Traditional Women's Role: Work Full Time and Be Buff

Pupi said:
There is no natural role for women. Historical evidence from various societies and cultures demonstrates that women have been farmers, hunters, warriors, artisans, teachers, political and economic administrators since the beginning of the species.
Click to expand...

lots of within-group variability.

modern psychologists and the like tend to avoid research based around innate gender/sex differences. many people interpret that as an attempt to be PC on their part, but its also because many of those questions are nearly nonsensical. women are so different from other women, and the same is true for men. so trying to lump them all into a giant group and compare them to another giant group, is difficult, and near pointless.
 
Pupi said:
Lol popularity = truth to you. I'm sorry to hear that.

Anyways, Abrahamic religions have only been part of humanity for 6k years TOPS and aren't a completely global phenomenon (theres a variety of other religions out there). Humanity is well over 200,000 years old. Abrahamic religions put women in a passive role in order to elevate the power of the Patriarch, who was/is considered the prime representative of God (complete bullshit).

Does dominating and controlling women make you feel good about yourself?
Click to expand...

I not religious. I just saying we cannot win these argument on big scale because religious people.
 
Seaside said:
I not religious. I just saying we cannot win these argument on big scale because religious people.
Click to expand...

I will strangle them with facts until they tap out and submit to the power of reality.
 
luckyshot said:
Yes. These were medieval and pre-medieval specimens from agricultural sites. So no, not a whole lot of duchesses, and any "princesses," such as there were, were probably right out in their fields with everyone else.


Right... but... nobody, male or female, in pre-modern times was sitting in an office...
Click to expand...
mmm not true. You have your officials sitting in their office writing reports for the king and stuff.
 
luckyshot said:
University of Cambridge archaeological excavations analyzed the strength of 89 shinbones and 78 upper arm bones from women who lived in Europe about 7,500 years ago up until the Medieval age. Then they compared those bones to those of young women in Cambridge, U.K., today, including athletes from various sports.Their findings were somewhat startling:



This finding seems to blow up the popular perception that ancient women were relegated to domestic work around the home and child rearing.

The study's conclusions:
  • Women's manual labor was a driving force behind the agricultural revolution
  • Since ancient times women have balanced a full time workload with child rearing duties. The "working mom" is not a modern phenomenon.


Let's hear it for the real women out there, not these do nothing beaches.
maxresdefault.jpg
Click to expand...

So. Farming makes you stronger. What's next? Water being wet?
 
Churning butter all day would get those muscles rippling

But seriously I think most people know that life back in the day was no walk in the park in terms of manual labor for day to day living.

The idea of the 1960's stay at home mom that watched soaps and met up with her friends was a luxury that people could not afford.

But then to extrapolate such a basic idea and say that there were no broad gender roles is a bit much.
 
Last edited:
IDL said:
Churning butter all day would get those muscles rippling

But seriously I think most people know that life back in the day was no walk in the park in terms of manual labor for day to day living.

The idea of the 1960's stay at home mom that watched soaps and met up with her friends was a luxury that people could not afford.

But then to extrapolate such a basic idea and say that there were no broad gender roles is a bit much.
Click to expand...

This in part, there were no blenders back then, no processed food, everything had to be done by hand.

This thread reminded me of this traditional native cook who does everything by hand and with traditional tools.



Look at those forearms, and she is a specialty cook, back when they had to grind corn all day and night, that would had been insane.
 
Women historically most definitely physically helped on the farm, cooking involved also butchering/cleaning the animal, lugging water for bathing was also a thing

0 surprised that medieval women were basically the build of current rugby chicks

Men were also pretty burley back then from all the physical labor. They were just short

*of course this all assumes an area were people aren’t starving to death
 
Did anyone not know that women worked the fields? I don't think that this is some huge revalation.
 
I have no idea why anyone would think that ancient women were relegated to child-bearing. That became a privilege of the women, once civilizations developed to such an extent that only the men were required for physical labour, allowing for increased population growth (with married couples being able to raise a dozen children, instead of only a few).

The women that only worked the house-hold, were perhaps the most fortunate of all relative to the society that they lived in. The role of a man at that time was pure shit, and led to an early exit for most of them, either from war, disease or simply a physical or mental break-down from excessive labour.

With no machines to assist them, no labour rights, no social welfare, no health care, we sure didn't see anyone trying to take up the role of a man back then. The big lie that we are being told is as if the women weren't happy to "work the kitchen" back then, compared to the alternatives. Working the kitchen was a privileged position, and a woman's position, almost always, has been a privileged one, including today.
 
Last edited:
If you analysed the men's bones, you would find they were stronger than modern men as well. It's just a product of those times that everyone was worked half dead just to survive.
 
Renard said:
If you analysed the men's bones, you would find they were stronger than modern men as well. It's just a product of those times that everyone was worked half dead just to survive.
Click to expand...

Shorter as well.
 
Palis said:
What a shocking thread!! Women actually did physical labor??
Click to expand...

So did children. Todays children are spoiled by comparison.

It's time to put them back into the fields.
 
luckyshot said:
University of Cambridge archaeological excavations analyzed the strength of 89 shinbones and 78 upper arm bones from women who lived in Europe about 7,500 years ago up until the Medieval age. Then they compared those bones to those of young women in Cambridge, U.K., today, including athletes from various sports.Their findings were somewhat startling:



This finding seems to blow up the popular perception that ancient women were relegated to domestic work around the home and child rearing.

The study's conclusions:
  • Women's manual labor was a driving force behind the agricultural revolution
  • Since ancient times women have balanced a full time workload with child rearing duties. The "working mom" is not a modern phenomenon.
Click to expand...


On average, their humerus bones — the upper arm bone — were about 16 percent stronger than elite rowers today, who work their arms intensely for 18 to 20 hours each week.

How does increasing muscle mass have any influence on bone growth? I completely missed this one in physiology class.

This would mean, for example, that if I started doing leg lifts on a regular basis I would increase the size and/or density of my femurs.

I am going to have to call bullshit until proven otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,086
Messages
55,466,622
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top