Women were functionally disabled by having children, spending a significant amount of time either pregnant, or breastfeeding. This makes them the natural parent to focus on raising children. Also, in nature, losing 1 parent has a relatively minor drop in survival chances compared to losing 2.
This ends up with men being more “disposable” than women. If 1 group needs to flee with the children, while the other holds off an attack, it’s most sensible for the men to defend. The women would provide a final line of defence.
lath@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding. The bonds formed during these times would mean mothers to be more likely to safeguard the child than assault an aggressor with reckless abandon.
mononomi@feddit.nl 2 months ago
Wouldn’t safeguarding mean they still need to attack an aggressor?
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I don’t really buy any of the hunter gatherer stuff, but I’m this idea a man can’t breatfeed a child, so given a threat the man should go out, and the mother stay with the child. Either could do the defending, but only one can do the mothering.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You are 100% right, the downvote must be some creationist.