The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[brennan]

Does that include all females born or just all females who lived past infancy?

54,000 out of 100,000 make it to 5, but only 24,000 of them make it to 50.

 

[brennan]

They don't? Huh, news to me. How do they avoid it?

Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.

 

[Ryika]

No it doesn't.

Why do you think this doesn't agree with me? That's exactly what you'd expect. The full sentence is:

Of those who reached the age of 22 52% of men reached 52 and 39% of women reached the age of 52.

So roughly half of the people who lived past child and infant mortality and reached 22, continued to live to 52. That seems pretty normal for a natural life expectancy of ~50.

You may recall my earlier statement on using the internet. The funniest part being that I could support my argument using the exact same source you just used to "refute" it.

So because sourcing the internet is bad, we just make things up as we go!

Women in hunter-gatherer societies don't seem to spend their fertile years in this permanent cycle of pregnancy and nursing.

Well... they _sort of_ did as I understand it, but that nursing phase is thought to have been 2-3 years each. Breastfeeding likely was a somewhat reliable method of birth control under the conditions that they lived, so while you were having a child, you were just not very likely to become pregnant again, which naturally staggered the rate of the pregnancies.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

54,000 out of 100,000 make it to 5, but only 24,000 of them make it to 50.

So it does which means it's not necessarily an accurate statistics taken at face value. A lot of those babies died due to crap that is entirely an artifact of settled life that has little to do with our 'natural' life expectancy.

Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.

They're malnourished? I thought they spent most of the day sitting around and relaxing? Or is it that they do that because there isn't more food to be had without farming?

Ahh the breastfeeding thing @Ryicka posted makes a lot of sense

 

[Traitorfish]

They don't? Huh, news to me. How do they avoid it?

Partly by managing their own reproductive cycles, as women have always done, whether or not men have understood what was going on. But partly it's because the body tends not to devote as many resources to fertility if it isn't assured a stable and consistent supply of nutrients, so the cycle of plenty and dearth naturally tended to break up pregnancies. A woman's menstrual cycle will become irregular and even halt if her body fat drops low enough, and while we today tend to think of this as a problem exclusively affecting anorexics and body-builders, it seems pretty clear that it's an evolutionary adaptation to dearth. Agriculture, for all the havoc it wreaks on human health, is pretty good at ensuring a stable supply of nutrients for ten or twenty years at a stretch.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

By the way, what's the actual topic of discussion of this thread? I presume it's something to do with reclaiming hate speech for a particular niche group or something or other.

 

[Narz]

Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.

Generally hunter-gatheres got pretty good nutrition. I read Bushman consumed 40 or 50 different types of herbs in the course of a week. I barely ate a single vegetable til I was a grownup.

Huntergathers faced many dangers and but outside of those their overall health and fitness would put ours to shame.

That is to say if you scooped up modern coach potatoes and dropped them into a tribal setting you might be measuring their life expectancy in months.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why do you think this doesn't agree with me? That's exactly what you'd expect. The full sentence is:

Of those who reached the age of 22 52% of men reached 52 and 39% of women reached the age of 52.

So roughly half of the people who lived past child and infant mortality and reached 22, continued to live to 52. That seems pretty normal for a natural life expectancy of ~50.


So because sourcing the internet is bad, we just make things up as we go!

No, apparently we just get to make things up as we go because we just do. Such as "52% of men reached 52 so roughly half of the people continued to live to 52." You cited a source, quoted it, and THEN made up some crap and attributed it to your source. Or are you joining the "only men really count" brigade?

As I said, "sourcing" is just a weak method for claiming credibility rather than earning it.

 

[brennan]

I thought they spent most of the day sitting around and relaxing?

Quite a lot of such societies are nomadic - I don't think it's quite that idyllic. And hunter-gatherer societies may have less protection in the lean times, there's a reason we all researched pottery...

 

[Lexicus]

Huntergathers faced many dangers and but outside of those their overall health and fitness would put ours to shame.

This is of course completely false. The one area where hunter-gatherers unambiguously had better health than us was their teeth, as switching to a grain-based diet (associated with the appearance of agriculture in the archaeological record) messed people's teeth up real bad. Other than that you're talking at-birth life expectancy less than half what it is today, and people were like a foot shorter than us on average, so to claim that was overall better than ours is just laughable.

there's a reason we all researched pottery...

Who's "we"? I used to think that real history was kinda like civilization and everyone adopted agriculture as soon as they were exposed to it, but then I took some anthropology classes...

 

[Ryika]

No, apparently we just get to make things up as we go because we just do. Such as "52% of men reached 52 so roughly half of the people continued to live to 52." You cited a source, quoted it, and THEN made up some crap and attributed it to your source. Or are you joining the "only men really count" brigade?

Let's think about this logically. How could it possibly be that if we look at the people who lived to 22, and then compare two populations... one population of which 52% reach 52 and one population of which 39% reached 52 could add up to roughly 50% here?

It's like... if one drink has 25% Water in it, and the other one has 75% Water in it, how could a mixture of the two possibly have 60% water in it?

There must be a factor that we are missing here.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

By the way, what's the actual topic of discussion of this thread?

Well now, there's a good question that I (and probably Arakhor) would like an answer to. We seem to have lost focus...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because the average of 52 and 39 isn't close to 50?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well now, there's a good question that I (and probably Arakhor) would like an answer to. We seem to have lost focus...

Conversational drift.

 

[Ryika]

Because the average of 52 and 39 isn't close to 50?

A small hint to help you figure out the solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A small hint to help you figure out the solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean

Math teacher in me says: show your work.

 

[metalhead]

So a man who nags his wife to have sex with him for hours until she finally gives in even though she's not really in the mood, is not emotionally abusing her in your opinion? He's not coercing her into a sexual act?

I wouldn't call that "nagging," per se. It depends on what, exactly, is said. I'm not familiar with multi-hour nagging sessions so I don't really understand the behavior you're asking about here, to be honest.

Certainly a husband (or wife) can employ emotional abuse to get their spouse to do what they want, in ways that probably resemble nagging. But that's abuse, not nagging.

 

[Ryika]

Math teacher in me says: show your work.

I mean, it's not that hard, really. Rome had a lop-sided sex ratio.

By how much exactly is hard to establish, because the census, which offers the majority of the information that is available, did not count women until they were relevant to men, but the general consensus of the stuff that I read from the people who studies these things to make sense of the data, is that men outnumbered women in the general populations by a non-neglectable margin. Reasons that are generally cited for that are things like higher general mortality (the 39% to 52% advantage doesn't just start beyond 22, fewer women than men reach that age), infanticide focused more against women because they were considered less valuable and were a higher burden on the family, pregnancy-related deaths, immigration of single men towards the dominant roman empire (while women were generally not able to travel as freely), etc.

So when you factor that difference in, let's say go with a 40:60 ratio which seems pretty conservative, then you do some math...

( 40 * 39 + 60 * 52 ) / 100
( 1566 + 3120 ) / 100
46,86

There you have your roughly 50 years average.

Of course this is again Ancient Rome, a culture that has systematically devalued women in a way that ancient hunter-gatherer societies likely did not. There's no reason to assume women were as disadvantaged when it comes to live expediencies in these circumstances, as a lot of the reasons that caused female mortality were likely caused by culture, not natural deaths.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Picking random numbers that support your conclusion isn't showing work. Couldn't you have found a source on the internet that you could site that provided the numbers you needed?

 

[Broken_Erika]

The answer is 42 obviously.