Please somebody cure me of my misogyny...

In primitive societies where males hunt.... what do women do? Other than make babies........

I have heard responses that they nurse injuries, and maybe they tend to the babies, and that they prepare food for the hunters.....

I have one question that I would LOVE if someone would answer for me...

It has been shown that women have a larger "language" portion of their brains than do men. Why is this so? Why would it serve an evolutionary advantage to the species for women to be gifted at language...

If you notice, a lot of women consider proper grammar very important, and if you go to any honors english class, you will find that it is 95% female....

What is the reason for this enlarged language portion of the female brain? I am a former neurology student, so don't skip on the details....

 

Men were the hunters and women were the gatherers....cliche......
in today's world......women do all kinds of things......They do tend to be nurturers...many of them, but not all of them.....

I cannot speak for all women....What do I do? You will never know....lol

 

Why will I never know?

And what about the "language brain" thing?

 

Yea you're right not all of them tend to be nurturers.... some of them give their kids up for adoption so they can sit around and listen to hiphop....

Here's another question... why do girls like hiphop so much? What's the appeal? Is it just the dancing? Because it's fun?

 

And what do they "nurture", other than their children.... and is this just codependency??? I have noticed a lot of women take their "motherly instincts" out on random people... how inappropriate is that?

 

Kidding around....to not be so serious.....I do not know about the language brain thing......maybe it has evolved....as females were always encouraged to emote their feelings, and men not encouraged to do so....Many men are encouraged to hold their feelings in, so some may learn not to feel at all. I don't know....just throwing out thoughts as I go here......
I am nurturing to my animals and anything injured I find.....and if I see someone is sad, I want to cheer them up, if I like them.....or feel anything towards them.......some people I just don't feel anything towards, if they have hurt me somehow.....I become numb to them.....
I am very creative....paint and write and think out of most boxes....that is called creative thinking.... again....I can only speak for myself really.

 

It's so they can tell a guy off in a 100 different creative ways

 

Language is a form of communication and it would be appropriate for that trait to evolve in both genders, but especially in females in terms of relaying news and resources.


Females might have found an invested interest in working together as a collective rather than compete against each other, and any competitive drives against each other forced into a "higher" tier passive-aggressive type of competition and social control.


Certainly we see elements and traces of female versus female in this manner, false-friendships, blackmail.

Anthropology also teaches based on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA, that all humans except those humans today from African American ancestry, seem to be offspring from a small tribe ancient precursors to modern mankind.


And there were 2 great cataclysmic events that wiped out mankind, 1 woman survived and then later it happened again and only 1 man survived.

And that has shaped the DNA programming and structure we all have today including that of speech.


Does that answer your question?

 

Remember people are human first, and then their respective gender second.

More is shared than is different.

 

A simple Google search will probably yield an answer to your question ("What is the reason for this enlarged language portion of the female brain?)."

But that's not what you're really asking, I don't think.

 

You are taking my words out of context. There is no such thing as a hunting society, and I did not intend to convey that women prepared meals and nursed the injured and ill. It was nowhere near that simple. There were societies of hunters and gatherers. Typically, males hunted; females gathered. The concept of ownership of property was not similar to how we think of it in modern cultures until pastoral societies emerged. Peoples migrated with herds they ate. So, land was not owned so much as it was understood who had the rights to share in the resources from where. Animals were owned only once hey were meat. Sometimes a man owned it if he made the final kill. In some cultures, the one who made the weapon that made the final kill owned the meat. In most cases, owning the meat simply meant owning the right to be the one to distribute it amongst the tribe or clan. Likewise, whatever was gathered, belonged to the gatherer. It behooved no one to be withholding. Survival was completely dependent upon cooperation. Just as gatherers could not thrive without the more nutritionally dense food provided by hunters, hunters could not survive without specialized knowledge, and the related supplies collected by gatherers who owned fruits, legumes, nuts, vegetables, and herbs. These groups of people survived on various forms of reciprocity, but usually generalized reciprocity.

Why do women have larger language centers? I have some guesses, based on what I know of early societies. Typically, to keep gene pools viable, either men went to other groups looking for women to bring back to their tribes/clans, or joined the tribes or clans of the women they found. This meant there were siblings and cousins in other areas. Hunting and gathering societies found that they had lots of time to socialize, and so they did! I wonder, however, if in times of scarcity it was up to women to travel to those relatives, and negotiate for food, supplies, or the rights to use the resources of the lands currently occupied by the cousins and siblings. There is no doubt that these kinds of transactions took place, but who brokered them? It would make sense tk me if that was dine by those who at he time were better equipped for diplomacy. That's just me guessing though, and my guess is predicated by your assertions.

Anyway, back to my original point from the other thread about the simbiosis between men and women in the earliest homo sapiens sapiens cultures. Much, much later on, pastoral societies develop. In some, women maintain autonomy. Typically this is for two reasons. One, they own the crops they grow, and even though the men own the livestock they raise, the livestock and he families eat the crops. No crops, no livestock. No livestock, no sustenance for the families. The second reason is lineage. Pastoral societies that followed matrilineal descent and inheritance negated the importance (socially, anyway) of knowing paternity. One inherited based upon one's mother. In other pastoral societies, livestock was perceived as more valuable than anything else, and he men who owned them wanted to be sure they were inherited only by those men who shared their genealogy. Those societies, thkugh the premise is not unreasonable, are the forebears of modern sexism, and female oppression.

 

Not sure why the structure of primitive societies is so vital for your resolution of this issue, but if you want to focus on that, there's archeological evidence suggesting that agriculture began with females in particular, so in a rather flippant sense you could say that they're the arbiters of civilization as you know it.

 

Why do you refer to women as girls, and speak of these "girls" in general terms as if any one is exactly lime all the others?

There are people who like hip-hop worldwide for the same reasons so many Americans like bluegrass. It is the music of the people. It's folk music, truly American, like jazz and rock and roll. I assume you don't like it due to bad taste (kidding!) and do not appreciate it due to ignorance (not kidding).

By the way, I look amazing with fuscia highlights. ; o)

You likely have no reason to know the true motives of the woman about whom you are writing. Perhaps she knows something you do not about her own stability, and her ability to provide a safe place to nurture a child. Perhaps she doesn't ha e enough belief in herself to think that her best intentions for nurturing a baby will be nailed to the cross in light of her socio-economic positioning and is afraid there will prove to be insufficient resources/opportunities. Placing the child with better providers mjght have been the most nurturing thing, as well as the most torturous to herself. Based on how you see fit to sit in judgement, I would not confide those facets of my decision and its aftermath in you either if I were in her shoes.

Can it be codependency when biological urges are the main driving factor for continued reproduction?

 

I doubt that, otherwise you wouldnt need to ask about urban myths



Here is a female smarter than you in both language and logic:

Doctor Dave wont let himself know what he is asking

 

I have to agree with Mocha and VG on this one.

Something about this thread and the way the OP is asking for "help" feels off.