57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
57 points (87.0% liked)
science
14597 readers
27 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There could be an advantage for groups that had males do the riskier jobs because the cost of losing a male is much less than a female in terms of maintaining population.
This is pure speculation on my part though, I have no education here and no idea what I'm talking about.
Odd question, but I noticed the use of "Females" here for which people are often derided because female is supposed to not be used for human women but rather only animal women.
This begs the question: Where do we consider Neanderthals (or whichever pre homo-sapien group is referenced by this timetable) on the "human" scale? Are they human enough that you "should have" said "males and women" to refer to them politically correctly, or are they far enough removed from homo-sapiens not to be considered "human" in this consideration?
I realize this hypothetical is sort of jumping the shark because I doubt neanderthal women are around in large enough numbers to be offended online about it, but it did make me think, which I find fun to do.
Good question, I didn't even consider that I just used the same language that was in the title without thinking.
Oh for sure, I wasn't trying to like come at you or anything, I understand the context because of the rest of your post and it's very clear you weren't being "bad" or whatever. It just got my brain spinning.