Why women are better at shopping than men

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I'm ok with shopping for food--we usually hit up the bulk food stores (costco, etc.) and I usually remember where everything is. They don't move around that often here, so it's not an issue. And I ALWAYS remember where the good produce stands are. We've got these nifty little family farms that sit on the road side and have THE best strawberries, cucumbers, and assorted Asian veggies (since about as exotic as the grocery stores get is maybe bok choy).

Clothes shopping, I really do enjoy. Or would, if I could find things that fit decently. I like helping my sisters shop personally, and can usually guess what will work just by looking at it.

I would agree about the high-calorie foods. They taste good, so I remember where they are. But I also remember where lower calorie (but tasty) snacks are.

[Alpaca]

I must admit, there are a few places where I can enjoy spending a VERY long time.

One of these is the Apple Store.
Another is the bookstore (the more independent, the better).

[Darlica]

Food shopping is fun some times, clothes, shoes and such my SO has to drag me to the shops.

I don't think it is the high calorie items I remember best... I tend to remember where most  items I buy on a weekly term are located, so I do know where the milk, carrots and tomatoes are, but not the honey or sugar since I don't buy any of that very often.

[anthrobabe]

Throughout history women (the traditional gatherers) contributed more calorie wise to their own (family,group,village,etc) on a daily and yearly basis than the men (hunters of large prey) who would bring down something large from time to time.

Many researchers have noted that it is not just the plant foods that are gathered by women/children but various small game (such as birds, eggs, rabbits) as well.

I'm not a big fan of shopping for hours- I don't like to go to malls and such and just shop. I like to have a goal and get it done. I will however visit the local Walgreens and go up and down the aisles and look for the "closeouts" I don't do this with many other stores- something about Walgreens though. So I do my own form of hunting. I also do pretty well getting a good price and all.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Throughout history women (the traditional gatherers) contributed more calorie wise to their own (family,group,village,etc) on a daily and yearly basis than the men (hunters of large prey) who would bring down something large from time to time.

Many researchers have noted that it is not just the plant foods that are gathered by women/children but various small game (such as birds, eggs, rabbits) as well.

Wouldn't that blew out of the water the idea of higher survival rate for a woman/infant if a man is present*? 

* A while ago I read an article about polyandry in an aboriginal community in Venezuela and the argument was that the more 'fathers' the higher the chances of survival for both the mother and the baby.

[Darlica]

On the same subject but a different note, there are few things I find more relaxing than taking a day out in the woods picking berries or mushrooms.

So, while enjoy to actually do some gathering, I don't like to do it in shops!
    Yep, my brain is stuck in the stone age...

[The Meromorph]

On the same subject but a different note, there are few things I find more relaxing than taking a day out in the woods picking berries or mushrooms.

So, while enjoy to actually do some gathering, I don't like to do it in shops!
    Yep, my brain is stuck in the stone age...

Well of course, that's when it was 'designed'.  (Not just yours!  )

[Swatopluk]

A while ago I read an article about polyandry in an aboriginal community in Venezuela and the argument was that the more 'fathers' the higher the chances of survival for both the mother and the baby.

From what I read polyandry (extremly rare) is connected to special inheritance laws, e.g. to reverse the partition of land. In that case a woman having two men (often closely related ones like brothers) would reunite the pieces of land that the men had inherited from their parents. If the husbands are related it would also serve both (genetically), if the woman has children from either of them.
Iirc it is, if at all, to be found were resources are extremly scarce and rivalries or fragmentation of arable land would risk the survival of everyone.

[Alpaca]

Wouldn't that blew out of the water the idea of higher survival rate for a woman/infant if a man is present*? 

Not necessarily. (Note: No sources to back this up. Own reasoning.) It would seem to me that survival would be determined by more than abundance of food. More people in a family unit would equal a greater chance of successfully repelling at threat, be it in the form of another animal or a severe rainstorm. Would also allow "switching shifts" for infant care, some primitive specialization of labor, that sort of thing.

[Aggie]

A bit of lion pride syndrome, I suspect.  Females contribute the most to food resources, but males can defend foraging territories from nearby conspecific competitors, and are somewhat expendable where tribes are relatively small.  Of course, once we had agriculture and civilization, this made males pretty easy to place in soldier rolls for war.  

Might also explain why polygyny is more common in human cultures, even in modern times*.  Higher male mortality from territory defense limits the number of males available, but allows for greater resource allotment per person if the territory is successfully defended/expanded.


_{*ancedotal as I can't find a reference now, but I had heard that following one of the WWs (WWI?) it was not completely unheard of for a man to support an additional woman in the household in a quasi-polygynous situation due to the relative lack of eligible husbands.  May be way off course...  has anyone else heard of this?}

[Swatopluk]

In the late stages of WW2 in Nazi Germany there were thoughts about legalizing bigamy under certain circumstances. Pushing the birth rate was proabably the main intention.

[anthrobabe]

Throughout history women (the traditional gatherers) contributed more calorie wise to their own (family,group,village,etc) on a daily and yearly basis than the men (hunters of large prey) who would bring down something large from time to time.

Many researchers have noted that it is not just the plant foods that are gathered by women/children but various small game (such as birds, eggs, rabbits) as well.

Wouldn't that blew out of the water the idea of higher survival rate for a woman/infant if a man is present*? 

* A while ago I read an article about polyandry in an aboriginal community in Venezuela and the argument was that the more 'fathers' the higher the chances of survival for both the mother and the baby.

yes and no-- good thought!
it goes hand in hand
yes having a male around (or even "many" fathers) helps survival rates.
It has much more involved than simple calorie count.
Having males around to protect (even if some are out hunting) gives a woman physical security- yes women can take care of themselves but in many traditional societies think of traditional male/female roles.
The large "cape buffalo/elephant/etc size" good quality protein helps.
the whole deal is a symbiotic relationship-- very complex- but it works - is adaptation and that is the key to all human survival-- working together since we don't have fangs, claws, ability to fly, run really fast, climb, etc. our bipedalism and brain differences don't make us more evolved than other species but they have caused/been caused by our adaptations and evolution-- and round and round we go one part is caused by/cause of another.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Might also explain why polygyny is more common in human cultures, even in modern times*. 
[snip]
it was not completely unheard of for a man to support an additional woman in the household in a quasi-polygynous situation...

Back home there is a large anecdotal evidence of pseudo-polygamy and -while there is a history of violence- it wasn't due to lack of eligible males*. Frequent cases of men with many children outside their own marriage, commonly referred as 'sustaining more than one house' in middle to long term situations. Those cases are more prevalent -but not exclusively- in high poverty zones.

*Unless that eligibility is based in money.

yes and no-- good thought!

I'll admit that my comment was of the tongue-in-cheek  type 

My (veiled) intention was to point out how men are considered more and more useless nowadays (which may be based on fact BTW).
 

[anthrobabe]

I'll never forget the polyandry photo from my cultural anth book.
Here is "maria" and her 5 husbands- sitting on her lap is her youngest husband 5 year old "david"--- it is a land/property thing--- keeps the land/holdings in a family and allows all the males (As the come of age) to have reproductive access to scarce females.
Polyandry rare- and very interesting!

And Zono--- I got the tougue in cheek--- I was also refering back to others posts as well- you'll never really be obsolete (well not until these are available in the local discount store---- ) actually that is sort of creepy and not attractive at all
so nope
men will never be obsolete with me- who'd open the mayonaise?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

you'll never really be obsolete (well not until these are available in the local discount store---- ) actually that is sort of creepy and not attractive at all so nope men will never be obsolete with me- who'd open the mayonaise?

I've been reading Asimov's Robot stories and for some deranged reason I recalled the sexbots from AI. Is it because I am a man that the idea of a male sexbot sounds harder to market than a female sexbot, or is it really creepier for a woman than for a man?
/