it takes at most 3 seconds of thinking to realize that it’s impossible for misogyny to be based on anything but the reality of femaleness. idk how else to explain why little infant girls are choked, drowned, raped, cut up, dehumanized, banned from education, groomed into a role as some man’s personal servant, if it’s all based on a set of pronouns that they aren’t even grown enough to verbalize yet. as if anyone waited until little baby girls settled on a gender identity before going ahead with the decision to work her to death like a cow. what a waste of anyone’s fucking time
Year should be 2018 rather than 2028, what she says still holds true and is something we’ve all been saying. Lying to young girls about how they’re safe in mixed bathrooms and changing areas will sadly have this outcome sooner or later.
Analysis of data from dozens of foraging societies around the world shows that women hunt in at least 79% of these societies, opposing the widespread belief that men exclusively hunt and women exclusively gather. Abigail Anderson of Seattle Pacific University, US, and colleagues presented these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on June 28, 2023.
A common belief holds that, among foraging populations, men have typically hunted animals while women gathered plant products for food. However, mounting archaeological evidence from across human history and prehistory is challenging this paradigm; for instance, women in many societies have been found buried alongside big-game hunting tools.
Some researchers have suggested that women’s role as hunters was confined to the past, with more recent foraging societies following the paradigm of men as hunters and women as gatherers. To investigate that possibility, Anderson and colleagues analyzed data from the past 100 years on 63 foraging societies around the world, including societies in North and South America, Africa, Australia, Asia, and the Oceanic region.
They found that women hunt in 79% of the analyzed societies, regardless of their status as mothers. More than 70% of female hunting appears to be intentional—as opposed to opportunistic killing of animals encountered while performing other activities, and intentional hunting by women appears to target game of all sizes, most often large game.
The analysis also revealed that women are actively involved in teaching hunting practices and that they often employ a greater variety of weapon choice and hunting strategies than men. These findings suggest that, in many foraging societies, women are skilled hunters and play an instrumental role in the practice, adding to the evidence opposing long-held perceptions about gender roles in foraging societies. The authors note that these stereotypes have influenced previous archaeological studies, with, for instance, some researchers reluctant to interpret objects buried with women as hunting tools. They call for reevaluation of such evidence and caution against misapplying the idea of men as hunters and women as gatherers in future research.
The authors add, “Evidence from around the world shows that women participate in subsistence hunting in the majority of cultures.”
In its verdict, the court said that the wife had contributed equally towards acquiring family assets by doing domestic chores.
It said that the “contribution made by either the husband by earning or the wife by serving and looking after the family and children” would mean that “both are entitled equally to whatever they earned by their joint effort”.
It did not matter in whose name the property was bought - the spouse who looked and cared after the family would be entitled to an equal share in them.
The court also held that the woman’s domestic labour contributed indirectly to earning the money that enabled the purchase of the assets and that her work allowed the husband to be gainfully employed.
The wife works for 24 hours in various roles, including that of a chef, a “home doctor” and a “home economist”, the court said. In the absence of the homemaker’s duties, the husband would have to pay for the services these roles provided.
Women’s rights lawyer Flavia Agnes called it a “very positive judgement because it recognises women’s domestic labour”.
Malavika Rajkotia, a family and property lawyer, said the verdict was “a very important milestone”, one that women had been “trying to evolve and plead in their various cases”.
“This is, for the first time, a meaningful recognition of the homemaker’s right.”
So the hope is that the judgement could have a positive impact in future.
ALT
ALT
