Post: #1

I just noticed the Guardian have a whole section on the their website for their many feminist writers.

wow, just wow.

I couldn't understand the point of a the first couple of articles I clicked on, they ramble on mentioning the typical feminist talking points without much of a point to the article.

The writer in this article seems to understand and explain the basic ideas of the 'paleo' diet. While pointing out the criticisms it has recieved by other doctors and writers by choosing the paleolithic period and not a more modern period.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...n-ideology

He writes "The human diet, as evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk argues in her book Paleofantasies, is constantly changing. If we’re going to nominate a period to emulate, why not eat like a medieval peasant, or an ancestral tree shrew?"

So therefore the very next paragraph his opinion is....

"In my view, the answer to that has little to do with food. The paleolithic is a favoured era because of the way it answers to a desire to justify or reimpose certain social hierarchies, especially those concerning gender. "

Paleos a fad because we just want to impose social hierarchies again! He bases it on the fact that one paleo writer john durant had a few bad things to say about feminism.

"Durant constructs an image of the “natural” that is entirely ideological. The real appeal of hunter-gatherer life is what he imagines to be its strict partition of gender roles, where “Men were hunters, women were gatherers” and where “women rewarded great hunters” with sex. Paleo eating is here connected with an image of society which reproduces itself largely through masculine competition.

In this connection, to suggest parents feed babies offal soup seems doubly creepy. "

So there you have it, Paleo supports patriarchy and therefore feeding your kids offal soup is creepy.

Post: #2

Not a Steve McMahon thread but still an awesome thread title.

Post: #3

Then let us rename the modern diet the Jurassic Diet, since that noble period in history had female body types much more in keeping with contemporary norms:

Post: #4

Our Englishmen have a thread title talent for alliteration.

Post: #5

Rewards of sex were met with children in those days. If a man was good at bringing home the bacon he was a good provider and would ensure kids would get fed. Its foolish to not see that link for what it is. It happens today with money and is no different. If a man gives off the impression of holding wealth and resources more women will flock to him and attempt to "reward him with sex".

What bubble do these loser writers live in. I see these dynamics in play in high end circles and in the nerdiest of groups with weezing dungeon and dragon types. Its all over and you can easily get women to smugly admit what its all about. Nobody is delusional in thinking it is something else. A man who can forge, build, attain, and provide will always be met with options from women.

Post: #6

Do all Guardian writers look like fading court castrati ?

Post: #7

or he could have been dug up from the paleo era



WNB

Post: #8

Steve McMahon's alternative account?

Post: #9

Ha, except, Steve McMahon's written far more entertaining threads than this one, I just couldn't post a thread without at least trying to alliterate the title a little bit.

Post: #10

I remember seeing the justification for the paleo diet in the Smithsonian natural history museum. They had cutout silhouettes of average people from various periods in human history and the paleolithic hunter gatherers were as tall as we are today, while in the agrarian societies people were all short like hobbits.