - backyardultra.com/world-rankings/
Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I’d argue closer to what I’d imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail – fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail
EDIT: The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women’s type 1 means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the diagram, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.
With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn’t even touch on it.
And speed and strength aren’t even the only attributes needed for effective hunting in the first place. Seems to me that a variety of skills would be beneficial
I honestly hope that isn’t true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing ‘both sides’ is necessary. It’s less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.
I don’t like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from ‘both sides’ when that isn’t matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don’t know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.
It shouldn’t be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying “they do it more” doesn’t help when just trying to teach the basics.
But propaganda and fake news are different things. Propaganda can be made up but it doesn’t have to be, it can be (and frequently is) entirely truthful. If there’s a class on spotting fake news, and it’s any good, it will note that distinction.
It isn’t about who is doing it more, it’s about giving examples. Those examples have to come from somewhere, and if you aren’t cherrypicking…those examples are going to skew in one direction, which is the original complaint I was anticipating.
Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal
The problem is that we’ve gotten so far from the middle that it’s going to take a generation to wrangle it (reasonable intellectual debate) back. If you’re giving equal opportunity to both sides, you’ll need time for lengthy debates to resolve in an acceptably neutral manner.
The “truth” used to be within arm’s reach. Reasonable discussion could be had from either side of an issue. Today, you’ve got two parties (regardless of politics) who appear to maybe be commenting on the same topic but it’s like they’re on different planets now. Few people, including you and I right this moment, take enough time to engage in the original conversation and instead inject their narrative into something unrelated.
The internet has allowed everyone with an opinion to barf it all over the place while their lemmings lick it up and regurgitate the same cold greasy pizza. This (literally, this comment) distracts from the topic at hand and diverts people to engage in things that infrequently mean anything at all.
This really comes down to responsible journalism. It seems to me that responsible journalism, and “equal time for both sides”, can’t proliferate in a world driven by hits of dopamine on social media. What schools should be teaching is how to avoid addiction, how to strengthen your attention span, how to find the time and the value in reading long form articles, and how to deeply decipher propaganda.
The share of TikTok users who consume news through the platform has nearly doubled since 2020, according to new Pew Research Center data.
Why it matters: News organizations, business leaders and brands are being forced to evolve and meet audiences where they are in order to break through.
What’s happening: The Pew study shows that news consumers have accelerated their shift toward digital channels in the past year.
Americans are roughly twice as likely to say they prefer getting news on digital devices (58%) than television (27%). Meanwhile, audience preference for radio and print media remains roughly stagnant at 6% and 5% respectively.
State of play: Roughly half of Americans say they get some news from social media platforms.
News audiences are increasing the most on TikTok and Instagram. Platforms like LinkedIn, Twitch and Nextdoor are also gaining traction as news sources.
The issue with not having this be “both sides” is some people won’t learn from it if they feel targeted. However, those are also the people who need it most. They need to learn to recognize bad media, and then when they actually go to apply it they’ll realize how bad most of the stuff on the right is.
This is all highly relevant to the conversation. I’m not 100% familiar with them which means they probably are a fringe site and would be easy to ignore. If they get 10k hits a month on their webpage it’s much different then something like Fox getting millions of hits and being on the highest rated new shows multiple times.
It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.
Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.
In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).
This is an example of something to be careful with. Reading random studies you find on news sites that are outside your area of expertise is an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.
In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates. Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
TLDR: check your ego, it’s not about you. you apply media literacy to my comment instead of the article you shared, but maybe there’s something else going on. stop trying to protect your ego and just recognize the “good points”. any pissed off tone you get from me in this message is just me flabbergasted that you responded so defensively. we’re cool otherwise.
and to be clear, I think conservatives ARE fucking morons, but that prejudice is exactly why this kind of study is the perfect example of when we need media literacy.
It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?
I didn’t say YOU found it in a news site. but these kinds of studies always pop up on Science subreddits. someone posting any study with little to no context is where manipulation begins.
While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.
Overconfidence is the FUCKING HEART of this issue. You dont know what you dont know, but you want to think you do. That’s true for all of us. Have you ever had to review a study’s methodology in grad school? Do you know what resources to check to determine if a study is adequately peer reviewed, and by whom? if someone says No to these, there’s a bigger risk of manipulation. There’s always more to learn.
That’s why you read more then one study.
YOU ONLY LINKED ONE. How many people here are going to go through finding evidence to the contrary when this supports their bias already?? Maybe a few but not a lot! Telling people to read more is great, BUT DID YOU? How many others reading this even clicked your link, let alone the follow ups? Id be shocked if it’s more than a couple of people. We make the conclusions we want to make.
Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.
I understand that. I’m not saying anyone did do that. I’m saying it’s a risk. Yes, conservatives might believe more fake news. But the study cannot tell us why that is, only that it is. People love to fill in the gaps.
Fuck me, it’s a comment on social media, not a grad school dissertation. If you want to discuss this in the detail that you want, make you’re own post. For now, in this context, this is perfectly fine and illustrates the point that the original op was trying to make. This horseshit you’re adding to just strengthens their comments rather than weaken it like you want to do.
So just to be clear, you’re saying it’s media literate to just go by a random study someone linked in a comment section with barely any context? And that that comment is even more media literate because someone says the comment has potential for decreasing media literacy rather than increasing it?
Your comment is actually another great opportunity for readers to practice skepticism and media literacy, thank you.
A question was asked. An answer was given with a source, and a relevant section. That is not random, nor is it without context. Sure, be sceptical of the source, and even attack parts of it that you disagree with. But you did none of that, just assumed that the original poster and everyone else reading it was illiterate in this subject. Did you even read the paper? It’s pretty easy to understand to the layman. Yeah, media literacy is good, but you’ve gone about it entirely wrong here and look like a fool.
It is sad to me that the focus isn’t on trying to pay her a living wage so she doesn’t have to have a side hustle. And by the way, all the “free market, lift yourself up by your bootstraps and just get another job” judgmental assholes can just fuck off because that’s exactly what she is doing.
Teacher pay, aide pay, and student loan debt should be the conversation were having here in my opinion. Not the morality of only fans and especially not useless crap like her username.
Subsistence wage is what you are thinking of, to meet basic biological necessities. A living wage allows for moderate comfort, because there is more to living than just surviving.
My wife was a teacher. I’ve seen what teachers get paid and what they need to pay for (supplies for their room that are essential but that the districts refuse to pay for). It’s actually very likely that this teacher was barely scraping by on her teacher salary.
Edit: From the article:
According to the report, Gaither’s pay, which includes a stipend for coaching the school’s cheerleading squad, was around $47,500.
The article also mentions that she had $125,000 in student loans. She wasn’t living a life of luxury on that salary. Opening an OnlyFans was a means of making ends meet.
It depends on where you live. This teacher wasn’t in NYC, but a salary of $47,500 might not get you much there. Your rent alone could take all of your post-tax salary.
And don’t forget that teachers also often have to pay for classroom supplies (including things like tissues which should just be given to them by the district). So their expenses can be higher than other people’s. They are also expected to continue learning - often on their dime.
But setting all that aside, $47,500 would be about $36,000 after taxes which is $3,000 a month. A $125,000 student loan at 6% interest to be paid off in 7 years would cost $1,826 a month. That leaves her $1,174 to live off of.
This page gives cost of living numbers for Missouri. Even the low figures are over $2,000. So she’d have a $800+ shortfall.
There are a lot of people who go into the teaching profession and quickly leave it once they realize that they can’t survive on a teacher’s income. Teachers deserve more.
Exactly this. My wife was a teacher, but hasn’t been in a classroom in over 15 years. When she was pregnant with our second son, we did some budgeting. Take her salary and subtract after school care for our oldest son and daycare for our youngest son and we had $3,000 left over. Not $3,000 a month - $3,000 a year.
And that was before clothing appropriate for school, supplies for school, gas to get to school, and the mydrid of other expenses that come with being a teacher. If she remained a teacher, we wouldn’t be earning money. We would be paying for her to remain tracking
So she stopped teaching and became a stay at home mother.
(By the way, we used her salary because hers was the smaller one. Had mine been the smaller salary, I would have quit and become a stay at home dad.)
We once calculated how much she earned per hour. Given that she was getting in before school to set up, working late after school to help kids out or grade papers, and working holidays to get lesson plans in place, she was making less than minimum wage. She would literally have made more per hour at McDonald’s.
Teachers are very important and deserve more than “maybe, if you’re lucky, you’ll end up with minimum wage.”
I think we need to change the focus, in order to get the misogynists on board. Explain to them that by not paying the teachers in the local District a living wage, they will force all the hot teachers onto OnlyFans to make their living. And their sons will only have frumpy teachers when they get to high school. That ought to scare them.
I mean, either way it’s a win. If she gets $2 each from a shitload of right wing fuckheads, that means we made ~50,000 right wing fuckheads pay to support gay marriage.
Hey, have you written up your ‘Jesus Strings’ theory? You’ve mentioned it a few times and it makes marvelous intuitive sense to me — I’d like to read the article if you’re written it.
It blows my mind that Elon would still be well-regarded as a visionary entrepreneur, accurately or not, if he had just kept his stupid fucking mouth shut.
Why does it blow your mind. Steve Jobs disowned his child and tried to cure cancer with fruit juice, and then used his wealth to jump the line for organ donation. He was human garbage. And people still adore him and iphones. But Jobs never hurt progressive liberals with any of his bullshit. Just his family.
This article says a lot about american consumers. They don’t buy things like iphones or teslas because of how they actually perform. They buy things based on how they will be preceived for owning it. AKA a society of shitty narcissists.
Your generalizations about US consumers has no basis in reality. You really think people would buy these mass-market products if they weren’t good? Just look at the consumer satisfaction surveys. I’m far from a Tesla fan, but for a long time, there weren’t truly good competitors to Tesla EVs. iphones have always and continue to be some of the most highly rated phones on the market.
And what is wrong with voting with your wallet and choosing not to support the business of a terrible person? That’s about the only power you have as a consumer, so people should exercise that power if they see fit.
Both the iPhone and Tesla perform well. You made some valid points, but went off the rails at the end. Yes, the image of the product influences people’s buying decisions. That’s basic marketing knowledge. But they’re also good products.
Tesla never really had a brand besides being “Elon Musk’s electric car company”, and now as it turns out it’s way easier for car companies to add tech into their cars than for a tech company to learn to build good cars.
A quick Google search on the AG fighting Dunn’s release gives more light to this case.
It turns out Andrew Bailey is in fact a total cockbag, not a partial cockbag but complete and total one. A line from his Wiki:
During his tenure as attorney general, Bailey has adopted hardline conservative positions. He has refused to release prisoners after overturned convictions, attempted unsuccessfully to restrict gender-affirming care, battled initiatives to restore access to abortion in Missouri, and staunchly defended former President Donald Trump over his legal problems.
He appears to just take any hardline right, douchebag, position he can and then almost troll with it.
It’s amazing how the US has allowed so many of these assholes to get into power.
Probably a psychopath/sociopath. Or at least close to it.
It’s amazing how the US has allowed so many of these assholes to get into power.
In our capitalist system the sociopath will always be favored to gain power. They can make decisions without empathy for how it affects people or the long term, decisions of which help propel them to the top of whatever it is they do. This includes bending or breaking the law. Someone who is not a sociopath, more altruistic, more honest, won’t follow the tactics of the sociopath and therefore has less options to gain power and success.
This is how our society is designed and functions, objectively and undeniably. Also arguably it is part of human nature (competition, survival of the fittest) which is what conservatives love at their core. The fact that we try to overcome this with laws and such is difficult and challenging as we can see here. This person should have never got into a position of power, yet he did. How do we restructure society to make sure this doesn’t happen?
That’s most politicians in Missouri and Kansas, they’re just shitty people pandering to the loudest shitty minority. The states are just so gerrymandered it’s not funny. In Missouri specifically all of the population is centered around 3 major areas that are overwhelmingly larger and blue but somehow we go red every single time.
Oh yeah that too, but what I specifically meant was that there’s a lot of conservative lawmakers who’ll be pushing policy points from the “manual” before that – they’ll probably largely agree with a lot of the goals set out in it
No, it’s a plan for how to quickly replace career administrators to pack the government with loyalists, cripple education and sprinkle in indoctrination, reverse key rights for women, and just generally subvert democracy to keep conservatives in power even though the population is interestingly progressive
It’s written for a president to put into place in their first year, hence “2025” when the next president will be sworn in
It’s also possible that Gen X will be skipped over the way the Silent Generation was skipped.
Kamala is the youngest possible Boomer (born in 1964). If she wins and serves 2 terms she’ll be out in 2032. At that point Gen X will be between 52 and 67. People might want a candidate younger than that.
I damn well hope so. As an elderly old man, I’m exhausted seeing technically illiterate and wildly socially backwards old men in charge of most parts of our political apparatus.
Time for people who know the internet isn’t made of fucking tubes. Or that climate change is on top of us, in the process of burning/melting those things we need in order to live.
The funny thing is that the “tubes” metaphor isn’t actually all that bad. Whoever suggested that metaphor to Ted Stephens knew what they were talking about. But, he didn’t actually understand what they were saying, so he looked like an idiot when he tried to use the metaphor to explain why an email was delayed.
Granted. I’m one of the lucky such gen X’ers whose parents were prescient and wealthy enough in the early 80s to get me a computer (Apple ][). As such, I’m mystified dealing with people much younger than me who are oddly proud of being technically illiterate… though to be fair it’s been a lot of users that I supported during my days as an IT drone, and many of those were real estate bros. Ugh.
jesus tapdancing christ, he actually said that. In public. To a reporter.
We need to vote these people fucking racists into oblivion. They genuinely think her skin color is the most important thing about her. Get lost, my country doesn’t need asswipes like you.
Shit like this makes me not even care what Kamala does as president. She could sit in the Oval Office and spin around in her chair for four years and still be leagues better than Trump. I’ll vote for her just to upset the racists.
The problem is Americans (left, right, center) aren’t demanding this racist piece of shit to resign. This country has tolerated entirely too much racism, sexism, and phoney Christianity over the past 250 years. It’s time we demand these people stop representing America and crawl back into their caves.
By all means, please define the appropriate amount of time before I am allowed to be outraged.
Edit: To add on, we already knew this would be the response to an announced Harris campaign and, guess what, it was. As a country, we need to strike back much more expeditiously and severely if we truly want this behavior to stop.
Ohh…I get it. Makes perfect sense. Thank you for your wonderful explanation of how we continue to bend over and take it from racists, sexists, and xenophobes.
I look forward to continuing to prove you wrong every fucking day these people who represent America are allowed to spew hate and vitriol as we sit back and…wait, what was your plan again…oh, yeah…wait.
It’s always funny how when it’s a democratic politician found guilty, everyone agrees it’s fair and right. When it’s a Republican, it’s a witch hunt for half of the country.
“ATF Form 4473 is required for any gun purchase and it has an entire section regarding things that disqualify a purchaser from owning a gun, notably line 21, items c and d:
“c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?
d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?”
Currently, we have, running for President, a person who has just been convicted, qualifying them under line d, and, who is facing 3 other indictments, qualifying them under line c.
If they aren’t qualified to own a gun, and, in fact could be arrested for “felon in possession” should he obtain a gun, how on earth does that allow him to be qualified to lead the armed forces as “Commander in Chief”? Why would he be allowed access to the “nuclear football” which is, really, the ultimate gun?
Can we please get some kind of legislation dealing with this? Either barring convicted felons from the office of the President, or, alternately, highly restricting felonious Presidential access to the military and high order weapons?”
FL defers to the law in the state where the conviction happened, and NY allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated when they need to vote.
Some commentators have solid arguments for why he will get incarceration. More believe he won't. Nobody believes he will actually spend any time behind bars, because even if he does get prison time, it will be suspended pending appeal. The appeals process will take so long that he'll be dead before it's over.
If their past behaviour is any guide they could also allow felons to own weapons, or at least carve out exceptions for access to nuclear weapons and advanced militaries.
I’m opposed to the idea that being charged with a crime should disqualify someone from office. Simply put, it incentivises putting people in jail for political reasons.
No, Trump should be disqualified for treason and insurrection. Of course, that’s not happening either.
Yes, we do have a more serious problem. Numerous federal judges have been appointed by a treasonous insurrectionist who committed election fraud to take office. The jury of peers will be less effective if there is an obviously biased judge like Cannon.
Judges can’t put you in jail if DA doesn’t bring charges and a jury won’t convict.
Canon is trying to do the reverse, using anything she has at her disposal for the trial to not happen as she knows that this case is pretty much an open shut case.
Generally, because of his criminal conviction and his intention to run for office, there’s a lot of interesting legal questions that will make for new law when we litigate them.
I do like your argument, unfortunately I’m pretty sure most courts will disagree. It’s two fold: first of all if you make felons unable to run, you incentivize people to prosecute someone when they wanna run for office. Secondly, this form is pretty straightforward with what possession or acquisition of firearms means. There is not enough wiggle room to stretch that definition to fit the a guy in his role as president being commander in chief over the military. I think no reasonable court would greenlight that argument.
But in general there’s gonna be very interesting implications.
No, the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to own guns is for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. The courts are the ones who interpreted that to mean every citizen [1, Heller]. And the courts also are the ones who have afforded such State restriction legislation as being Constitutional [1, Cruikshank].
In any case, it would likely require an amendment to the Constitution to directly change the qualifications for being President.
It would certainly be challenged at the Supreme Court, so there would be a ruling at some point at that level. Whether or not the Court would affirm such a law, I don’t know. But, while highly unlikely every state would do this, it is not unprecedented that every state could enact the same or similar laws (the one that comes to mind is seat belt law, but New Hampshire is still a holdout, for some reason).
Republican congressmen and women and Republican Senators will just say it’s a hoax trial and a corrupt justice system. It’s not a sane world right now.
De Niro, who has been a frequent critic of Trump through the years, had been scheduled to receive the NAB award, its highest individual honor, “in recognition of charitable work and public service.”
“I don’t mean to scare you. No no, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you. If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss away these freedoms that we take for granted, and elections, forget about it … He will never leave,” De Niro said.
'Seems like De Niro is still doing public service with these comments though.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.