You need to stop; you are embarrasing yourself. You are aware, I hope, that the WORLD FAMOUS anthropologist, Margaret Meade, did most of your research in the 60s/70s?
I think TD's post on Margaret Mead's work in the 1930s said most of what I would have said, but to reiterate: Mead's observations were actually of a very recent change in the culture due to extraordinary circumstances, and Mead never made the claim that there was no physiological basis for gender roles. Moreover, she never made the claim - as you did - that there was a tribe in which "the women hunt while the men stay home and tend to the children". Perhaps, to avoid embarrassing yourself you should check your sources and read some more up to date work on the subject.
Hand expressing is possible but probably difficult and certainly inferior to breastfeeding
Cite your sources, just like you asked Justitia to do.
Do I really need to? Really? I thought it was common sense that expressing breast milk by hand and feeding it to the child later from a receptacle is inferior to direct breastfeeding. I think you just misunderstood me as your comment "I always preferred hand expressing because pumps don't work for me" seems to bear out. If not, I'm sure I can find sources to back up my claims (the ones I actually made, that is).
Contrary to your beliefs, many women can and do enjoy hunting. http://www.womenhunters.com
That is not in any way contrary to my beliefs.
And I'm surprised you don't see why it might be offensive to equate women with 'weaker vessels.'
I did no such thing. Certainly, women are in general physically weaker than men. In the past, they would have been called emotionally weaker as well, although many would now call their higher sensitivity emotional strength. Either way, it's quite clear that men and women are very different.
JT, Margaret Mead probably had an ulterior motive in citing those experiences. She was probably a lesbian. LOL. What else would a *woman* be doing in a field dominated by men?
She gave the results of her observations. Later studies showed some of those observations to be flawed. She was a dedicated and renowned scientist and I don't think for one moment that she had an ulterior motive. That cannot be said of many of those who cite - and misinterpret - her work. She was married at least twice, and while it's possible she may have been a closet lesbian, that of course has no bearing on her findings - nor does the fact that she was a woman. It's not uncommon for women to work in the field of anthropology. But then, I suspect you know all that, and are just trying to build a straw man - or woman - instead of dealing with what I actually wrote.
Funkyderek, for real, for real I took an archeology class on this stuff. It talked about maternalistic and paternalistic tribes. I, also, have seen documentaries about this type of culture too. Maybe, you should take a couple of archeology classes, and then it wouldn't be so hard for you to accept.
Perhaps, before I do, you could read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I mean. That would save both of us a lot of trouble.
C'Mon back in FD, the water's fine. "By iron so iron is sharpened."
But it can get dull hacking away at old rope.