>>11130265interesting
>>11131937no, this is what my education has told me (not that this too much in academia, only a course in anthropology and a course in demographics and one history course that touched on prehistory) but i feel this is what you will find if you review the scholarship. the basic feature of nomadic culture is that they _didn't_ cultivate particular patches of plants very much. and just watering a wild berry plant (or peeing on it) once every couple of months is not "agriculture".
anyhow the whole argument is retarded. early civilizations marked a very real change from what came before (hunter gatherer-culture) and the main shift between the two is large-scale agriculture and as a result stopping being nomadic. it seems the counterarguments so far are nitpicks meant to try to argue that there wasn't a clear breaking point between civilization and hunter-gatherer culture.
but there is. culture changed. modern civilization IS different from what came before and it DID change how people lived. so let's return to the question: did the way humans lived before this obvious transition lead to gender roles that still exist in our current civilization?
the answer is obviously yes but i am just trying to get trannies and equality-feminists to realize how they are ignoring science. whatever. the thread can die now since apparently scientific aspects of anthropolgy are unimportant here compared to the tranny community pushing "sex is a social construct" pseudery
