Alpha Cavewomen

You know, I hate the Female Supremacists. I mean, I really, really hate them. Like many other types of conspiracy theorists, they make wild claims, and back them with nothing more than circumstantial (if that!) evidence, and like other conspiracy theorists, aver that the only reason more people don’t know about it is that “the man” (i.e., the patriarchy) keeps the real evidence suppressed.

For those of you who haven’t run across the FemSupremists, here’s a quick rundown:

  • Women are superior to men.
  • If women ran the world, there would be universal peace.
  • At one time, women did run the world, and it was only the warring men who ruined the Eden-like environment.
  • All evidence of this has been erased from history by the men who are in charge.

Got that? On the surface, it’s not much different than the people who believe that humans were created by a superior alien race, or those who believe that the government is suppressing evidence of UFOs. Generally, when I run across those who claim this, I try to ignore them until I can’t stand anymore, and call them on the inconsistencies.

So, what happened this week? Here’s an article making the rounds.

From the UK MailOnline:

‘Alpha cavewomen’ roamed the plains while slothful menfolk stayed at home, according to a study.

A study has found evidence of ‘alpha cavewomen’ roaming the plains and calling the shots while the menfolk slobbed at home.

Alpha cavewoman appears to have travelled far wider than her male counterpart, the research showed. She might even have been the one who went out clubbing, so to speak – reversing the popular conception that it was the bloke who bashed the girl on the head and dragged her home by the hair.

But something seems to have happened to the evolution of the species after those times between 1.7million and 2.4million years ago.

Obviously they did not find evidence of prehistoric chastity devices.

The findings, detailed in the journal Nature, were made by Oxford University researchers and an international team of scientists.

Using lasers and advanced technology, they analysed enamel from fossilised teeth found in cave systems a mile apart in South Africa.

Oxford professor Julia Lee-Thorp said the difference between males and females was ‘completely unexpected’.

Her team measured the strontium isotope ratios in canine and third molar teeth — which are formed by about the age of eight — in 11 Paranthropus robustus individuals from the Swartkrans cave, as well as in teeth from eight Australopithecus africanus individuals from the nearby Sterkfontein cave, about 50 kilometres north-west of Johannesburg.

The researchers also measured the strontium in 170 plants and animals currently living near the caves to get a sense of the different strontium signatures of the region, including the thin Malmani dolomite formation that includes both caves.

Analysis of their teeth showed whether or not individuals were local or had arrived from another area.

More than half the female teeth were from outside the region, compared to about 10 per cent of the male teeth, the international team of researchers found.

The experts concluded that most males lived and died in their birthplaces, while females were more likely to find new homes.

So, wait – what does this mean?

The shape of ancient human families has been the subject of much speculation, based mainly on differences in the relative size of male and female fossils, and the behavioural patterns of our primate relatives.

Female chimpanzees, for instance, typically leave their social group once they hit maturity. Among gorilla groups, which are dominated by one large male ‘silverback’, both males and females tend to strike out.

Modern humans, who are influenced by relatively recent cultural practices such as marriage and property ownership, are difficult to compare to our early ancestors, Professor Copeland added.

So if I understand this correctly, it seems that some groups of prehistoric women traveled over a wider area than the men. However, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason other than sheer conjecture as to why this should be.  In other words, the headline has absolutely nothing to do with the article,  itself.

Did I mention that I hate FemSpremists? Sometimes I hate newswriters, too.

About Tom Allen

The Grey Geezer Dauntless defender of, um, something that needed dauntless defending. Dammit, I can't read this script without my glasses. Hey, you kids, get off my damn lawn!
This entry was posted in Culture, News. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Alpha Cavewomen

  1. Erm, yeah. Don’t believe anything the Daily Mail says. Online or otherwise. It’s a lying, hate-filled wankbucket of an excuse for a newspaper.

  2. Molly says:

    Seconded, about the Daily Mail. It’s a tabloid at best; it’s no kind of newspaper at all, and it has a very, very distinct conservative agenda. “Stories” like this, which appear to be about radical (and not credibly radical, but just absurd) concepts, are usually about creating exactly this reaction: “People BELIEVE this? What are we coming to as a society??” And then you’re supposed to go off and vote Tory to protect us all from the feminazis and immigrants.

    So, yeah. Daily Mail. Not to be trusted, not to be reacted to if you can possibly avoid it.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Yeah, it’s interesting – other online news sources reported the same article, but a small number of them made the same, ridiculous headlines. Sheesh!

  3. DD says:

    Seriously though,
    back when women ruled the world, shoddy journalism like that would never have been permitted.

  4. slave_nemo says:

    Yeah, that makes sense. That must be why women are typically 20% larger than men (it’s all that hunting and killing they had to do to feed us lazy men). Oops! Maybe I got that backwards?

    Any way, your list is a little short so I have just a few more to add:
    FemSuprimists
    FemiNazis
    Vegans
    Vegetarians
    People who tell me what I can and cannot eat.
    Politicians (in general)
    Anarchists
    and all the rest…

  5. Ayesha says:

    Well, it’s all true eh? That’s why the man wants to repent now, wants to be a sissy, wants to hide his cock in a cb or something, wants to live in a FLR, FHR (or whatever R as long as the F is L), wants to become an expert in ironing, doing laundry, and clean toilets. On top of that he wants to be dragged by his hair to the cave-dungeon of his new found Alpha- Womyn during his time off. As a gift of cors. Ah….herstory repeats itself once more.

    Hate is good for u Tom. It’s a wonderful emotion. Keep in mind tho: This is not the edge of vanilla. It’s pure vanilla!

    • Tom Allen says:

      That’s why the man wants to repent now,

      Yes, but as you can see, it’s only a very small number of men. A statistical anomaly? Perhaps. But I don’t see many men rushing to the mall to buy man-sized lingerie. Or ironing boards, for that matter.

      This is not the edge of vanilla. It’s pure vanilla!

      Ayesha, it’s my blog; I can’t write about kinky sex all the time – that would be boring.

  6. Ayesha says:

    But of cors u don’t see them. Don’t u know? It’s their Womyn who’s rushing to buy all that stuff. She’s roaming the world remember? Not him! He’s confined to the cozy ac cave.

    I meant female supremacy Tommmmm. Not ur blog.

  7. What are you doing speaking to these people on the internets Tom? Don’t you have some ironing to do? There’s no computer between the bedroom and the kitchen!

    This is somewhat related to my recent blog post which I will now shamelessly pimp: http://delvingintodeviance.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/the-devaluation-of-male-submission/

    Check it.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Actually, in my house there *is* a computer between them. Plus there’s my phone. And I’ve got plenty of time because I iron at night, after I’ve made dinner.

      I read your post, and I need to make some comments. But I’ll just mention that the current paradigm has had me so aggravated that I no longer even use those labels, at least, with regard to myself.

  8. RossK says:

    “If women ruled the world there would be no wars. But once a month there would be some intense negotiations!” Robin Williams

  9. Ferns says:

    *grunt… club… drool… *

    *drags caveboy into the den by the hair…*

    *rrrrraawwrrr… beat… fuck… demand food… *

    Eh? What was your point again?

    Ferns

  10. Satan says:

    “..it seems that some groups of prehistoric women traveled over a wider area than the men. However, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason other than sheer conjecture as to why this should be.”

    Thanks Tom.

    You get me to laugh, and then think.

    Reason? What reason? Why? Where is the proof?

    Birds do it, bees do it. They team up to beget and breed. This is all the more so with you (mere mortals). Yes you form tight or loose packs, families, clans, tribes, villages, towns and nations… Yes you are a pack animal. Why? Could you go it alone? Could you live to have sex or beget? No. Could a human baby survive alone? No. It would soon die or be killed and eaten. You see, pack animal.

    With all due respect for Fred Flintstone, (and bible spin), we have a real history, and pre-history. I think we would all like to know it.

    So I’m Googling some stuff on this now. As I get time, I could share some here, or not. What do you think?

    Satan

  11. Mari says:

    “..it seems that some groups of prehistoric women traveled over a wider area than the men. However, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason other than sheer conjecture as to why this should be.”

    It seems a great deal more plausible to me that so-called “Alpha cavewomen” were captured by “Alpha cavemen” and taken away from their original locations as slaves and/or wives. I am female and all for female empowerment, but ideas about female supremacy are just as repugnant to me as ideas of male supremacy. Human society needs both to survive and thrive. Choosing to submit sexually or otherwise in intimate relationships is not evidence of the innate superiority or worth of one gender over another in my opinion. Anyway, as your above commenters suggested, the Daily Mail is apparently not a reliable source of unbiased information. Thank you for writing and intelligent and thought-provoking blog.

    • Tom Allen says:

      It seems a great deal more plausible to me that so-called “Alpha cavewomen” were captured by “Alpha cavemen” and taken away from their original locations as slaves and/or wives.

      Or how about this: maybe they weren’t captured, but traded by the evil patriarchs of their original tribes?

      That doesn’t fit so well into the primitive matriarchy proposed by the gynosupremicists, but again, we simply don’t know enough to make anythingn but a wild-assed guess.

      Choosing to submit sexually or otherwise in intimate relationships is not evidence of the innate superiority or worth of one gender over another in my opinion.

      Exactly, nor should sexual behaviors be taken as evidence supporting societal roles in the absence of any other context.

  12. Ayesha says:

    Come on people u’ve got that all wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I should know, cos somewhere in my archives i found an ancient pediscript, being evidence that one of my gr…..gr….gr…….parents was such a woman, and she wrote: “Finally we got those imbeciles, hehehe. Now they think they can have their alphabet soup and eat it too. And they will do the dishes too, lmao.” And that’s why these males adorned their irresistible women with the prefix Alpha. There’s more i could reveal about this sinister plot, but i won’t, as the SAM’s of today don’t have the stomach to digest the truth without throwing up their soup in agony.

    • Satan says:

      Thanks Ayesha.

      Hey you talk kind of fiery.

      Are you an anarchist or something?

      Men gave us those bible tales. They had to use guess work. It’s ok to guess. We all do. I do it me self. It’s how our minds work. Of course, when we want the truth, then we want to test our guess. As we see a new fact, say some long dead ape men, in some old cave, then we can see if our old guess can stand up to the new fact. It’s good. Don’t you think?

      Father ape men lived and died inside of the pack where they were born and grew up. And the mothers lived and died outside of the pack where they were born and grew up.

      There seems to be no reason. But then all things do have a reason. If there was no reason then it would not be so. It’s the same with the bonobos. They are apes. To this day their fathers live and die inside of the pack where they are born and grow up. Mothers live and die outside of the pack where they are born and grow up.

      If this practice was very bad for the bonobo pack it would die out. I mean the pack itself would fail to last or the practice would.

      Here the practice is good for the pack. Why? It helps to stop incest between brothers and sisters.

      Satan

  13. Satan says:

    “..it seems that some groups of prehistoric women traveled over a wider area than the men. However, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason other than sheer conjecture as to why this should be.”

    Hi all,

    The thing is, with ape men and women, the mothers did live and die outside of the pack where they were born and grew up. The fathers did live and die inside of the pack where they were born and grew up.

    How do I know? That’s easy. I don’t. So it’s just a guess? No. It’s not just a guess. The tell tale signs are small so far. But they are there. We do have those teeth from those ape men and women. A trace from what they eat is still there right inside the teeth. It got there way back when the teeth grew. So it seems old teeth can still speak in ways I did not guess at.

    Is that all we have on this? No.

    You are close kin to some apes still with us. And what do we find?

    At least with both chimps and bonobos, mothers do live and die outside of the pack where they were born and grew up. Fathers do live and die inside of the pack where they were born and grew up.

    So far, I’ll say ok. Yes ape men and women did the same.

    Methinks I want to know more though.

    And then who was top boss? Was it Mr. Ape man or Mrs. Ape man?

    My analysis, so far shows that, in my home at least, I wear the trousers. You can glimpse them under my apron. My Mistress lets me wear my apron, when she lets me do all her house work. Thank you Mistress.

    I’m at least 98 per cent human, did you know?

    Oh, by the way. Where’s your Hi for Satan? Please say something to me. You could say go to Hell. That’s where I’m speaking from though.

    Satan

  14. Pingback: Idylls of the Queen « The Edge of Vanilla

  15. Pingback: What fossils teach us about human evolution | salesmarketingessentials

  16. Herb says:

    What’s really interesting that any supremacist type would have to ignore is this is Paranthropus robustus, ie a robust australopithecines and not a member of genus homo (they are genus paranthropus as the name says) so they aren’t human. They aren’t even human ancestors as genus homo has already split off from other members of hominan at the upper age limit (2.4 million years) from the fossils in question.

    As for human ancestry the paranthropus probably share a common origin with homo in that both decend from gracile australopithecines.

    So, these cavewomen aren’t even women in any modern sense.

  17. Wonderful article! We will be linking to this particularly great post on our website.
    Keep up the great writing.

Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s